Sub Rule is madness - Mick

[filthy2]

=D> (BTW...do we have a Science Division )

Mick Malthouse again slams the sub rule Michael Horan From: Herald Sun August 01, 2011 12:00AM

ESSENDON was slaughtered by the "madness" of a rule that gave it no chance of stealing a shock win over reigning premier Collingwood at the MCG.

The unlikely defender of the Bombers' sad surrender, when their five-goal lead a minute into the second term morphed into a 74-point defeat in front of 73,163 fans, was Magpie coach Mick Malthouse.

Malthouse again slammed the substitute rule, which was introduced at the start of the season, saying that Essendon was denied the chance to capitalise on its early domination after it lost Brent Prismall and Travis Colyer to serious injuries in the opening term.

"It slaughtered them; it slaughtered Essendon," Malthouse said, highlighting the fact that Kyle Hardingham and David Zaharakis had to play hurt for much of the game to give their side some sort of rotation off the bench.

"You're not going to win a lot of games - and we probably had our warmest day for two months, maybe more - and their third (interchange) player was not only injured, but constantly replaced by an injured player," Malthouse said.

"I'm not here to stick up for Jimmy Hird or anyone like that, but clearly they had two or three players who were coming on and off and battling to stay out there."

Essendon exploded with an eight-goal first term but tumbled against the the relentless Magpies from half-time onwards to the tune of 100 points to 20.

"I'm not saying we wouldn't have won the game, all I'm saying is the blowout margin is unfair on Essendon," Malthouse said, arguing that the modern game demands at least four, probably five interchange.

"Fairness is supposed to be one of (the reasons) we introduced this madness of the 22nd player (substitute).

"Today was a clear illustration of the ramifications of not having more interchange players."

The Pies' coach has said that the club's science division has been gathering evidence against the substitute rule's reduction to a three-man interchange and the impact it was having injury-wise. He reiterated his hope that collectively the AFL clubs will force change.

"When the science divisions of each club no doubt formulate what has transpired, then something will probably be looked at and addressed, one would suspect," he said.

"I just think it was pretty tough on Essendon.

"I was delighted to get back into the game; it was a 100-point turnaround, I think.

" Does that make it a great game? It probably will statistically, it probably will in the record books, but being there on the day, reality wise, they (Essendon) couldn't get away from the fact that two of their running players were no longer available and a couple of others were struggling.

"I don't want to rob our players of it, but we were assisted by their injuries."

[Rover 7]

How many do you keep adding.One,two three.Soon he'll want an extra team on the bench.
With our injury record it would just make an already long injury list even longer.
Heard him saying during the week that the 70's game was a game of drafts whereas today it's chess.Maybe he thinks he's got more chess pieces than anyone else rather than sympathy for Hird.
It's a real dilemma but some of the tackling that happens these days is half the problem.Bordering on illegal and dangerous and Collingwood have perfected it.
Allowing ugly packs to develop is plague on the game and a boon for strong bodies players.
We all know where the remedy lies for that.

[Windy_Hill]

To me the obvious rule is 4 interchange players and a sub. So if one player is injured, you can actually being another fresh player into the game (the proviso being that the injured player cannot play the following week)

The new rule was meant to reduce player injuries - guess what - epic fail!!

[bombercol]

The AFL would argue that this year it has given us a better brand of game.

THe only change I'd make would be that if you had substituted out a fit player and then subsequently you get an injury that ends a players game then the fit subbed out player should then be allowed to return and the injured boy becomes the subbed out player instead.

If you have two or more crook players that can't come back, well really it's just bad luck isn't it? Teams have had to play with that for years and years, I can't see the sub rule being to blame for two injured boys.

[Windy_Hill]

The AFL would argue that this year it has given us a better brand of game.

THe only change I'd make would be that if you had substituted out a fit player and then subsequently you get an injury that ends a players game then the fit subbed out player should then be allowed to return and the injured boy becomes the subbed out player instead.

If you have two or more crook players that can't come back, well really it's just bad luck isn't it? Teams have had to play with that for years and years, I can't see the sub rule being to blame for two injured boys.

I think it probably cost us a win vs Carlton and defintiely contributed to the margin yesterday. thats 2 points and percentage - that could cost us a place in the finals

[MH_Bomber]

Well I tend to agree with Malthouse on the overall effect it is having on playing lists. Have a look at our injury list and some other clubs and you will find very long injury list to first 22 players. It seems like every game there is someone going down with a major injury. Overall fatigue caused by playing AFL at the elite level seems to be contributing to the likelihood of injury.

[swoodley]

The suggestion that the sub rule had any impact on us losing yesterday or against Carlton is complete and utter bullshit!!!!!

The difference between last year and this year is that instead of four interchange players, we now have three plus the sub.

Last year, if someone suffered a serious injury (like Prismall yesterday), we were down a player with three left on the bench.

This is exactly what happened yesterday so I'm struggling to see the difference.

The only difference the sub rule made yesterday was it stopped Malthouse having the freedom to rotate four players through the bench all day.

So please let's dispense with the hysteria of the sub rule "costing" us the game (or even contributing to the loss).

Injuries had a significant impact on our ability to run the game out and the sub rule didn't.

Malthouse is just trying to use it to further his battle with the AFL.

[jimmyc1985]

Malthouse is just trying to use it to further his battle with the AFL.

I think that about sums it up.

We were screwed yesterday with or without the sub rule - in either case, we had 2 fit men on the bench for 3 quarters of footy, which makes it extremely difficult to remain competitive in the second half.

[Ossie]

The suggestion that the sub rule had any impact on us losing yesterday or against Carlton is complete and utter bullshit!!!!!

The difference between last year and this year is that instead of four interchange players, we now have three plus the sub.

Last year, if someone suffered a serious injury (like Prismall yesterday), we were down a player with three left on the bench.

This is exactly what happened yesterday so I'm struggling to see the difference.

When one man goes down injured it doesn't matter. When that becomes two though you are f***** - they have one extra rotation on the bench, and a fresh man to bring on later as well.
The difference occured when Colyer went down (then Zaharakis with his elbow, then Hardingham with his corkie, who had to be sent back out there injured).
Look at the rotations - in the second half it was something like 60 to 30.

[filthy2]

Malthouse is just trying to use it to further his battle with the AFL.

I think that about sums it up.

We were screwed yesterday with or without the sub rule - in either case, we had 2 fit men on the bench for 3 quarters of footy, which makes it extremely difficult to remain competitive in the second half.

Jim we were 4 down.....2 were walking wounded....2 weren't.

Add 10 out......

[jimmyc1985]

Malthouse is just trying to use it to further his battle with the AFL.

I think that about sums it up.

We were screwed yesterday with or without the sub rule - in either case, we had 2 fit men on the bench for 3 quarters of footy, which makes it extremely difficult to remain competitive in the second half.

Jim we were 4 down.....2 were walking wounded....2 weren't.

Add 10 out......

Yeah, i know Hardingham was injured in the 3rd and probably shouldn't have gone back on, but i wouldn't count Zaharakis or Myers' injuries as impinging on their ability to run the game out.

They had a few out, too - Shaw (self-inflicted, but still), Thomas, Didak, Toovey, Brown and Dawes are all in their best 22. We just don't have the depth yet to cover more than 2-3 injuries. I have thought about how our list is going to look heading into the 2013 season (ridiculous to be thinking 18 months ahead, I know, but amusing anyway) and I suspect that all of Fletcher, Hille, Williams, McVeigh, Welsh, NLM, Prismall, Slattery and Davey will be gone by then. We will have a young & pretty lean list by then, Winderlich and Watson will be our oldest players (28) and the ‘senior’ group will be guys like Monfries, Stanton, Lonergan, Dempsey, Hocking & Ryder aged 25-27. That will make us one of the younger lists in the comp, and hopefully by then we’re at least starting to look like a serious team.

[swoodley]

The suggestion that the sub rule had any impact on us losing yesterday or against Carlton is complete and utter bullshit!!!!!

The difference between last year and this year is that instead of four interchange players, we now have three plus the sub.

Last year, if someone suffered a serious injury (like Prismall yesterday), we were down a player with three left on the bench.

This is exactly what happened yesterday so I'm struggling to see the difference.

When one man goes down injured it doesn't matter. When that becomes two though you are f***** - they have one extra rotation on the bench, and a fresh man to bring on later as well.
The difference occured when Colyer went down (then Zaharakis with his elbow, then Hardingham with his corkie, who had to be sent back out there injured).
Look at the rotations - in the second half it was something like 60 to 30.

But the extra rotations still would have been there under last year's rules....the sub rule is not responsible for the injuries we sustained yesterday....it didn't cause the injuries and it didn't cause our restricted ability to rotate players.

Sub rule or not, once you have injuries like we did yesterday. you're always going to be under the pump.

Collingwood had the ability to maintain their rotations because they had no injuries....that was the difference...not the sub rule.

[Ossie]

The suggestion that the sub rule had any impact on us losing yesterday or against Carlton is complete and utter bullshit!!!!!

The difference between last year and this year is that instead of four interchange players, we now have three plus the sub.

Last year, if someone suffered a serious injury (like Prismall yesterday), we were down a player with three left on the bench.

This is exactly what happened yesterday so I'm struggling to see the difference.

When one man goes down injured it doesn't matter. When that becomes two though you are f***** - they have one extra rotation on the bench, and a fresh man to bring on later as well.
The difference occured when Colyer went down (then Zaharakis with his elbow, then Hardingham with his corkie, who had to be sent back out there injured).
Look at the rotations - in the second half it was something like 60 to 30.

But the extra rotations still would have been there under last year's rules....the sub rule is not responsible for the injuries we sustained yesterday....it didn't cause the injuries and it didn't cause our restricted ability to rotate players.

Sub rule or not, once you have injuries like we did yesterday. you're always going to be under the pump.

Collingwood had the ability to maintain their rotations because they had no injuries....that was the difference...not the sub rule.

No, I know mate - I'm agreeing with you.
What I will say about the sub though is that if you bring them on very early, like we did, that player's impact is substantially decreased compared to a sub who comes on with say a quarter left, because in the last quarter he's fresh as a daisy and everyone else is rooted.
I did an interview with Lovett-Murray earlier in the season where he talked about being the sub for the first few games, and he said there was a noticeable difference when he came on. He said he felt like he could run straight past people who were tired - and Nat Rat ain't that quick!

[j-mac31]

I'm with Swoodley. 3 + sub keeps it more even if there's an early injury than simply having 4 interchange players.

I like the more open games we get this year.

What I will say about the sub though is that if you bring them on very early, like we did, that player's impact is substantially decreased compared to a sub who comes on with say a quarter left, because in the last quarter he's fresh as a daisy and everyone else is rooted.
I did an interview with Lovett-Murray earlier in the season where he talked about being the sub for the first few games, and he said there was a noticeable difference when he came on. He said he felt like he could run straight past people who were tired - and Nat Rat ain't that quick!

That's true, but ultimately the sub rule still provides an advantage to a team that suffers an early injury, compared to only having interchange players on the bench.

[dom_105]

I guess if you are looking for a system that is fairer, this one isn't a lot fairer.

If you lose one player early on, you will be behind the 8 ball from that point on. It's still going to be 21 against 22. Last year's rule wouldn't have helped, but more reserve players would have helped yesterday. I think that's what Mick was hinting at.

[BenDoolan]

I'm with Woody on this one.

[robbie67]

The "fairest" solution would be 3 subs + 3 interchange. Wont happen though. The AFL loves variance, and want luck to be as big a factor as possible.

[robrulz5]

No doubt having to introduce a sub early in a game due to an injury is a disadvantage, the other teams sub will be able to work harder for a larger percentage of their game time.