Won't somebody think of the children players.
I mean Mr Finniss is clearly worried about the long term effects on players. Where is the research? Where is the governance on this issue?
I demand answers.
I just don't get what is the benefit of this to the AFL?
It's getting more and more annoying with the AFL changing these rules and NOT listening to players. And some people still think that the AFL is not corrupt *sigh*
This is a wonderful, great idea. The competition really needs another rule that is difficult to umpire with a punitive, game changing penalty.
Thumbs up!
I just don't get what is the benefit of this to the AFL?
It's getting more and more annoying with the AFL changing these rules and NOT listening to players. And some people still think that the AFL is not corrupt *sigh*
Why should they listen to players?
Ok, that's 98..... 99..... 100.... hmmm wait, was that 100 or 101? Dammit.... ah screw this, I'll just say it's 105 interchanges and start from there.
I just don't get what is the benefit of this to the AFL?
It's getting more and more annoying with the AFL changing these rules and NOT listening to players. And some people still think that the AFL is not corrupt *sigh*
Why should they listen to players?
I would be only listening to the following people- the doctors of the clubs. Ask them about how the players would cope with less rotations. Then make a decision.
Don't ask players or coaches, they have vestered (is that even a word) interests. Some clubs love having high rotations eg Pies.
I know a lot of people complain about seeing players coming and going to and from the bench. Who cares if it looks weird. If you are watching the bench and not the game- then clearly you are not the interested in the footy. Unless of course their are injuries etc.
And we're bringing the game into disrepute? lol
What next a cap on the players you can bring into each half of he ground?
Restrictions of where players can run?
Netball?
This has got debacle written all over it. Simple answer, scrap the sub rule and scrap the interchange cap. The less rule interpretations the better. The AFL have got this very wrong. Guaranteed that the interchange stewards will not be able to count correctly and then apply an unwarranted penalty - I hope it happens to Carlton first.
And we're bringing the game into disrepute? lol
What next a cap on the players you can bring into each half of he ground?
Restrictions of where players can run?
Netball?
The whole game is turning into netball. If you touch someone you get a freekick against you.
Soon it will be classified as a "Low-Contact sport"
Wasn't football good 20 years ago?
What if a player runs on then gets called back for instructions and goes back on without replacing another player? See it a fair bit, is that 1 or two changes?
Do people really think the game would stay the same without rule changes?No idea, don't care. Same could be said of every increase they have made. It was a 19th and 20th man once. Should have stayed there, and then we'd still be playing pure footy, with teams full of 'footballers' rather than this Gaelic hybrid full of so called 'athletes' we have now. They are doing it because years ago they started ******* with the rules and they are constantly trying to fix the things they have ****** up with their constant tinkering.
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.
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.
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'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.
Coaches wouldn't come up with new sneakies because ...?
And we're bringing the game into disrepute? lol
What next a cap on the players you can bring into each half of he ground?
Restrictions of where players can run?
Netball?
The whole game is turning into netball. If you touch someone you get a freekick against you.
Soon it will be classified as a "Low-Contact sport"
and definitely don't mention concussions *cough* duty of care *cough*
And we're bringing the game into disrepute? lol
What next a cap on the players you can bring into each half of he ground?
Restrictions of where players can run?
Netball?
The whole game is turning into netball. If you touch someone you get a freekick against you.
Soon it will be classified as a "Low-Contact sport"
and definitely don't mention concussions *cough* duty of care *cough*
The head high contact ruling is improved, but I'm mainly talking about marking contests and tagging.
Im not 100% sure if your having a go at me or not...
Anyway, it also seems like the tribunal picks a number out of a hat when punishing players
So if you've made 120 changes and someone gets injured, the team will be playing with 17 players on the ground?
Not even the doctors - more the sports scientists (Mr Demetriou's "phys-eders"). The man's stuck in 1995, we know this.I would be only listening to the following people- the doctors of the clubs. Ask them about how the players would cope with less rotations. Then make a decision.
Why should they listen to players?
I just don't get what is the benefit of this to the AFL?
It's getting more and more annoying with the AFL changing these rules and NOT listening to players. And some people still think that the AFL is not corrupt *sigh*
Don't ask players or coaches, they have vestered (is that even a word) interests. Some clubs love having high rotations eg Pies.
I know a lot of people complain about seeing players coming and going to and from the bench. Who cares if it looks weird. If you are watching the bench and not the game- then clearly you are not the interested in the footy. Unless of course their are injuries etc.
Won't ensure accreditation for them, won't ban them, just runs the odd one out of town for fun.
So if you've made 120 changes and someone gets injured, the team will be playing with 17 players on the ground?
Nah, you chuck the injured bloke to FF.
Well, we'll see how it works. I hated the idea of the sub, but honestly think it has been a great move. Made the footy in the last far more traditional and longer kicking. I'm not thrilled with this change, but will wait to see the impact.
Penatly PER interchange over 120 is a free kick + 50m. Too bad if it's 28 minutes gone in the last quarter of a grand final and someone does a hammy and you've already used your sub and you're 3 points up.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference.