It's not looking good for the substitute rule

[eth38]

http://bit.ly/hRbb7z

Not Looking Good For The Substitute Rule

Here's part of an article I've put together highlighting all of the key issues with the substitute rule.

So, should it be scrapped, is it good, is is perfect - what do you guys think?

The substitute rule - a new invention by the AFL in season 2011 to attempt to keep the game new and fresh, something they implemented to attempt to prevent injury.

The fact is that it’s a failed attempt. With the concussion rule also being introduced - on the Tuesday before Round 1, mind you - we’ve seen players such as Jarrad Waite and Jack Riewoldt substituted off the field who have appeared fit to play not long after.

Instead of giving a team an advantage when an opposition player goes down with an injury, it doesn’t change anything. Rather than being a man down on the bench, when compared to last year, both teams are a man down.

Having three players on the bench also limits the rotations. However, we saw the team with the most rotations last year (Collingwood) go on to win the flag with almost no injury concerns. The team that rotated the least last year (Brisbane) had a horror season, ruined by injury. Collingwood’s most rotated player happened to be Dane Swan. See the trend?

[bomberboy0618]

Nice read :D

[hawk_88]

Have no issue with the concussion rule. I think the only issue is how it interacts with the sub rule. By only have 3 available players on the bench, taking 10-15 minutes to assess whether someone is concussed is too costly and many coaches will bite the bullet and make a sub.


My problems with the sub rule are numerous. However I think there is a single cause of most people's angst.

We have been told many reasons for the inclusion of the sub rule.

It is being introduced to reduce the interchanges - it hasn't.
Reducing interchanges reduces injuries - it doesn't.
It makes the game fairer if a player is injured - it doesn't.

Most of the issues people have with the rule stem from being fed these reasons. However, when one is proven incorrect, or in some cases the rule actually works in the opposite way, the AFL simply moves onto the next.

However it is irrelevant. The rule was brought in to slow the game down and reduce congestion in the game. Will it do this.... time will tell. I think it is very telling that the AFL said that if the rule didn't work they would reduce the bench to two and have two subs next year. The only reason for this game be to slow the game down.

It is purely a rule motivated by the AFL's perception of the aesthetics of the game. They prefer an open flowing game. They have been introducing rules for years now to make the game faster and more flowing. This didn't have the affect they desired as good teams are defensive teams. Is the case in most professional team sports. Hard to avoid. So this is a back track to mould the game as they feel it should be. Zones, Presses, Flooding... all inspired by other professional team sports and made possible by fitness and rotation policies inspired by other sports.

Measuring the "success" of the sub rule based on the rational provided by the AFL is a fruitless exercise. If the AFL was transparent about their reasons for the rule, its acceptance would be much higher. The problem is they have provided flawed and false reasons that a rabid footy media and public have torn to shreds.