Not to mention cough PEDS.
Removing interchanges would solve so many issues. Works in most other football codes.
The thing which interchange does is allows players to recover. You take that out and players then have to spend time forward or back to recovers. The injury argument and player welfare doesn’t make sense to me as the way the game is played will be adjusted to avoid these issues. Less running and less congestion. Forwards playing one out against a back. Sounds good to me.
I don’t think you can say that removing the interchange bench will suddenly make clubs play 6 on 6 or whatever in the backline. If anything it will lead to more zone play as there is less running required.
That is an incredibly simplistic view.
The last time I checked, you are far more likely to be injured on a football ground than on the bench.
You add extra fatigue and increased workloads on what AFL footballers already produce and injuries will sky rocket.
They shouldn’t have ever put a cap on interchanges to begin with.
At some stage people have to realise that they either care about the “spectacle of the game” or if they care about the welfare and health of footballers and the best players playing every week.
Players are only going to go harder and faster as the game develops naturally as that is the end goal, to work harder, play faster and win football games as you have to do whatever it takes to beat your opponent.
I think the AFL’s approach of “reduced interchanges will lead to less congestion” is utter tripe when the modern game is based around pressure and running in waves away from CONGESTION AND GETTING REPEAT STOPPAGES.
Anyways, I hate this argument and hope it is left how it is before the AFL ruin the game even more so than they already have.
The modern game has evolved to that point because of unrestricted interchange.
Go back and see how number of interchanges have skyrocketed since flooding was shown to be successful early 2000’s.
Problem might be that that particular genie might be out of the bottle and the clubs will just recruit endurance athletes rather than footballers.
I’d prefer to see interchanges restricted to 24 a game. The game should quickly evolve back.
I agree the interchange reduction is a basic one to start with and should be done regardless of the other changes that will also be brought in. It may make it easier to get through a zone as the defence is slower to get into position, less pressure applied to the kicker because the tacklers wont be approaching with as much intensity, but i’m unsure it will stop teams playing the game in 1/6th of the entire field. Again only starting points will spread the field and fully alleviate congestion long term.
95% of the suggestions on here are aimed at spreading the players…by using interchange restrictions to fatigue players…or new zoning rules.
Surely the best way to spread the players out is to simply reduce the number on the ground. Since when was 18 the right number of players at any time? What is so magical about that number? It certainly dates back to a very different age, with much more static players. (Are the AFL Players Association so powerful that they will argue to maintain as many players on the ground as possible?)
Valid point, but do you think taking only 4 players off the ground (assuming its reduced to 16) will make that much difference?
It will make four difference.
I’m entirely unconvinced any of this leads to less congestion.
If a side’s tired, and they know they’re tired, they’re going to clog space like anyone’s business.
Danger must be the biggest sook. How many years has he harped on about reduced game time?
Will he take less pay then as they are playing less minutes?
I don’t think interchanges or reducing the number of player will ‘fix’ the game.
Interchanges will just turn the players into more athletic running endurance beasts by stripping more mass of them in training. It’s a short term fix that only worked for a couple of years last time.
The number of players makes it a different sport, you want that play AFLX. Leave our game alone.
If players are made to dispose of the ball correctly then it moves fast or a free kick is payed and the spread happens. This - not taking the footy, letting go if you feeel a tackler and dishing to the nearest player who doesn’t have prior is the culprit. Start by applying the rules as they were intended before you start reducing players, adding zones or any other crap that makes it a different sport.
That’s just dumb. The way the game is played you would need to have a ton of subs. The best players wouldn’t want to come off so would end up staying out their and getting hurt
There are some very random ideas being proposed.
Fletch commentary on an article yesterday with an 18m long goal rectangle now to get the kick outs to be able to launch to centre square and over the press.
Having 36 players in one half of the ground creates stifling pressure which teams struggle to get out of. We certainly do anyway!
Hartley might get a game then bombing it from kick outs
I don’t understand why teams don’t do this more often. Especially us considering we’re so ■■■■ at kickouts. Get our longest kick down there and blast a few early. Even if they don’t come off, at least it will spread the opposition zone a bit
The worst idea floated was a 25m arc that all kick outs had to be beyond. How does reducing the space available to kick to reduce congestion?
Feels much more intuitive to get rid of the goal square and just stick a big dot 30m out and that’s where the mark is for kick ins. Shot-for-goal line gets drawn to the nearest goalpost instead of the middle so that the goal square mark still gets you directly in front. I don’t think any other rules would be affected?
Also less linemarking for amateur clubs to do at 8am Saturdays
The point is that if you continue playing the current style, you’re going to end up with lots of injuries, no players, no wins and no job.
That is one of the stupidest responses I’ve seen.
what? you mean the way the game is played right now, you will end up with no players etc