It is ironic how some in the AFL community complain about the amount of rule changes implemented during the past few seasons, yet, at the same time, those same people campaign to fix parts of our game which are not broken.
Just sixteen years ago, the interchange bench had two players.
Today, we have four bench players, which the coach can rotate at his own leisure. Some teams have well-over 100 interchanges a game.
Now, many of those in the senior chair at AFL clubs want an extra two substitutes, who will then be included if a player suffers a game-ending injury.
The school of thought is that if a team is a man down early, their chances of winning fall significantly, so, by having a substitute, we ensure the playing field remains even.
Well, maybe, it’s time we reached for a tissue.
It’s part of AFL football. There is no system to injuries, it has been happening since our great game began, and it is up to coaches to work around it and find a solution. That is their job, isn’t it?
Essendon defeated Collingwood on Anzac Day, despite losing ruckman David Hille early in the contest. Hawthorn lost Cyril Rioli early-on against Sydney a few weeks later, and managed to win.
And, in last year’s Grand Final, the Hawks were two-men down in the second-half, yet, amazingly, they ran all over Geelong and won the game comfortably.
We have got to a stage where the bench argument has become a convenient excuse for a loss. Mick Malthouse has used it a number of times.
How about acknowledging the fact that your team was not good enough on the day? Teams in the past have proven they can win without their full quota of players.
If the rule is changed, and teams are allowed two substitutes, then the system is open to be exploited.
Who judges if a player is unfit to continue for the remainder of the game? And, what if a player has spent all his petrol tickets by the third term? Do we just allow him to have a rest for the afternoon so a fresh substitute can enter the fray?
And, do we stop at two substitutes? What if a team is four-men short in the third quarter? Do we ask a player from the VFL team to get suited up?
The fact is that four on the interchange bench is sufficient. If a team loses a player, it is the rub of the green and another challenge for coaches to overcome.
I don’t think too many of the critics of the current system would have survived in the ‘80s. There were injuries then, too.
And, just for some history, Sydney finished a game against Essendon in 1981 with 14 fit men – and won.
Michael C
Guest
Luke - your question And, do we stop at two substitutes? What if a team is four-men short in the third quarter? Do we ask a player from the VFL team to get suited up? Makes me think of cricket, and Pratt for England, and Luke Pommersbach managing to be the right person in the right place for an Australian T20 game!!! The point with cricket of course, is that you can have a sub fielder but he can't bat or bowl. In footy it's hard to have a sub player who can't kick or mark!! The trouble always comes from teams no longer being 6 in Melb on Sat arvo with the reserves playing at the same ground immediately beforehand - - so, having the ability to call someone up at late notice requires the emergencies travelling - and so, being an emergency/sub would often mean no footy and therefore the worst role come the weekend.
Michael C
Guest
Over the last few years, I've advocated whenever possible (including via AFL.com.au when they invite comment/run surveys) - that the bench should become 2 free interchange players plus 3 subs. (or, at worst, 3 plus 2 subs). History tells us that the 19th and 20th men were originally substitutes only. Then they became 'free interchange'. With 2 on the bench, we still had a style of footy where in the main, players were rotated on field (such that you'd get a resting ruckman in one forward pocket, a resting rover in the other and the specialist full forward - - thus, 3 totally different body type defenders required to match up). [I like things that create a need for a range of body types - - ruck contests is one of those features, so, I'm not as anti stoppages as the AFL seem to be!!!] I'd love to see a move 'back' to only 2 free interchangable players - but, certainly on the basis of injury - allow the emergencies to be subbed in - - actually, perhaps as a trade off - have the sub restriction apply only before half time. In the 2nd half, the 3 subs get freed up??
exosix
Roar Rookie
bravo, end of debate.
mattamkII
Guest
Fottyfan - very well said. I had never thought about it like that.
footyfan
Guest
Agreed. The apparent issue is when a team loses a player to injury, it puts them at a disadvantage because they have one less player than their opposition. Say we do introduce an extended bench, an injury to a player will still result in their team being one player down against the opposition, and thus at a disadvantage. So we introduce more bench players. If we introduce 2 more players, where will it end??
Therough
Roar Rookie
The AFL have a tendency to change things that don't really need changing based on one or two events (or Mike Sheahan's opinon). The rushed behind rule is a typical example. The tactic of continually running over the line to waste time was not a good look for the game, but it was a one off. Instead of stating that the practice would result in a time wasting penalty, the AFL introduced a new rule that no one - particularly players and umpires - can understand in practice. While some would say it has done its job because there haven't been a huge number of penalties and players are scrambling after the ball, I would suggest it is more out of panic of giving away a goal dead in front (a massive penalty for a subjective judgement of a player's state of mind) than knowing what they can and cannot do. I say bring back everyone's top scorer, Mr R Behind and give us some certainty. In relation to the extended bench, while North Melbourne really suffered in one game, I do not think it shows a systemic issue in the game. While it is unfortunate when your team has to struggle through a game, adding another player will simply mean that in another game there will be another 'North Melbourne' and we'll have to look at it all over again
mattamkII
Guest
I agree.. Mick Malthouse is a whinging twit and his daughter, who according to Mick got her commentary role on her own merits (I wish he was kidding too), annoys the hell out of me. It wasnt that many years ago that Rugby had NO bench at all - none, nada, nill. Even it todays game, once youre off, you're off never to return - accept blood rule and a couple of specialist positions which can be replaced for injury by an player rested earlier in that game. Anyway, AFL has got way too soft and whingful for my taste. In the last few years I have heard players and coaches make complaints about grounds that are too soft, grounds that are too hard, unfair expectations of travel and now not enough interchange players. I'm not trying to have a 'my dads bigger than your dad' comp here but compare the AFL complaints to Rugby. Ground too soft...try playing in Wellington during a storm so bad players start to suffer hypothermia (like the Irish V ABs test last year). Ground too hard and it blisters your feet...aaawwwwe poor darling, try playing a test in South Africa in summer, at altitude, on a ground that hasnt seen rain in 3 months with 8, inch long metal studs digging in to you feet with every step. Travel...dont make me laugh...did I need to compare? And now the interchange...how would you like to be a prop knowing there is no replacement for your side of the scum ? so either you come off on a stretcher or not at all....."oh but rugby players dont run as far as AFL" I hear you say. While this is statistically true I cant tell you, I have played both Rugby and Aussie rules to a decent ammo level and Rugby is much more physically demanding that Footy. So, after that rant and in short, get out of the sunbed AFL lads and harden up for god sake.