Wallace wants emergencies on the bench (RFC)

[one-eyed]

Wallace wants emergencies
By Mic Cullen
 11:45 AM Mon 20 October, 2008

RICHMOND coach Terry Wallace has called for further changes to the AFL interchange system to allow emergency players and ensure a level playing field.

"From an interchange point-of-view, I don't think it should ever be 22 playing against 20," Wallace said.

"I would love the ability to have emergencies replace blokes who can't come back on, so that you've always got 22 playing 22.”

Talk throughout the season centred on the scenario of a team losing players to injury during the grand final and having to battle on with a reduced bench.

Hawthorn did exactly that, losing Trent Croad and Clinton Young prior to half-time, but won the match anyway.

Wallace said he was a fan of the system used in the old pre-interchange days, where a couple of emergencies were available if a player was unable to continue.

The AFL is considering introducing a similar system in the NAB Cup this year, in addition to having six players on the interchange bench.

Wallace said that removing any need for players to be injured before being replaced by an emergency could be the key to making the system work.

"If you just allow the emergencies to be there, and not having to be used for injury ... you don't have to worry about it being policed,” Wallace said.

"That way it's always 22 against 22. If you do it the other way, where you need medical certificates, etc, it could never work.

"What I don't like ... I would hate to get to a grand final and the grand final be the result of one side losing three blokes before half-time.

"But on the other side of it, I think the AFL is more looking towards – and it's their game, we're only putting up opinions – I think that they will be more looking towards getting evidence to restrict interchange rather than going the other direction and adding to interchange.

"So I think that's probably where they're heading."

In round six, the Sydney Swans were fined $50,000 for having 19 men on the field late in a match at Telstra Dome which they drew with North Melbourne.

The league changed the interchange system after that match, further formalising how players entered and left the field. And they found a supporter in Wallace who said that those alterations had, in hindsight, worked well.

"I think the changes they made to the interchange rules, once they got that sorted out, and there was a bit of common sense coming in, I think that that's been fine,” Wallace said.

"It was getting to the stage of being a tad ridiculous about blokes being able to just come on and off the ground wherever they wanted to, so I don't have any issue with that."

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/tabid/6301/Default.aspx?newsid=69089

[Smokey]

Happy to have 2 or 3 non-replaceable emergencies - and I would love to see a reduction by at least 1 (2 ideally) in the number of interchange players.

[Mr Magic]

Reckon Terry's views on this has something to do with the fact that we enter the '09 season with five key players over 30.

[mightytiges]

The problem with this is clubs will exploit the extra emergencies especially those with strong depth on their list. If Lake can fake cramp to pass the ball to a better goalkicker, what will stop a tired midfielder faking tightness in the hammy at 3/4 time if a side wants some fresh legs or even a structural change to add more height. You could even in fact deliberately have one or two mids run their guts out and then swap over with the fresh substitutes. Plenty of ways to exploit this. Leave as is IMO.

[tigersalive]

The problem with this is clubs will exploit the extra emergencies especially those with strong depth on their list. If Lake can fake cramp to pass the ball to a better goalkicker, what will stop a tired midfielder faking tightness in the hammy at 3/4 time if a side wants some fresh legs or even a structural change to add more height. You could even in fact deliberately have one or two mids run their guts out and then swap over with the fresh substitutes. Plenty of ways to exploit this. Leave as is IMO.

You are correct, sir.

Exactly the same exploit that I thought of when I read the story.

[Smokey]

The problem with this is clubs will exploit the extra emergencies especially those with strong depth on their list. If Lake can fake cramp to pass the ball to a better goalkicker, what will stop a tired midfielder faking tightness in the hammy at 3/4 time if a side wants some fresh legs or even a structural change to add more height. You could even in fact deliberately have one or two mids run their guts out and then swap over with the fresh substitutes. Plenty of ways to exploit this. Leave as is IMO.

You are correct, sir.

Exactly the same exploit that I thought of when I read the story.

You could exploit it but I don't think it would ever turn into a 'big issue'.  Just say you are allowed 2 substitutes/emergencies then the coach is taking a risk using them at any point in the game for any reason but especially prior to the last quarter and more especially for an invalid reason.  What if he (mis)uses them by gut-running a midfielder and substituting, only to have 2 players go down just prior to 3/4 time?  He is stuck with a 'short' bench and behind the 8 ball.  I don't know that they will be willing to take that risk often enough for it to be an issue and if it happens in the last quarter then the impact is most likely only going to be minimal.  Risk vs likely return?  Too high for most of the coaches most the time IMHO.

[bushranger]

I think that the idea of it is a good one. But to stop it being used as a tactic would be to have both team doctors examine the player in question.
This would then make it a definite withdrawal of the player, if both team doctors say this player can not and will not return to the feild for the rest of the game.
So if done in the right way it would be a fair system. And the pace of the game today has changed so there is becoming more player injured.
So I'm in favour of it. 

[Stripes]

This would add another tactic to the game and another way a coach can impact the outcome. I like this.

I would rather the bench be reduced to 2 or 3 and then have 2 players that are purely for interchange. This makes their use very transparent and everyone know that if you use an interchange player, effectively 'swapping' one player for another, then the swap is for the rest of the game.

Coaches could make the call to go tall, quick or load up on forwards or defenders but this also allows the opposition coaches to exploit this move themselves. If one team goes tall the opposition may choose to go small etc. The timing of the Interchange would be crutial becasue if you go too soon you loose your advantage and allow the opposition to respond, too late and the swap would have little impact regardless.

This would add another interesting elemt to the game where multi-skilled/positional players would become even more important to teams.

Just a thought

Stripes

[tigersalive]

The problem with this is clubs will exploit the extra emergencies especially those with strong depth on their list. If Lake can fake cramp to pass the ball to a better goalkicker, what will stop a tired midfielder faking tightness in the hammy at 3/4 time if a side wants some fresh legs or even a structural change to add more height. You could even in fact deliberately have one or two mids run their guts out and then swap over with the fresh substitutes. Plenty of ways to exploit this. Leave as is IMO.

You are correct, sir.

Exactly the same exploit that I thought of when I read the story.

You could exploit it but I don't think it would ever turn into a 'big issue'.  Just say you are allowed 2 substitutes/emergencies then the coach is taking a risk using them at any point in the game for any reason but especially prior to the last quarter and more especially for an invalid reason.  What if he (mis)uses them by gut-running a midfielder and substituting, only to have 2 players go down just prior to 3/4 time?  He is stuck with a 'short' bench and behind the 8 ball.  I don't know that they will be willing to take that risk often enough for it to be an issue and if it happens in the last quarter then the impact is most likely only going to be minimal.  Risk vs likely return?  Too high for most of the coaches most the time IMHO.

Certainly a fair point, but I'd still like us to leave the rules alone just for a change.

It is not necessary to have such a rule.

[mightytiges]

The problem with this is clubs will exploit the extra emergencies especially those with strong depth on their list. If Lake can fake cramp to pass the ball to a better goalkicker, what will stop a tired midfielder faking tightness in the hammy at 3/4 time if a side wants some fresh legs or even a structural change to add more height. You could even in fact deliberately have one or two mids run their guts out and then swap over with the fresh substitutes. Plenty of ways to exploit this. Leave as is IMO.

You are correct, sir.

Exactly the same exploit that I thought of when I read the story.

You could exploit it but I don't think it would ever turn into a 'big issue'.  Just say you are allowed 2 substitutes/emergencies then the coach is taking a risk using them at any point in the game for any reason but especially prior to the last quarter and more especially for an invalid reason.  What if he (mis)uses them by gut-running a midfielder and substituting, only to have 2 players go down just prior to 3/4 time?  He is stuck with a 'short' bench and behind the 8 ball.  I don't know that they will be willing to take that risk often enough for it to be an issue and if it happens in the last quarter then the impact is most likely only going to be minimal.  Risk vs likely return?  Too high for most of the coaches most the time IMHO.

True it would be a risk but one of main arguments for going from 2 to 3 to 4 players on the bench was to reduce injuries and toallow sides enough men so they wouldn't get caught 'short'. Problem is coaches have developed their tactics to use all 4 bench players in rotation so effectively the game is now 22 vs 22 instead of 18 vs 18. Now they complain they still don't have enough players and want more on the bench. IMO adding more on the bench even as two substitutes will only encourage coaches to turn the game into 24 vs 24. It would be good for Wallace's running gameplan though to have fresh legs that can last 4 quarters.

[Smokey]

True it would be a risk but one of main arguments for going from 2 to 3 to 4 players on the bench was to reduce injuries and toallow sides enough men so they wouldn't get caught 'short'. Problem is coaches have developed their tactics to use all 4 bench players in rotation so effectively the game is now 22 vs 22 instead of 18 vs 18. Now they complain they still don't have enough players and want more on the bench. IMO adding more on the bench even as two substitutes will only encourage coaches to turn the game into 24 vs 24. It would be good for Wallace's running gameplan though to have fresh legs that can last 4 quarters.

Agree.  Thats why I would only accept this change if it was accompanied by a reduction in the interchange players by the same amount eg 1 sub, 3 interchange or 2 subs, 2 interchange.

[mightytiges]

True it would be a risk but one of main arguments for going from 2 to 3 to 4 players on the bench was to reduce injuries and toallow sides enough men so they wouldn't get caught 'short'. Problem is coaches have developed their tactics to use all 4 bench players in rotation so effectively the game is now 22 vs 22 instead of 18 vs 18. Now they complain they still don't have enough players and want more on the bench. IMO adding more on the bench even as two substitutes will only encourage coaches to turn the game into 24 vs 24. It would be good for Wallace's running gameplan though to have fresh legs that can last 4 quarters.

Agree.  Thats why I would only accept this change if it was accompanied by a reduction in the interchange players by the same amount eg 1 sub, 3 interchange or 2 subs, 2 interchange.

Yep I don't mind that idea. Players would have to pace themselves to last longer meaning more contests and more kicks to contests. It will never happen though as coaches and players would argue it would increase injuries as players tire. It would also disadvantage us under Wallace as it would those sides (eg: Bulldogs) that play a running gameplan. Sides with bigger bodies would be advantaged. Clubs would have to alter their drafting back to more natural bigger body footballers.