TOPIC:

We lost a key player midway through the second qtr yesterday when Fraser McInnes's game ended with an arm injury. He was one of the best in ground at that point. I asked a Perth official at half time if there is the sub rule in the WAFL. Every other rule filters down to WAFL level, why not the sub rule? He said because sub players could miss out altogether of playing a game.

A good point because at second tier level we usually play reserves on the same day as the league just prior to the league game. So how about this idea which Richmond coach Damian Hardwick suggested a couple of weeks ago. Make it 5 interchange? If you go down a man it's not going to be as big of a disadvantage as losing 1 when when you go down to 3 rotations. 

Hardwick was suggesting it to take away conjecture about whether the player subbed out was a serious injury that would see him miss weeks. 

With 5 interchange everyone is going to get a run. They have reduced interchange from 90 to 75 and that should stay. I assume that has filtered down to WAFL, SANFL, VFL levels.

for the most part I believe our clubs would be supportive of an increase to League level interchange numbers -  besides cover for injury etc it would assist in the development or exposure process of football for players 

it could help the standard of footy rise by having another fresh set of legs

It's where you draw the line, EP lost 2 blokes by the 3rd qtr, so do you then say 6 on the bench to cover 2 lost players, where does it stop. Maybe Clubs can look at one of their ressies that played on the day as the medical sub. 99% of the time the med subs happen after halftime or later so the ressies sub has sufficient time to recover. They would only play limited minutes as the sub.

No..I don't like the idea. As SS says, where does it stop? Considering many years ago there were only 2 players on the bench and no such thing as an interchange I think 4 is more than enough. Plus clubs would have the additional cost of paying a 23 player's salary given ressies don't get paid and league does. It's a physical game, players get hurt, deal with it and move on.

LOL...easy to say that BC when Subi beat an undermanned EP side with only 2 fit fella's on the bench early on.....but yeah hear what you saying, where does it stop?.....swings in roundabouts I reckon over a season.....Subi got hammered with injuries last year which ultimately cost them a top four spot....but that's footy I guess, as you say it's a physical game where injuries during a game are part and parcel of the sport.....

wrote:

No..I don't like the idea. As SS says, where does it stop? Considering many years ago there were only 2 players on the bench and no such thing as an interchange I think 4 is more than enough. Plus clubs would have the additional cost of paying a 23 player's salary given ressies don't get paid and league does. It's a physical game, players get hurt, deal with it and move on.

It's a very strange world we live in now when I agree with SS and BC.  An additional 1, 2 or more players on the interchange bench increases the likelihood that our coaches will continue the trend of having 36 players in one half of the ground that leads to ugly mauls and boring footy.  If I wanted to go and watch that I would go to a rugby game rather than an Aussie Rules game.

It won’t do that at all, most games now end up with an injury which puts a player out of the game and will keep the game as even as possible for longer.
The less players you have for rotations the slower you play if you are in front as it’s too taxing to attack all the time or if you are behind you cook yourselves like what happened to swans on the weekend after getting an injury in the first 5 minutes

wrote:

It won’t do that at all, most games now end up with an injury which puts a player out of the game and will keep the game as even as possible for longer.
The less players you have for rotations the slower you play if you are in front as it’s too taxing to attack all the time or if you are behind you cook yourselves like what happened to swans on the weekend after getting an injury in the first 5 minutes

Unless the team is kicking against a cyclone, in my opinion there is absolutely no reason not to have at least 3 or 4 players in the forward line 100% of the time.  What certainly does slow play down is when a player has the ball in the midfield and he has no players in front of him to kick the ball to.   I defy anyone to assert having 36 players in one half of the ground leads to attractive, open footy.

I think this new "stand" rule will see the ball move more quickly between the 50s and make it absolutely necessary to have attacking players positioned ahead of the ball. If coaches don't have at least 2 in the forward half then when it comes out it will go straight back in.

I dont think we need an additional interchange player but having said that playing one short for 99% of a game is a huge disadvantage like on the weekend when in stifling hot conditions we were one down after only 5 minutes of the season when a SD player Costigan was taken out by a Claremont player ending his day and probably season.
Also back in Rd1 in 2016 Nathan Doc Blakely did his knee at the very first bounce of the season meaning Swans were effectively 1 short for the whole entire game also on a very warm day.