If the AFL can introduce a new rule just one day before the season starts, without properly trialling them, then it’s only fair we cast final judgement on them straight after one game.
Fortunately for the AFL, last night’s Richmond-Carlton game was a belter, a high-scoring, free-flowing encounter which has only increased excitement for the rest of the season. The return to 20-minute quarters was undoubtedly positive, but the more foreign rule changes haven’t been met with universal acclaim.
Starting with the most recent amendment, one game of the medical sub has only strengthened concerns that it’s open to exploitation.
Jack Silvagni’s subluxed shoulder is a nasty injury which will sideline him for a little while, but when Nick Vlastuin was subbed out of the game for a knock to the knee, it looked awfully like Richmond had seen the impact of Oscar McDonald for the Blues and wanted a pair of fresh legs of their own on the field.
Which is fair enough. If the AFL have created a system whereby it’s something of an advantage to have an injury midway through a game (and they have), why wouldn’t opposing clubs look to inject a brand-new player of their own into the fray?
We can expect with a fair amount of certainty two things: that teams will almost always find a way to activate their sub, and that if (dare I say when?) Vlastuin is named for Round 2, expect a chorus of condemnation about the flimsiness of the new rule.
Rather than bringing in something so easily circumvented, either bringing back the tactical sub – which can be used to replace injured players just as easily as the current iteration – or only allowing the sub to be used to replace concussed players would be far better options.
Or, if the medical sub is here to stay, at the very least mandate a one- or two-week stint on the sidelines for players taken out of the game.
Speaking of substitutions, reducing the interchange cap to 75 certainly played its part last night. Its proponents claim fewer rotations equals more fatigue, which therefore equals more open, free-scoring footy, while critics counter that tired players make more errors.
Sam Walsh and Shai Bolton. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Put me firmly in the latter camp. Skills seemed to tend towards the sloppy in the closing stages last night, while the opening passages were fast, open and mostly clean. Why you need to enforce fatigue on players through one rule when another – the new man on the mark interpretation – aims to open the game up through far more direct means is a mystery.
Depending on who you’ve been listening to since last night, you’ll have heard the stand mark rule is either the worst thing to ever happen to footy, or something which didn’t really have that much of an impact. For what it’s worth, Dustin Martin falls into the latter camp.
It was a little odd to see defenders standing alone and impotent, waiting for the “play on” call as an opponent who’d just marked the ball ran halfway around them. But game-ruining? Hardly.
It seemed to encourage more open, direct play, and wasn’t half as obnoxious as the clips of overly officious 50-metre penalties from pre-season suggested. So on that count, a success.
But is it flawless? Not at all.
The AFL would do well to take up Scott Pendlebury’s suggestion and allow defenders standing the mark to shift forwards and backwards – no further than the mark, of course – and simply penalise side-to-side movement. After all, the change is designed to make it easier for players to take the game on by opening up the arcs either side of the mark – what difference would ‘north-south’ movement make there?
The 50 awarded against Sam Petrevski-Seton late in the second quarter which has garnered so much attention looked more a case of communication from the umpire lost amongst crowd noise than a disastrous rule.
Even so, that’s going to happen frequently enough to warrant Pendlebury’s change, which would make for fewer game-changing 50s when a player thinks they’ve retreated the necessary five metres but the whistleblowers call otherwise.
Sam Petrevski-Seton. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
All in all, then, a collection of rules which are fine. Some are worse than others, none are egregious.
What they all could have benefitted from, though, is a proper, rigorous test before being introduced to the AFL. And here lies the biggest issue with the constant tinkering to the lawbook we see from AFL House. Not that it happens in the first place – all sports make similar adjustments – but that it does in such a rushed, ad-hoc manner.
The medical sub wasn’t so urgently needed to justify its introduction barely 24 hours before the Tigers and Blues walked onto the G. Aussie rules wasn’t so desperately lacking open play that AFL umpires were ordered to bark “stand” at defenders before that same change was trialled in lower-level leagues.
We’ve seen this with previous amendments, like starting positions and kick-ins, which haven’t worked in the way we’ve been told they would because they weren’t properly tested.
Hopefully by the next time we’re discussing new laws, we’ll be doing so after a VFL match rather than the AFL season opener.
The Dom is good
Roar Rookie
why bother having a limit on rotations at all? how is having players on the field cramping up and slowing down making the game a fast spectacle ? no limit on rotations and a 23 man squad done, period - stop the crap
Chris M
Guest
Maybe keep rotations at 75 and the 23rd man as sub; let the sub be used for any reason and, when he is used, he is one rotation; if the sub is used for any reason before three quarter time, the player subbed cannot play in the following game for the club or for 12 days, whichever occurs later; if the sub is used after three quarter time, the player subbed can play anytime.
Dibbs
Roar Rookie
The new manning the mark rule is just irritating and unnecessary. Hair-brained rules like this should be trialled in the pre-season, and once it's clear that they are rubbish, should be discarded; not implemented for the actual season without trialling first. The biggest problems with it: 50 meters is a massive penalty for something as minor as taking a step which barely influences the game, and it makes more work for the umpires which means more errors. I don't see the problem with the sub rule however. It doesn't affect the actual game, other than having some fresher legs. It may be used tactically from time to time, but so what, that option is equally available to both teams.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
Never thought of the change as being coaches reaction to reduced interchange but it makes sense. And Clarkson, yes.....too much to say. The fact some coaches weren’t involved is not good. Particularly Beveridge who speaks his mind.
Parkside Darren
Roar Rookie
Dr your argument is very sound. Which means get rid of the 12 day break requirement for medical sub because in a practical sense it can’t be enforced.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
It is the classic problem of the AFL being reactive not proactive
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Or they could just sell all the advertising to be shown on Dusty's jumper. After all, that's where Channel 7 directs all their attention.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Sound logic, Don. My gift is being able to think in a non-linear fashion. I love problem-solving. I'll bet it opens the game up further. It's a variable that's hard to predict from a coaching perspective. Subs will be used to maximum impact during high fatigue moments, i.e. towards the end of a quarter — likely the third. It's what I would do. Think about it. What you're saying works in synergy with this concept. If a team experiences increased fatigue due to extra rotations, subbing in a rested player will have an even greater impact relative to the teams overall diminished maximum effort capacity at that given moment. The damage on the scoreboard is what the AFL wants. Why? Because they can sell more advertising between goals. It's brilliant when you think about it.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
The simple way to remove people messing with the rule is to fine Richmond their four points for the win last night. That will keep the rest of the league in line.
Vicboy
Roar Rookie
The game style has declined into a rolling maul steadily from an increase in the interchange. That was Sheedy. Current equivalent is Clarkson - sub rule is ridiculous. If required. Reduce interchange to 3. The game is better for the man on the mark rule - but Pendlebury suggestion should be implemented. Key forwards are back! McKay kicks properly- should have kicked 6. As for the article stating play is sloppy with fatigue - the stars shine late. Michael Jordan onwards - Martin’s kick to Lambert, our exhibit A Great game - footy is back - enjoy!
Roger of Sydney
Roar Rookie
The umpires are far too involved now, they are not the game. Too many rules and the man on the mark is plain dumb. The whole top end of the AFL need a cleansing , Gil is in love with Gil
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Very hard to argue that point, Chris. Although, the way Graham was going last night, I wouldn't have been swapping him out either...
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
And it's not a problem if it is available to both sides. It does, however, fly in the face of reduced interchanges that wanted more fatigue...which is a really strange rationale.
Bandicoot
Roar Rookie
The AFL and the powers that be continue to tell us that the new sub rule is all about player welfare and safety. What a load of garbage!! They work on the theory that if they tell us something often enough we will start to believe it. Let's be fair dinkum. If there was still 90 rotations instead of 75, this hairbrained new rule would never have seen the light of day. Let's go back to last year. If a player was involved in an incident and appeared that he "may" be concussed he was immediately taken off the ground and the doctor had 20 minutes to determine if he was in fact concussed or not. Is the AFL trying to tell us that the coaches etc had so much influence over a club doctor that they could convince him to allow a concussed player to go back on the ground. Come on!!! Similarly, if a player had an injury of some sort during the game, would the medical staff suggest he continue playing bringing in the possibility he could damage it further. Don't think so! So, let's call this foe what it really is. The coaches were pissed off that rotations were reduced to 75 and their poor old players were going to get tired. So we need to replace one of them with a sub who can come on with fresh legs. Heaven help these fully professional footballers if they had to play a 5 set game of tennis at Rod Laver arena when the court temperature was 42 degrees. Of course, if Clarko wants something, he only has to tell Gil and, Bingo, it's done. If the AFL were even half serious about an injured player being subbed it had to be an automatic 12 day wait before he could play again. If he made a miraculous recovery before the next match - too bad. I'd hazard a guess and suggest that there won't be too many games where someone comes down with a mystery injury in the last quarter and is subbed out. As I said earlier, the sub rule has absolutely nothing to do with player health and safety no matter how many times we hear otherwise.
Macca
Roar Rookie
I think the Tigers have actually come up with a strategy to thwart the new rule, deliberately set up over the mark. When a player sets up over the mark the umpire calls them back (often 2 or 3 times), as long as the Richmond player is coming back or at least acknowledging the umpire they aren't being called to "stand" and therefor can continue reacting to the player with the ball.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
For the record: I'm not against the medical sub. I'm not for it either.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
I've come across a bit of discussion about this on twitter. Most football fans can't see the issue. More than likely, the sub is not amongst your 20 best players, so it doesn't strike me as a huge advantage bringing on your 23rd best player for a quarter - no use having fresh legs if the player coking on is below par. Also, the article speculates that it seemed an opportune time to find someone new to mark a player who was on fire, but then again, the 23rd player may or may not be an experienced defender.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
A coach won't trigger the sub who's a little sore. However, they will do it between the 10-15 minute mark of the third quarter, where it's likely to impact the scoreboard significantly. Should a concussion occur post this, no damage done to the side's performance as they already have fresh legs in place. It's only a problem if they pull the trigger in the first half, which no coach is going to do unless it's a serious injury. I predict we'll see many 'soft-tissue' injuries around this point of the third quarter. You watch tonight — I won't be wrong. It's precisely what I'd do. :thumbup:
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Agreed. Scrap it. Sub for concussions only!
XI
Roar Guru
I don't understand the idea that you need to keep the numbers even. What if a team gets 2 injuries?