So the commission have decided to cap it at 120, not including changes at breaks.
Looks like they’re busy with the big issues this week!
Curious as to what happens if you've already activated your sub, have hit the cap, and have an injured player that needs to be taken from the field?
Also, they have stated that breaks and sub are not included in the 120, but I'd assume blood-rule would also be exempt?
What happens if you choose to ignore it? I demand we do it in round 1 2014.
Why does it matter how many times someone comes on and off the field. As long as the right number are on the ground, everything else shouldn’t matter. What a waste of time.
Curious as to what happens if you've already activated your sub, have hit the cap, and have an injured player that needs to be taken from the field?
Also, they have stated that breaks and sub are not included in the 120, but I'd assume blood-rule would also be exempt?
First time that happens, and it will happen, there will be an uproar.
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
i think the reasoning is a 500%* increase in knee and ankle injuries is worth it for a 5%* drop in concussions.
* Numbers totaly concocted. Just like the number "120"
Bringing the game into disrepute!
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
Exactly what I touched on last night in the ASADA thread. The AFL dictatorship are so out of touch with the game, they are a joke. They just refuse to listen to the people directly involved in the game.
My oh my. What next AFL. Are they trying to damage players. First 3 interchange and a sub which 90% of players are against and now this which I'm sure was voted heavily against by clubs. I guess the AFL will just continue to do what they like when they like regardless of the consequences.
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
If it were up to players and coaches, interchange would be unlimited. They both have a massive vested interest in it being as easy as possible. The problem is not the interchange, but the coach's inability to properly manage resources. If he insists on a game plan that runs them into the ground, that is his fault, not the fault of the rules.
The AFL obviously have the players interests at heart. Lets speed the game up as much as possible by limiting the time before you have to kick, now they want to wear them out to maximise the chance of injury.
Trying to avoid interchange steward ■■■■ ups.
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
If it were up to players and coaches, interchange would be unlimited. They both have a massive vested interest in it being as easy as possible. The problem is not the interchange, but the coach's inability to properly manage resources. If he insists on a game plan that runs them into the ground, that is his fault, not the fault of the rules.
But what's the real reason for bringing it in? It doesn't have to happen, it's not urgent and everybody is against it.
I'm sure they have some 'impact injury' stat they can rattle off, but I bet they have no data to support it.
They are doing just.... 'cause.
Curious as to what happens if you've already activated your sub, have hit the cap, and have an injured player that needs to be taken from the field?
Also, they have stated that breaks and sub are not included in the 120, but I'd assume blood-rule would also be exempt?
Someone posted on twitter that the penalty for breaching the cap is free kick and 50m penalty.
So technically you can take the injured player off.
In reality I can't see that happening. My guess is it will be very rare for a team to use all 120. They will make sure they have a good safe buffer in the last quarter.
GET RID OF THE SUB RULE
This is so dumb. In the same release they add the factoid that the average p/game is 130. So WTF is the point?!
Is it 30 each quarter or 120 at all times?.
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
If it were up to players and coaches, interchange would be unlimited. They both have a massive vested interest in it being as easy as possible. The problem is not the interchange, but the coach's inability to properly manage resources. If he insists on a game plan that runs them into the ground, that is his fault, not the fault of the rules.
But what's the real reason for bringing it in? It doesn't have to happen, it's not urgent and everybody is against it.
I'm sure they have some 'impact injury' stat they can rattle off, but I bet they have no data to support it.
They are doing just.... 'cause.
Stoppages. Just about every single new rule in the last 10 years can be tied back to reducing the number of stoppages. Kevin Bartlett hates them and therefore so does the footy public.
So...
even though all the people who actually play and the coach the game have been adamantly against this idea... lets do it anyway?
Injured and sore players having to remain on the ground in the last quarter is good for footy, yeah?
If it were up to players and coaches, interchange would be unlimited. They both have a massive vested interest in it being as easy as possible. The problem is not the interchange, but the coach's inability to properly manage resources. If he insists on a game plan that runs them into the ground, that is his fault, not the fault of the rules.
But what's the real reason for bringing it in? It doesn't have to happen, it's not urgent and everybody is against it.
I'm sure they have some 'impact injury' stat they can rattle off, but I bet they have no data to support it.
They are doing just.... 'cause.
Stoppages. Just about every single new rule in the last 10 years can be tied back to reducing the number of stoppages. Kevin Bartlett hates them and therefore so does the footy public.
That's easily fixed.
Actually pay Holding the Ball occasionally.
Is it 30 each quarter or 120 at all times?.
120 all up.
What about blood rule?