- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Amidst the current debate on interchange restrictions and substitute players, it was ironic to see two teams – Adelaide and Sydney – reduced in numbers by mid-match injuries, emerge eventual winners in tight contests over the weekend. The Crows lost Chris Knights and Bernie Vince early leaving them with two fit men on the bench for most of the game in their hard-fought seven-point victory over Brisbane.
The Swans lost Ben McGlynn and Jarred Moore in the third term of their pulsating nine-point win over Fremantle.
Both sides were away from home and challenged late in the match, but emerged victorious. All factors were against them, but they triumphed.
On face value, it certainly wasn’t a ringing endorsement for the necessity of substitutes to replace injured players – a topic which the AFL raised last week.
So do we really need substitute players in AFL footy?
The reality is the injuries and lack of replacement players made it harder for these sides to win. No doubt. The fact they managed to get the job done down a few men is commendable.
Crows coach Neil Craig was reported in the Adelaide Advertiser to have said substitutes for injured players would keep “a degree of fairness” in the contest.
And fairness is the key point.
You can call it bad luck, but losing a player or two during a match reduces a team’s probability of winning a game of footy. It sucks. It takes the integrity out of the contest.
After all, we’ve seen how important interchange rotations have become in modern footy, so losing one or two of those options hurts alot.
As a result, the idea of substitutes and replacement players make a lot of sense. It makes a game of footy a fair and even contest which really is what we should want.
You could also make an argument about how the idea would benefit player welfare, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Essentially, the problem of the substitute idea is the logistics of how to implement such a system.
The intention of the rule is to make a game of footy fairer by ensuring both sides have 22 players at their disposal for the full four quarters but there is the risk clubs will bend the laws and exploit the rule, by using substitutes when players aren’t actually injured.
In essence, such tactics would defeat the original purpose of the rule.
Thus, there the dilemma stands.
The debate raged late last year but nothing ever eventuated after the issue got complicated with various parties having their say.
But I don’t like seeing problems left unresolved and following the AFL’s press release last week and the weekend’s incidents in Brisbane and Perth I was provoked to raise the issue again.
In essence, the key issue here is ensuring AFL games are fair contests, which is crucial to the integrity of Aussie Rules footy.
A substitute rule helps achieve that aim and there must be a system to ensure it can operate effectively.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.