Interchange cap down to 90 for next season and the sub rule is gone!
Good news imo.
Possibly good for a guy like O’Brien as well.
Thank ■■■■ the sub rule is gone.
Thank ■■■■ the sub rule is gone.Short and not so sweet. Proof that it never did what is was claimed to do, lower the amount of injuries. A ■■■■■■ dumb rule change in the first place.
90 still way too much.
So does this mean there will be 3 or 4 on the bench? Sorry, I haven’t seen the article.
I’m pretty sure 90 with 4 on the bench is actually more rest time than 120 with 3 on the bench. Then again, basic arithmetic has never been the AFL’s strength.
Dreamteam and Supercoach fans all rejoice.
I'm pretty sure 90 with 4 on the bench is actually more rest time than 120 with 3 on the bench. Then again, basic arithmetic has never been the AFL's strength.Hmmm.... 21 with 120 rotations equals 5.7 interchanges per player at around 1 minute per interchange. 22 with 90 rotations equals 4 interchanges per player at around 1 minute 20 seconds per interchange.
I'm pretty sure 90 with 4 on the bench is actually more rest time than 120 with 3 on the bench. Then again, basic arithmetic has never been the AFL's strength.Hmmm.... 21 with 120 rotations equals 5.7 interchanges per player at around 1 minute per interchange. 22 with 90 rotations equals 4 interchanges per player at around 1 minute 20 seconds per interchange.
Yeah, and then a player spends 3 interchanges on the bench with 21, versus 4 interchanges with 22. So I think it ends up 17 minutes rest for 3/120 and 21 minutes rest for 4/90.
Wasn’t the original purported reason for the sub to avoid unfairness for the team that suffered the first (only) injury? The rule made zero change for them but dragged the healthy team down to a similar position.
Yay no more “I can’t believe xxxxxxx is sub”
Wasn’t the original purported reason for the sub to avoid unfairness for the team that suffered the first (only) injury? The rule made zero change for them but dragged the healthy team down to a similar position.
That was indeed the agrument. Then that actually happened and the other team’s sub came on and had an impact in the last quarter and they went “oh… oops”
why would you cap the interchanges, if a club was interchanging too fast it would be getting smashed on the field
seems like the most stupid thing to be making rules about, especially when it was fine for like, 80+ years or so
why would you cap the interchanges, if a club was interchanging too fast it would be getting smashed on the fieldseems like the most stupid thing to be making rules about, especially when it was fine for like, 80+ years or so
Rofl.
For most of the games history there has been no interchange.
And there shouldn’t be now.
it is such an embarrassing part of the sport. kick a goal, sprint to the bench! oops, not ready for you, sprint back!
AFL found a new way to make themselves look popular.
Introduce a crap rule, then look like a hero when you remove it!
AFL found a new way to make themselves look popular.Introduce a crap rule, then look like a hero when you remove it!
Its a common move.
I remember as a kid, slurpees were $2.30. Then they went up to $2.50. But quickly went down to $2.30 again, along with a “PRICE DROP” sign.
Also, YAY no more subs.
Sub rule was harmless. The way it was exploited by coaches was the problem, not the rule itself.
Sub rule was harmless. The way it was exploited by coaches was the problem, not the rule itself.
It was crap in terms of managing player loads, especially considering an emergency often had to be held over as well
it would be crap to be picked as the sub, therefore it was crap