Ben Miller [merged]

[one-eyed]

Are clubs taking the mickey with the sub rule? Why the AFL needs to bin it now:

Maurice Rioli Jr gave the Tigers a spark when he was subbed on late, but how serious was Ben Miller’s injury?

Why the AFL needs to bin the rule.


https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/afl-round-19-we-name-our-likes-and-dislikes-in-this-weekends-edition-of-the-early-tackle/news-story/baf327f3f8473a0e13d2840d97e4d64f


Anyone else notice this only being a talking point when we sub a player but none of the others get a mention? This rule was always going to be manipulated & should be scrapped!

https://twitter.com/Jonesracing82/status/1551087321185153025

[Andyy]

The whinging is pathetic. All teams do it.

Simple fix - player subbed misses 1 game.

[WilliamPowell]

The whinging is pathetic. All teams do it.

Simple fix - player subbed misses 1 game.

No the simple fix is bet rid of it

Originally it was supposed to be a concussion sub, then the AFL in typical AFL fashion changed it to appease Clubs and the AFLPA and now we have the nonsense we have now

Get rid of it, then there is no way it can be manipulated

[The Machine]

The whinging is pathetic. All teams do it.

Simple fix - player subbed misses 1 game.

No the simple fix is bet rid of it

Originally it was supposed to be a concussion sub, then the AFL in typical AFL fashion changed it to appease Clubs and the AFLPA and now we have the nonsense we have now

Get rid of it, then there is no way it can be manipulated

Absolutely agree with this. More garbage from the AFL.

[Andyy]

The whinging is pathetic. All teams do it.

Simple fix - player subbed misses 1 game.

No the simple fix is bet rid of it

Originally it was supposed to be a concussion sub, then the AFL in typical AFL fashion changed it to appease Clubs and the AFLPA and now we have the nonsense we have now

Get rid of it, then there is no way it can be manipulated

I don't mind how it's fixed, either way works for me.

Scrap or miss a game, as long as it's equal for all and then there's no complaining about who used it correctly or not.

[JP Tiger]

The whole interchange & sub rules are actually the problem!  Teams will always argue there should be more interchange players - from 2 to 3, then to 4 & so on all the way up to 20.  Then the sub player was only for replacing concussed players, the poor sub has now become another interchange player!  The whole thing is a rort, a rubbish arms race that benefits nobody!  The only way out is to reset & start from scratch ...
I give teams 2 interchange players & 1 sub who can only be used to replace an injured player who is out of the game & automatically misses next week too.  Cap interchanges at 4 per quarter.  Injuries will happen - suck it up!   
If teams run out of legs then they might have to stop the forward presses with zoning & endlessly running up & down the ground.  Some smart team might actually rest players on the ground, deep in the forward half or even deep in defence.  Teams might actually retain a structure with forwards, defenders & a small number of followers who have 4 interchanges  between them per quarter to spread the load.  Players can only be so fit, but players & coaches can be smarter & not trigger another arms race. 
It is coaches who cause this, maybe coaches can fix it!     

[TigerLand]

Personally think we keep it. Can't have clubs avoiding concussion protocols to avoid being disadvantaged also Port with Butters. That was ridiculous.

Some adjustments I'd make. If a team makes a medical sub. The opposition are allowed to sub a player out for any reason. This should avoid any advantage a medical sub gives regardless whether it legit reason or not.

[Broadsword]

The whole interchange & sub rules are actually the problem!  Teams will always argue there should be more interchange players - from 2 to 3, then to 4 & so on all the way up to 20.  Then the sub player was only for replacing concussed players, the poor sub has now become another interchange player!  The whole thing is a rort, a rubbish arms race that benefits nobody!  The only way out is to reset & start from scratch ...
I give teams 2 interchange players & 1 sub who can only be used to replace an injured player who is out of the game & automatically misses next week too.  Cap interchanges at 4 per quarter.  Injuries will happen - suck it up!   
If teams run out of legs then they might have to stop the forward presses with zoning & endlessly running up & down the ground.  Some smart team might actually rest players on the ground, deep in the forward half or even deep in defence.  Teams might actually retain a structure with forwards, defenders & a small number of followers who have 4 interchanges  between them per quarter to spread the load.  Players can only be so fit, but players & coaches can be smarter & not trigger another arms race. 
It is coaches who cause this, maybe coaches can fix it!   

Agree with this 100%.

16 interchanges per game only would get it back to 90s footy.

[JP Tiger]

The whole interchange & sub rules are actually the problem!  Teams will always argue there should be more interchange players - from 2 to 3, then to 4 & so on all the way up to 20.  Then the sub player was only for replacing concussed players, the poor sub has now become another interchange player!  The whole thing is a rort, a rubbish arms race that benefits nobody!  The only way out is to reset & start from scratch ...
I give teams 2 interchange players & 1 sub who can only be used to replace an injured player who is out of the game & automatically misses next week too.  Cap interchanges at 4 per quarter.  Injuries will happen - suck it up!   
If teams run out of legs then they might have to stop the forward presses with zoning & endlessly running up & down the ground.  Some smart team might actually rest players on the ground, deep in the forward half or even deep in defence.  Teams might actually retain a structure with forwards, defenders & a small number of followers who have 4 interchanges  between them per quarter to spread the load.  Players can only be so fit, but players & coaches can be smarter & not trigger another arms race. 
It is coaches who cause this, maybe coaches can fix it!   

Agree with this 100%.

16 interchanges per game only would get it back to 90s footy.

Yeah, I know its only a half way measure, with some good & some bad but I was tempted to say 4 reserves (pre-interchange days) & that would be it, but I think player welfare needs to be considered.  I don't want to see a bloke roll an ankle but can't come off to get it checked so he hobbles around in the goal square until quarter time.
I think give clubs 16 interchanges for the game, but let them decide when they use them rather than a set number per quarter.  Resting a player in a pocket & banking an interchange for the last quarter could be interesting! 
The main point was low interchange numbers that  stop the merry-go-round from the bench & tire players out naturally to stop the flooding & zoning.   

[Andyy]

^

If a bloke is knocked out with 5-10min to go in the game then what?

[JP Tiger]

^

If a bloke is knocked out with 5-10min to go in the game then what?

That's what the sub is for, if he's already on then you go with one interchange player for 10 minutes ...
I have seen sides play out games one short (17 on the field) & still win.  Injuries happen ... suck it up ...   

[Broadsword]

The whole interchange & sub rules are actually the problem!  Teams will always argue there should be more interchange players - from 2 to 3, then to 4 & so on all the way up to 20.  Then the sub player was only for replacing concussed players, the poor sub has now become another interchange player!  The whole thing is a rort, a rubbish arms race that benefits nobody!  The only way out is to reset & start from scratch ...
I give teams 2 interchange players & 1 sub who can only be used to replace an injured player who is out of the game & automatically misses next week too.  Cap interchanges at 4 per quarter.  Injuries will happen - suck it up!   
If teams run out of legs then they might have to stop the forward presses with zoning & endlessly running up & down the ground.  Some smart team might actually rest players on the ground, deep in the forward half or even deep in defence.  Teams might actually retain a structure with forwards, defenders & a small number of followers who have 4 interchanges  between them per quarter to spread the load.  Players can only be so fit, but players & coaches can be smarter & not trigger another arms race. 
It is coaches who cause this, maybe coaches can fix it!   

Agree with this 100%.

16 interchanges per game only would get it back to 90s footy.

Yeah, I know its only a half way measure, with some good & some bad but I was tempted to say 4 reserves (pre-interchange days) & that would be it, but I think player welfare needs to be considered.  I don't want to see a bloke roll an ankle but can't come off to get it checked so he hobbles around in the goal square until quarter time.
I think give clubs 16 interchanges for the game, but let them decide when they use them rather than a set number per quarter.  Resting a player in a pocket & banking an interchange for the last quarter could be interesting! 
The main point was low interchange numbers that  stop the merry-go-round from the bench & tire players out naturally to stop the flooding & zoning.   

Exactly. You don't want to see all 36 players in one half of the ground anymore. Let's see a FF and FB line up on each other all game like they used to. The only way to do it is as you describe--obliterate interchange numbers so it's simply not possible for players to cover the ground, then they have to tether themselves to a position on the ground.

Unlimited interchanges works in ice hockey because the arena is so small and the game is so fluid that the concept of positions on the ice is barely relevant, so you want the players going out at high intensity for 60-120 seconds at a time. If you suddenly stopped interchanges in NHL the ice would still be a mess of players. But in AFL you can make the game look aesthetically pleasing by limiting interchanges and spreading the players out around the ground.

I prefer this solution to another i have heard--eliminating wingers so there are only 16 players on the ground. Limiting interchanges basically just reverts the game 25 years by force without undermining anything fundamental about the game.

[one-eyed]

Get the latest @pilothealth1 Medical Update on Tom Lynch, Dustin Martin, Jack Ross and Samson Ryan ahead of Round 20.

Ben Miller not mentioned…

Thats odd considering he had cramps as well as a calf, groin and hamstring injury.

https://twitter.com/cleary_mitch/status/1551822267713064960


Other clubs have players subbed out returning the following week yet the media only sooks about us .

[Andyy]

^

If a bloke is knocked out with 5-10min to go in the game then what?

That's what the sub is for, if he's already on then you go with one interchange player for 10 minutes ...
I have seen sides play out games one short (17 on the field) & still win.  Injuries happen ... suck it up ...   

Thought you were suggesting no sub + only 16 interchanges. So what if a bloke is concussed or injured and there's no interchanges left? Let them make one more or play a man down?

Same thing, teams will fake it to make one more sub or interchange etc

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Personally think we keep it. Can't have clubs avoiding concussion protocols to avoid being disadvantaged also Port with Butters. That was ridiculous.

Some adjustments I'd make. If a team makes a medical sub. The opposition are allowed to sub a player out for any reason. This should avoid any advantage a medical sub gives regardless whether it legit reason or not.

So a bloke tears a hammy off the bone and the opposition gets a free sub? Doesn’t stack up.