In fact, even though teams had larger benches in the pre-season, already the opposition has begun. North Melbourne coach Brad Scott over the weekend labelled the rule a “disaster” and claimed changes will be made again at the end of the year.
This follows a similar message from Rodney Eade last year. The Western Bulldogs coach told The Australian: “I’ve got no doubt it (the new rule) will change the game and I can see them changing something in two years’ time because it won’t work out the way they think.”
The AFL would have a bit to say about all this, of course.
The league have declared war on congestion and see cutting the number of interchange options as a viable way to stop huge numbers around the ball reducing the appeal of the game. The league have also argued, somewhat dubiously, the change will address the rising prevalence of injuries.
In all honesty, without having seen the new rule in action, it’s hard to judge the AFL too harshly or, for that matter, be too dismissive of the comments from Scott and Eade.
What is for certain, though, is that the rule will have an impact on the game. Clubs and coaches will have to adapt. The effect of a seemingly simple rule change will be felt in a number of areas.
The tactics used by coaches
The obvious place the new rule will be felt is in the coaches box. Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse has in the past been an advocate of having a substitute rule so that players who pick up an injury in a game and are unable to return to the field can be replaced.
The new rule does not require the substituted player to have an injury, however. This means coaches on game day will face some tough decisions – like whether to use the substitution for tactical purposes if there are no injuries, and when is the right time to make that call.
“We’ve had doctors say, ‘Give us a quarter to test him out and he might come good’,” Eade told the AFL Record over summer. “You’ve got to work out then and there, do you make a decision (to wait) and be a player short for the quarter or (use your sub and) take him off straight away? If you make the sub tactically, and then you get an injury, that is also going to put a strain on the team.”
Players that will be used as substitutes
Answering the question of what players will be used in this new role is real tricky. Obviously versatility will be a huge factor – if the sub is a small forward, he won’t be of much help if the team’s 200cm-plus ruckman goes down with an injury.
Likewise, a key position player will have a hard time covering for a speedy midfielder.
Players who can “play tall and small” will suit the role. Players who are capable of playing more than one position will hold and obvious advantage over those that don’t. Chances are, at least initially, we’ll see different approaches at different clubs.
The second ruckman
The new rule puts much doubt on the future of the second ruckman that has no other strings to their bow. Players like Collingwood premiership player Leigh Brown, who are capable of playing both in the ruck and up forward, were already becoming more fashionable than the traditional ruckman in the back-up role.
Now, with one less interchange spot, the trend should be accelerated. There would be a lot of nervous big men around the league right now.
Paul Roos put it bluntly speaking to the AFL Record: “The second ruckman has got to be able to play forward … clearly, if you’ve only got three on the bench you are unlikely to have a second (traditional) ruckman, so I think most people will say the second ruckman is a thing of the past.”
Midfield rotations
In footy, the alternative to resting a player on the bench, particularly for midfielders, has always been to rest them in another area of the ground. Think Gary Ablett going forward for Geelong last year.
Clubs that have a wide range of players that can be rotated in and out of the middle will benefit from having options at their disposal. Collingwood and Geelong are two clubs that come to mind that have great midfield depth and may benefit because of this.
Interstate sides and travel demands
Fremantle coach Mark Harvey, ever the crusader for interstate club rights, reckons teams that travel often have become used to rotating heavily on the road and thus will be disadvantaged by the new rule.
“The interesting thing about travelling on the road is the limit on the rotations and whether that adds to the difficulty of winning on the road,” Harvey told AFL.com.au. “That’s an important point, because we’re about to find out about that. I see it as another restriction of travel.”
For what it’s worth, though, Freo averaged 130 rotations at home last season, compared to 123 on the road.
So who benefits the most out of the rule change?
The big unknown about the rule is what players will be best suited to being used as a substitute. We don’t even know if it’ll be wise to use the same player in that role each week, given they mightn’t be getting enough game time.
So until the 17 clubs settle on that, we don’t yet know which clubs hold “secret weapons” or “X-factors” on their list.
That said, as scary as this sounds, Collingwood appear the most prepared team for the new rule. The combination of a versatile back-up ruck and midfield depth puts them in good stead.
Clubs like Essendon and West Coast, with the likes of Patrick Ryder and Nic Naitanui, respectively, combined with a young list, would also appear to be at an advantage.
But there’s still a lot to be figured out about the sub rule. Until two weeks from now, the best anyone can do is take an educated guess – and that includes the AFL.
Bludger
Guest
Would love to see what will happen if we reverted to the 1975 edition of footy laws, with the interpretations, allowed biff and bash etc.. The game would become massive again, all those disenfranchised footy fans that have walked away might come back. The rugby states will show more respect for the game also. When I come to power, my first act will be a rollback of all those rule changes. On top of that, free to air footy, all live, coast to coast, 9 games a week and I will do it for 10 percent of what they are paying Goofy.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I agree with this. If the rule had to change at all, further limiting interchange but expanding options for injury replacement would have been a better option.
Bob
Guest
If the plan is to stop everybody congregating around the ball why not just have 4, 5 or 6 subs and no replacements. Then you could cut 5 minutes off the end of each quarter, which will be good for player welfare. Or does that upset TV exec's who want to string out the game as long as possible.
KickIt2Duck
Roar Rookie
I don't mind the actual notion suggested for the final 10. That top 6 earn a week off (a deserved preparation for the September campaign), and that 7 play 10 and 8 play 9 to see who scrapes in (for probably no more than bragging rights) to the 'final 8' that then plays out from there. The 7-10 'wild card' play offs recognise that the unbalanced fixture can mean that a team can finish 9th and just miss out (North last year purely on percentage) perhaps because of what turned out a far harder draw than the team that 'fell into' 8th. It looks an imperfect but reasonable solution for an imperfect (and almost impossible to rectify other than via 'conferences') situation. (at any rate, Andrew Gaze quite liked the thinking behind it, and I tend to agree......is it just about the money? well, that depends I guess on how much they charge for those wildcard games.....if they made them very affordable for club members would be a good will gesture).
AussieRulesBlog
Guest
Lots of claims of disaster about to unfold, but the truth is that before 1978 there were NO interchanges. Until 1994, there were only 2 interchange players, with a fourth added in 1998. The game changed as coaches figured out how to maximise the advantages of interchange, and it will change again as they figure out how to use substitutes to best advantage. In the days before interchange, followers — ruckman, ruck-rover and rover — rested on the field in forward pockets. On-field rotations to rest players will likely again become a feature of the game. In the days before interchange, sometimes a 20th man might get only a 5 minute run at the end of the game, and ocasionally not even take the field at all. That might begin to happen again. The point is, substitutes are nothing new. The potential for playing injured players isn't new. The potential for playing short-handed because of injury isn't new. We're not convinced that substitutes were the best way to handle the ballooning interchange numbers, and we're not convinced that the game will be improved by this new arrangement — a cap on interchanges would have been less disruptive — but it's not a disaster scenario. For this year at least, coaches will be required to be innovative instead of following like sheep.
I agree! Also final ten is just another way to milk money from the fans. The season is already long enough (for the players, not me) and bringing in more finals games makes no sense (except from a monetary aspect.) In fact the fairest way is to have no finals, as they do in soccer. The team at the top of the ladder at the end wins. They won't do this because it would cost them too much money (and I think most of us like the finals anyway.)
KickIt2Duck
Roar Rookie
Grant Thomas would love the suggestions that 1 dimensional 2nd string ruckmen might struggle to get a game. ;-) I guess there's a fair bit of over the top comment on this topic. Reality is, IF the sub does NOT come on the ground, then the other 21 players have roughly 120 mins of match time to make up, so, starting point is just under an extra 6 minutes per player to be spread around. Should the Sub come into play, then, if a player is off injured who wouldn't have come back on anyway - then, from that point on, what's the difference?? there is none. So, the only difference is this period prior to the Sub being brought into play. How many times does a team lose a player for the day before half time? There's a sliding scale of possible 'impact' over and beyond normal (last year and before). The greatest issue really is for the team that doesn't NOT have injuries who may make a tactical call on the use of the sub. That's their risk. But, whether there's any need for wholesale change of player stocks I'd suggest as overthetop, you'd no longer not bring in Dane Swan type players, nor focus only on Shane Crawford type players. You'd hope clubs would just focus on their own team balance and play good players!!
Bayman
Guest
My concern with all these rule changes in the last few years is this: Is the AFL trying to improve the lot of the players or just trying to add yet another mystery into the equation? Personally, I'd prefer the team that wins to be the best team, not the luckiest. It seems the AFL is forever trying to make football a handicap event rather than weight for age. Maybe the solution is to reduce the number of interchange players. With only two the game will, of necessity, slow down a little and some of today's injuries may not occur. The very idea that the game is dominated by the opinion of coaches is laughable. They are the very definition of temporary. The game, however, will continue long after they are gone. Would Sheedy have pushed for four interchange players if he had not been a coach looking for some advantage? As for changing the rules every year, nobody has yet been able to explain exactly why that is necessary. If the AFL wants speed, don't complain about injuries. If it wants a nice clean television product why not just ban tackling. The AFL, and its rules committee, should remember it is not only running the game, it is responsible for the game. And like those coaches, administrators are temporary. Only the game is permanent. At least, for now. Keep tinkering, though, boys and you may find the game goes the way of the dodo. When that happens, it won't be any good saying, "But we sanitised everything, how could this happen?" Personally, I'd prefer a bit more of the "Sh*t happens, let them play" attitude.
SkiMask
Guest
Final 10 I like, especially if they use the system they have talked about, a final six with the next 4 teams playing off for 2 spots. So pretty much just a final six and 4 wildcards. I don't think the new sub rule will stay in it's current form. I have a feeling it will either be changed to two interchange, two subs, or three interchange, three subs sooner rather than later. Having one sub who has to be named 30 minutes before the game is rubbish.
SportsFanGC
Roar Guru
Crap rule bought in under the guise of lessening injuries to players. Should/will be scrapped by the end of the season. Also final 10 is an absolute joke, why are they considering this when all the polls and majority of coaches are against it? The first thing they can scrap is the laws of the game committee, not necessary to have this as a full time scenario on the AFL books. Changing the rules after every season is beyond a joke.
KickIt2Duck
Roar Rookie
Won't clubs just suck it and see? I mean, that the Eagles will probably happily go in with both Cox and NicNat, because they can both go forward quite okay. Other clubs will have to rotate off the bench, or, like Collingwood, perhaps Cam Wood will keep missing out if Leigh Brown is in the final 21 as backup to Jolly. But, gee, you never know, Wood might play and Brown might become the 'veteran' designated sub. That's my prediction - the designated sub might become either a veteran 'utility' type player or a promising youngster who might get a quarter here or there.
Brian
Guest
Give the AFL credit on this one. Too many games were decided in the last few years by who lost some players to injuries. This new rule may not entirely fix the problem but it will help. I too wish the AFL would not chnge the rules every year. I think the problem with AFL is that there are too many coaches, ex-players with media space to use and so they keep trying to change the rules. We only went to 4 interchange players cause Kevin Sheedy & co thought it a good idea. The AFL needs to stop listening to coaches, ex-players and hardcore supporters and worry more about the general fan by keeping the same rules year in year out.
olrac
Guest
I would have prefered for them to commit to the substitute rule and have 2 interchange players and 4 substitutes. That would slow the game down allow the coaches to get tactical and also allow enough for substituting for injuries. What they have now seems like a silly compromise.
TomC
Guest
I hope the AFL don't change the rule at the end of the season, but I think it will take two or three years for coaches to figure out how to use the substitute tactically. I don't think the sub does necessarily need to be a versatile player, provided you have some versatility in your first 21. The ideal sub would probably be a quick player, not necessarily all that fit, who can get forward and kick goals. That sort of player can come on in the second half and take advantage of a tiring opposition.
No offense intended Michael but I think it's a bit of a "no brainer" to say the rule will change the way the game is played. In the "old days" we had 18 players and two reserves. When they introduced the interchange things obviously had to change (no pun intended). Every time there is a rule change it affects the game in some way and some coaches/clubs find a way to make it work for them. Our game is the only sport I know of where the ruling body feels the need to change the rules every year. It confuses the players, umpires and fans. Quite frankly it's a pain in the ass!
PaddyBoy
Guest
I don't hink it's dubious to say that it won't have an impact on injuries. If you have a tired ruckman forcing his muscles because he has to keep up with a substitute then he's going to be susceptible to tears. whether the rule will significantly affect the game is still to be seen I suppose, but give it a chance before you throw it away. Even then, you might just need to tweak it.