Resting players a blight on the game

It's a bad look, that leaves a sour taste in a fans mouth. Manipulative decisions have to be reigned in. Maybe set a max of four rested in last round and maybe a requirement to rest players in earlier rounds, to be eligible to rest players in last round?

Resting players is NOT a blight on the game, these never ending stupid articles are.

Since when was the AFL a game? I'd bet my house and car and all worldly possessions that the AFL is a league - in fact I'm so confident I'd bet my daughter to the local bikie chapter because I know I could not lose this bet!

Why no mention of Western Bulldogs? They left a few of their better players at home and they lost but that's ok , is because they are the feel good story of the year or because they only rested a few and not half a side? Why no mention of Carlton ? They started resting players a year and a half ago and no one is having a crack at them ! This argument is so stupid, teams mange players throughout the year, veterans miss games , rookies game time is monitored and players in sides missing the finals are sent to surgery before the year is finished . Why are we surprised that teams with nothing to lose rest players before finals? Nothing is said when Eastern states sides leave veterans at home for trips to Subiaco because the travel /fatigue factor means it's better for their season to stay in Victoria and yet in round 23 it is suddenly a great sin to rest players. It is time we all grew up a bit !

Actually scratch the above comment, I had heard someone say that on the radio and took it on face value, but just had a check on the AFL website after posting it and saw it was only really the Carlton v Hawks game that was significantly lower.

Wasn't there a massive drop in the average tackles per game in that final round compared to all the other rounds of the year? Where does that sit in terms of the "integrity of the game"?

And one of the teams that didn't 'rest' any players for a greater strategic end may suffer because they chose to give it their best shot in the final game, regardless of its potential impact on their draft position...

You missed my point! If that’s the stance you have on North, then it must be on all teams. You cannot have a rule that benefits one team over another. Let’s reverse the scenario. North can’t effect anyone’s ladder position being in 8th, but Fremantle can in 1st. Would you be happy if the AFL allowed North to rest players but not Fremantle? If its purely based on being able to effect ladder positions why should the 8th placed team get an advantage over the 1st placed team? We simply can’t have rules that benefit one club over another. Its either yes you can rest players or no you can’t, although the latter in my opinion would be impossible to enforce. You can't have it both ways.

Against the Tigers the Swans changes were Pyke out with an illness, Laidler was omitted and didn't come back in for the finals first week, and Franklin was a late withdrawal with a knee... A bit different to resting 10 blokes I think

Because Norths affected the ladder position. they stayed at 8th, and removed the chance of the Crows getting as high as 5th. The whole reason the integrity rule was supposedly brought in

The North Melbourne scenario was having minimal impact - and ironically - if as it turned out - being more likely to lose - that was to the benefit of North's direct opponent in Richmond. Some people suggested North were trying to avoid a trip to Adelaide - however - unless Adelaide managed to sneak up to 5th (North win, Adel win and Doggies win) then that wouldn't happen with North remaining 8th. Ideally the Doggies losing to last placed Brisbane was never going to happen you see - because if Adelaide managed to beat Geelong then the Doggies had to win to avoid a potential trip to Adelaide. In fact, on the Friday night - North with effectively nothing to play for - their opponent Richmond - if they lost, would face a possible trip to Adelaide if the Crows won in Geelong. So - North rested a few, or, allowed guys to take overdue week off for niggly injuries (as it was, North had to wait until Rnd 22/23 to finally have some ladder security to be able to rest anyone full stop). However, lost from the gaze of many, the Doggies rested Boyd, Morris and Murphy. Only 3 players. That seems a more palatable number I guess. And what did the Doggies do? Once they saw that Adelaide had failed to beat Geelong - the Doggies took the foot of the pedal, played bruise free and lost to 18th place Brisbane - who in turn avoid the wooden spoon and lose #1 draft pick. It seems to me that the Western Bulldogs should be subject to some of this outrage. After all - it took resting 'just' 3 players in 2014 to rob the West Coast Eagles of 8th place when Sydney dropped their Rnd 23 game to a desperate Richmond by just 3 points. Richmond get in by a game, despite very much inferior percentage. A loss and the Eagles were in the 8. North resting the players they did - rather than trotting them out in a game where they would seriously play 'bruise free' low pressure, minimal defence against Richmond who needed to win - yep, I can see why that's a better option than giving the guys who might squeeze into the 22 one last audition before the finals. North did it because they could and it sure as heck suited their objectives beautifully.

I don’t get people arguing one is right but one is wrong. I have no issue with the resting of players, nut if one teams allowed to do it, then all teams are allowed. You can’t have laws governing certain teams but not others. If Fremantle are justified, then so is North.

But how can the AFL tell a match committee who they are allowed to select? It just doesn’t make sense. If the AFL says No, then it will just create bigger problems, as in future years clubs just leave players out with injuries, soreness, omitted etc. without consulting with the AFL in the first instance.

I don't have a problem with it - the teams earned the right to rest players by their performances throughout the year. And there is more to the issue, which hasn't been discussed as far as I'm aware. We have become used to seeing teams at different times omitting players listed as 'general soreness,' and particularly veteran or returning-from-injury players who were otherwise fit missing interstate games because the travel is considered too wearing. This has usually been only one or two players at a time but it's still resting players: if the practice is banned, where do you draw the line?

I know it's used widely by the great unwashed, but anyone who writes an article about AFL Football and seriously uses the term " the game of AFL " just can't be taken seriously on the subject ! . . . sorry.

What advantage did Freo gain other than having some of their players not travel the week before finals. Since Freo and West Coast do the most flying throughout the year I have absolutely no issue with these teams not sending their players interstate the week before finals, as long as it does not impact another teams chance of playing finals. It didn't What Norths did was effect the final 8 positions by effectively throwing a home game (not that they were the home team but it was their home ground). And the AFL did nothing about it.

Rubbish! whats more important? The finals or round 23? The two sides were doing what they thought best to prepare for the finals. I don't see anything wrong with that

No problem with Freo, but North's decision had the potential to impact the final position of 4 other teams and should't have been allowed.

What rubbish! The hypocrisy is unbearable. Whenever the topic of State of Origin or representative football comes up, fans argue that nobody wants to see their best players injured in a meaningless game. But when a coach wants to rest his top players in a meaningless game during the season, suddenly it's 'tanking' and 'damaging the integrity of the game.' Resting players is nothing new, it's done in many, many leagues. Earlier this season, The Cowboys rested Jonathan Thurston after State of Origin against the Sharks. A few years ago, after the Wanderers tied up the Minor Premiership in the final round, Graham Arnold rested many of his senior Mariners players to keep them fresh for the finals. Calling it tanking is an insult to the players who did play. Just because they weren't the top 22 players in the squad does NOT mean that they didn't give it their all. Besides, was the advantage gained by resting players 'unfair?' Is minimising the risk of injury and having players well-rested unfair?

Smee Agree with you on the Freo but I think that the North one no. I think if it had be a full strength team the may have won and move depending on other things could have gone as high as 7th or 6th yes it is a small thing but still it is not what you want to see in a game that could affect the top 8 in the last round.