The offical NATRAT who should be the Sub thread

It’s back, and I think it’s a great idea.


It’s a crap idea and the players hate it.

If you get an injury then bad luck, part of the game.


Might be Cahill or Perkins round 1.

The thread title needs to include the word SUPER, even if proceeded by “not so”.

And some punctuation.

1 Like

Does that mean if we are trying to pump 50 games into players we might now have to pump in 100 halves? :rofl:
They’re always bring in rules to stymie our progress. Bastardos. :joy:

Travis Colyer.

1 Like


But he never gets subbed on and has to warm the bench for 2 hours


I think it’s a good idea, though there would need to be a rule that the player subbed off cannot play the next week. Also it should probably be prohibited in the 4th quarter to prevent clubs from gaming it.

Edit; I just read that there isn’t a rule preventing them from playing the next week. Well that is dumb stuff and now every club will try to game it. Pick an explosive midfielder as your sub and throw them into the middle in the 4th.


I haven’t eaten a sub in a while, but usually I get mine with Chicken Fillet or occasionally meatballs if I’m feeling a tad cheeky.


Cox would be a perfect sub due to his versatility. However I think he is already best 22.

1 Like

It’s the dumbest idea these morons have had in a while, and that’s saying something.


I’m curious as to why? I cannot think of a meaningful reason to have it.

Stupid rule then and stupid rule now.
Having said that…
Our sub should be Brendon Goddard, or whoever you want to be a boundary line gameday coach.
Obviously he never plays.
Outside the soft cap, too.


I think a concussion substitute is long overdue. Concussions are by and large bad luck - I don’t think teams should be punished for that.

I guess most AFL injuries are S+C related (hamstrings, calves etc.) so I’m a bit more on the fence about a general injury sub. If you invest time/money into better S+C, you deserve any advantage that brings.


Dear clubs,

Please nominate one player per week who you don’t want to play at any level. For, well, just coz.




I think there’s a genuine concern around the players having had a shorter pre season and now having to play longer games - there’s a concern that is going to lead to a lot of injuries. I get that. And I thought it was a good idea for that reason. And generally I don’t like a game being influenced by early injuries.

But having read the details (I have edited my original post), obviously the AFL have farked it up so I’m with you on that

If they were worried about exploitation just increase to a 5 man bench?



1 Like

The sub is a ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ rule. Been there done that and it sucked balls.

1 Like

The circular , self created thought process on all of this is both breathtakingly laughable, and infuriating.

They want the game slower and the players tired (capping interchange) , but also faster and more free flowing (man on mark rule, kick in rule etc). Now they decide that they might get more injuries - because players are more tired but also the game will be faster , except they’re tired, except it’s faster - so we have a “sub”. Except that the interchange cap actually reduces both the possible disadvantage and also positional flexibility to virtually nothing anyway. You only get to rest a player 75 times in total. Even if you have an injury 10 seconds in, it’s 75 rests spread across 22 players, vs 75 across 21. It’s basically no difference. You certainly won’t be run off your feet by a side having 160 interchanges.

And on top of that, your sub may not get to play for two weeks or more depending on VFL schedule etc.

It’s insanity.