The AFL has made so many rule changes over the last decade that its own website no longer holds the RAM capacity for additions to be made from 2019 onwards.
Six – six – six, stand, man on the mark back five from the kick in, grabbing the ball out of the ruck is no longer deemed prior opportunity, restrictions on runners, ruck nomination, no third man up, insufficient intent, forceful contact below the knees, imaginary rectangle (restricted area) when a player has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick, goal line technology, interchange caps, and of course, the ever shifting guidelines for the sub.
If the AFL were serious about protecting their umpires from the level of abuse they’ve copped, enough to enforce another new rule, you’d think they’d at least attempt to make it easy for them.
Add to this the volatile movement of interpretations, and the rule of the week, which sees umpires directed to crack down on one rule for the round without giving notice of which rule to the players, coaches, and supporters.
It has gameshow feels about it.
If you can’t pick which rule it is by the conclusion of the round, you run the risk of a Squid Game-inspired death, where you must ask Luke Beveridge back-to-back questions in the Channel 7 press conference after his team has lost a game.
For now, though, let’s focus on the sub rule, because it has always been a stinker, one constantly used by coaches to exploit tired legs late in games.
It’s what coaches do. They’re paid millions to look for competitive advantage by teaching players how to shrug tackles to get free kicks, how to hook the defender’s arm so it looks like they’re the ones holding and how to dive over the top of players lying on the ground with the ball to enact the prohibited contact below the knee rule.
But nothing says subtle gamesmanship, and hunt for competitive advantage, like instructing your second ruck to lay in the middle of the MCG and stretch his calf a couple of times for proof at your AFL disciplinary committee hearing that cramp was present, so you can sub him off for the gut-running-super-sub (last name Dahlhaus), to inject your failing team with enough running to super-charge your push towards gunning down that 8-goal deficit in the last quarter.
Let’s not pretend this isn’t a thing.
When the medical substitute rule was re-implemented only 36 hours before the first bounce of season 2021, the AFL said it was for injuries that looked set to sideline a player for 12 days, which would mean missing the following week’s game.
Let’s see how that is panning out in season 2022 via a Sam Edmund tweet.
(For any slander, or want for confrontational discourse, please direct to @sammy_edmund on twitter.)
Whilst I’ll agree with your raised eyebrow on Jeremy Cameron, who left in an ambulance, and Trent McKenzie, who left the ground tied to a stretcher on the back of a golf buggy, the fact remains that all players recovered in time for the following week’s game, and via the activation of the sub, their team received the considerable competitive advantage of fresh legs.
An unfortunate injury shouldn’t turn into a stroke of good luck by way of fresh legs. All that does is provide the lure for cunning.
This week, we saw Carlton plodder, Marc Pittonet, the late game sub for the electric Jack Martin in a tight one against the Hawks.
Tall Port Adelaide defender, Sam Skinner, out at three quarter time for the speed machine Marty Frederick in a thriller against Adelaide.
And as mentioned above, Geelong’s second ruck, Esava Ratugolea, out for the gut-running Luke Dahlhaus.
Three big men out, for the running power of three small substitutes, all in in late game scenarios where pace on the ball was required.
Coincidence!!?? Let’s see how many of Skinner, Pittonet and Esava get named this week.
I think we can all agree that a sub, or a reserve, is necessary given the demands placed on the players from the flow of rule changes introduced across the last decade.
In that time, we’ve gone from uncapped interchange, to a three man bench with a sub, 120 capped rotations, to no sub and 90 rotations, to 75 rotations… and now a medical sub with a 12-day injury clause that no club has ever been investigated for breaking, even though it is clear from the above investigative work from Dr. Sammy Edmunds, that clubs have less time for a 12-day break than Jesus in early 00’s, downtown Jerusalem.
This dramatic decrease in rotations from the interchange, is designed to fatigue the players to slow the game down, opening space for a more-free flowing style with increased scoring.
By design of the AFL, increased fatigue means a higher rate of soft tissue injuries.
The justification is the preservation of brains. And that is a win we must take.
With this in mind, the view that soft tissue injury risk is heightened an inevitable, the AFL must have a medical sub in place for the protection of the players, integrity of the game, and perhaps even as a result of a clause in their insurance policy.
To implement this effectively, they have three options:
Enforce a 12-day break for any player subbed off the ground.
Make the sub rule for concussion only, where a 12-day break is enforced.
Open it up as a tactical free for all.
What it doesn’t have to do is be clouded in by-laws that aim to protect the integrity of the game, but through a lack of strength by those responsible for administering the by-laws, does nothing other than bring it into question.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Pittonet withdrawn, seems it wasn’t tactical after all
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
One more option. A combo with two subs. Make one sub absolutely only for concussion, but add a second sub that can be used for any reason. But don’t have to define before hand which player is which sub. I think one all purpose sub is plenty, but definitely liked the idea of a concussion sub.
pickles278
Guest
I like this suggestion, but the downside would be if the second team then suffers an injury after activating their sub. Maybe they can be allowed to activate their sub initially as non-injury, then if they suffer an injury the previously subbed out player can then re-enter the game?
Anthony
Guest
The problem with enforcing the 12 day break after being subbed out is that clubs will put players at risk. Clubs will hesitate in subbing out gun players, because they will be guaranteed to miss the next 2 games. This will put more strain on remaining players, and increase the chance of more injuries. This is why it has never been inforced. Concussion is obviously different.
Trevor
Guest
Get rid of the interchange altogether. Move back to a substitute rule. Once a player is off the field their day has ended. Allow up to 4 substitutions.
Timbo's rules
Guest
I think we should make it like American football. You have a full team of subs. Once the opposition gets the ball the game stops and teams swap. The defensive team with the ball leave the field to be replaced by the offensive team, while the offensive team without the ball leave to be replaced by their defensive team. Or you could leave it all alone because it seems to be working okay.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
nothing provides the AFL with more free advertising in a week in week out way than adjudication confusion..... they would have to be mad to clarify anything..... it's all a bit of a laugh anyway.... Mock serious but really kinda comical.... don't sell the sausage sell the sizzle....
Boo
Guest
If all subs were first or second year players rather than seasoned veterans coaches IMO would be less likely to manipulate the rule .The VFL has a twenty third player rule to develop players at lower levels a tweaking of this rule could benefit young players and the AFL in general
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I don't know how you fix it, the sub is probably needed for concussion, and I hate it when a player goes down early leaving 3 on the bench, it's a physical game, people get injured frequently. Might be one of those things you just let go and see what the coaches figure out, because you couldn't tell a player you suspected wasn't injured to go back on so there's really not much else you can do
Griffo 09
Roar Rookie
I couldn't help but whistle the opening theme for "The Price is Right" when I read this.
Nick
Roar Guru
If you say so, "doctor"
Nick
Roar Guru
No, because you'd have to tinker with the interchange cap.
Peter
Guest
Lol it was Luke Dahlhaus can everyone calm down
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Taking it to the extreme highlights the point. Something you have sorely missed. Your assertion that a coach would utilise 6 players evenly is just as speculative. After all, 6 interchanges is very different to 4. Such irony is wasted on the likes of you. However, I'm certain you are thinking twice about your petty insult directed at Tom. It's now directed at you, Super Coach.
Brian
Guest
So if we went back to that now wouldn't it solve the problem of both having a sub and being fair to both sides?
Nick
Roar Guru
If taking it to the extreme is the only way to serve your point, you've failed at serving your point. Try making your point within the scenario posted by Tom. Coaches used their two interchanges evenly before 1994, and then used their 3 interchanges evenly until 1998 and then used their 4 interchanges evenly since. The time played for each player who started on the interchange is fairly even. But they wouldn't with 6? Tom's point is quite speculative when presented against the history of interchange usage past and present. Now, if it was 6 substitutions, then that's a different story entirely.
Nick
Roar Guru
Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to what the current clubs are doing. I don't view it as exploitation or anything nefarious if everyone knows full well that the AFL have no will to properly enforce the rule. The fact is that the AFL introduced a rule, and have zip desire to properly enforce it, so it's on them to either enforce it or scrap it. My personal preference is to get rid of it entirely and if a team has to play with only 3 (or fewer) on the bench, so be it. It's sport. People get injured.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Not necessarily. Take it to the extreme and offer 12 players on the bench, allowing for a matchday squad of 30 from a pool of 40 on a team's roster. Would you use all of the players on the bench just because you can? Not likely. It's now a balance between quality and running power. At some point, increased running power will come at the expense of footballing prowess. At what number of interchanges does this become an issue...well, that's debatable, but Tom's point is valid. It's certainly more valid than, “I’ll never be good enough to coach Auskick” award.
Nick
Roar Guru
Cause during the 3+1 days there were unlimited interchanges (and then reduced to 120).
Macca
Roar Rookie
The issue with the 12 day wait is an incident like Cameron in round 1. Also Carlton played on Thursday night in round 2 and Sunday afternoon n round 3 - there is plenty of chance to recover in that time. To me you either scrap it or accept that there will be times that there are unusual occurrences, but in 3 rounds we have 7 examples, 2 of which look like clear cut injuries that weren't as bad as first thought, another is Zorko being subbed out which regardless of who is the sub I doubt would turn into being an advantage to the Lions and then Pittonet was taken out with less than 2 minutes to play clearly suffering an injury and may yet not play in round 4. So that leaves Thompson Dow being subbed out of a big Richmond round 2 win and then Skinner and Ratugolea who again may not play this week. I am yet to be convinced the issue is as big as some suggest.