Interchange for Ressies (or B teams)

[Captain Obvious]

Lots of "nos" but as the realthing pointed out, still no really strong justifications as to why not !

LOTG

[swannsong]

Lots of "nos" but as the realthing pointed out, still no really strong justifications as to why not !

LOTG

LOTG are constantly evolving, not a real justification against a proposal...easy reply requiring little thought and very little lateral thinking.

[90mins]

no - why bother

[swannsong]

no - why bother

Why not ?

[Bomber]

Lots of "nos" but as the realthing pointed out, still no really strong justifications as to why not !

Ok, am a bit of a traditionalist in many ways. Many I know that play "B" team amateurs still take it fairly seriously, be it they are striving for first team, or otherwise doing the best for the club. I find these people that play the game feel similarly, in that they want to win on their own accord and that the "FIFA" normal rules allow as much as possible, thus giving further credibility to their involvement.
Bottom line, interchange is not allowed in, probably, 99% of senior leagues around the globe. Our game is unique in that we have as much uniformity in the game as possible (ie offside law, backpass laws, etc etc).
Coaches need to weigh up who they have on their bench, and risk accordingly, part and parcel of the beauty of sport I would imagine.
Having interchange would alter the "norm of thinking" and take away from the basics of the sport as a competition.
Like I said, keep it for pre-season trial games or kids games, where giving "everyone a decent run" is more the focus.

[swannsong]

Lots of "nos" but as the realthing pointed out, still no really strong justifications as to why not !

Ok, am a bit of a traditionalist in many ways. Many I know that play "B" team amateurs still take it fairly seriously, be it they are striving for first team, or otherwise doing the best for the club. I find these people that play the game feel similarly, in that they want to win on their own accord and that the "FIFA" normal rules allow as much as possible, thus giving further credibility to their involvement.
Bottom line, interchange is not allowed in, probably, 99% of senior leagues around the globe. Our game is unique in that we have as much uniformity in the game as possible (ie offside law, backpass laws, etc etc).
Coaches need to weigh up who they have on their bench, and risk accordingly, part and parcel of the beauty of sport I would imagine.
Having interchange would alter the "norm of thinking" and take away from the basics of the sport as a competition.
Like I said, keep it for pre-season trial games or kids games, where giving "everyone a decent run" is more the focus.

I still don't see how it would alter tha game any more than some of the recent changes (by recent I mean during my time )...substitutes were only introduced in 1958 (the year I was born), red & yellow cards introduced 12 years later in 1970, no passing back to the keeper, last man send off, removing the four step rule for goalkeepers, not offside if in line with last defender, not offside unless interfering with play, introduction of the "technical area", 6 second rule for keepers...probably more that I haven't remembered.
I wouldn't agree with unlimited interchanges...but wouldn't be against it if there were some sort of cap on how many could be made ( still only 3 off the bench for me. )

[Caretaker Coach]

Interchange would not hurt, and it is only an option - it is upto the coaches whether they use it or not, not like the rule says you have to use interchange. As a coach you can still just make your substitutions if you wanted to stay with that format. Would need to be some sort of restriction ?
Which brings me to another question, in the other sports that have interchange, do teams have to use it ? are they allowed to play a half or quarter without making any changes ?

[Ernie Cooksey]

I say no.
To introduce interchange at the higher levels of the game would change it dramatically.
I think if it's about giving lads a run, then lift the number allowed on the bench in the c's. There are obviously 11 players in front of these lads in the queue for a frst team gig anyway.
If it's about getting a breather, then the answer is to work harder on fitness.
If you are going to do it for rezzies, then it has to be done for the first teams also, I think.
If not, then you want your rezzies players to be fully match fit for when they get the eventual tap on the shoulder from the first team coach, not burn out or fade towards the final minutes of a game. Train all you like, match fitness at a decent level is something else.
From a coaching point of view in the rezzies, even with 3 substitutions available you feel obliged to give lads a run, and at times you make changes that you don't really want to for the interest of winning the game, but there is always that pressure. First team coaches can be forgiven for not doing so, but the rezzies winning and keeping lads happy and at the club is something the b coach has to find a balance with.
Imagine all the criticism for not using interchange if it was available. Especially if the rezzies coach is trying to lift the match fitness of some players for first team gigs after injuries etc. where they might be puffing a little more than usual.

[swannsong]

I say no.
To introduce interchange at the higher levels of the game would change it dramatically.
I think if it's about giving lads a run, then lift the number allowed on the bench in the c's. There are obviously 11 players in front of these lads in the queue for a frst team gig anyway.
If it's about getting a breather, then the answer is to work harder on fitness.
If you are going to do it for rezzies, then it has to be done for the first teams also, I think.
If not, then you want your rezzies players to be fully match fit for when they get the eventual tap on the shoulder from the first team coach, not burn out or fade towards the final minutes of a game. Train all you like, match fitness at a decent level is something else.
From a coaching point of view in the rezzies, even with 3 substitutions available you feel obliged to give lads a run, and at times you make changes that you don't really want to for the interest of winning the game, but there is always that pressure. First team coaches can be forgiven for not doing so, but the rezzies winning and keeping lads happy and at the club is something the b coach has to find a balance with.
Imagine all the criticism for not using interchange if it was available. Especially if the rezzies coach is trying to lift the match fitness of some players for first team gigs after injuries etc. where they might be puffing a little more than usual.

How would it change the game "dramatically" ?.... Still only three substitutes who can be brought off and possibly put back on again ( with limitations )... I don't see any huge drama in that....any right minded coach would still have his strongest side on the park for as long as possible.
What if you have made all you substitutions and lose a player (or 2 ) to injury...? Should a team be penalised for an injury (that may have been caused by the opposition).
I think most seem to be against the idea because of "tradition" reasons.

[Stitch That]

in the other sports that have interchange, do teams have to use it ? are they allowed to play a half or quarter without making any changes ?

The only two I know are afl and basketball and both are crap.

[swannsong]

in the other sports that have interchange, do teams have to use it ? are they allowed to play a half or quarter without making any changes ?

The only two I know are afl and basketball and both are crap.

Rugby, NFL, Volleyball, Cricket (fielding only)...

[Stitch That]

Crap, crap, crap; and cricket has restrictions with it's 'interchange'.

[swannsong]

Crap, crap, crap; and cricket has restrictions with it's 'interchange'.

They're all crap obviously...that's why we follow (and play) football.
Not necessarily crap solely due to interchanging players.

[The real thing]

I think you would have to limit the number of players to 14, otherwise anything upto a whole "A" team could replace the ressies at some stage to get a win & also to use it as a warm up for the "A" game.

[Ernie Cooksey]

I say no.
To introduce interchange at the higher levels of the game would change it dramatically.
I think if it's about giving lads a run, then lift the number allowed on the bench in the c's. There are obviously 11 players in front of these lads in the queue for a frst team gig anyway.
If it's about getting a breather, then the answer is to work harder on fitness.
If you are going to do it for rezzies, then it has to be done for the first teams also, I think.
If not, then you want your rezzies players to be fully match fit for when they get the eventual tap on the shoulder from the first team coach, not burn out or fade towards the final minutes of a game. Train all you like, match fitness at a decent level is something else.
From a coaching point of view in the rezzies, even with 3 substitutions available you feel obliged to give lads a run, and at times you make changes that you don't really want to for the interest of winning the game, but there is always that pressure. First team coaches can be forgiven for not doing so, but the rezzies winning and keeping lads happy and at the club is something the b coach has to find a balance with.
Imagine all the criticism for not using interchange if it was available. Especially if the rezzies coach is trying to lift the match fitness of some players for first team gigs after injuries etc. where they might be puffing a little more than usual.

How would it change the game "dramatically" ?.... Still only three substitutes who can be brought off and possibly put back on again ( with limitations )... I don't see any huge drama in that....any right minded coach would still have his strongest side on the park for as long as possible.
What if you have made all you substitutions and lose a player (or 2 ) to injury...? Should a team be penalised for an injury (that may have been caused by the opposition).
I think most seem to be against the idea because of "tradition" reasons.

I can imagine after a while, the game would change. Imagine the difference in the tactics and the speed of the game. (Imagine what would happen in Aussie Rules if they weren't allowed to sit on the bench half a dozen times during the game. I reckon it would slow down considerably, on ballers and midfielders would need to become superhuman to maintain the same pace all game.)
You could pick a bench of midfielders and change one at a time every 5 minutes. & imagine the time spent doing so if they were to be done at stoppages. Free kick against you outside your box, make a sub so they can't take it quickly. Free kick in your own half, opposition makes a sub so you can't catch them on the break. I think the higher the level of football that interchange is introduced, the more it would change the game. That's what I reckon anyway.
Other rule changes mentioned (backpass, substitutes etc.) have been in the interest of the sport itself and applied pretty much to all levels, not in the interest of a small pocket of amateur players at reserve level in one state of one country.

[swannsong]

I say no.
To introduce interchange at the higher levels of the game would change it dramatically.
I think if it's about giving lads a run, then lift the number allowed on the bench in the c's. There are obviously 11 players in front of these lads in the queue for a frst team gig anyway.
If it's about getting a breather, then the answer is to work harder on fitness.
If you are going to do it for rezzies, then it has to be done for the first teams also, I think.
If not, then you want your rezzies players to be fully match fit for when they get the eventual tap on the shoulder from the first team coach, not burn out or fade towards the final minutes of a game. Train all you like, match fitness at a decent level is something else.
From a coaching point of view in the rezzies, even with 3 substitutions available you feel obliged to give lads a run, and at times you make changes that you don't really want to for the interest of winning the game, but there is always that pressure. First team coaches can be forgiven for not doing so, but the rezzies winning and keeping lads happy and at the club is something the b coach has to find a balance with.
Imagine all the criticism for not using interchange if it was available. Especially if the rezzies coach is trying to lift the match fitness of some players for first team gigs after injuries etc. where they might be puffing a little more than usual.

How would it change the game "dramatically" ?.... Still only three substitutes who can be brought off and possibly put back on again ( with limitations )... I don't see any huge drama in that....any right minded coach would still have his strongest side on the park for as long as possible.
What if you have made all you substitutions and lose a player (or 2 ) to injury...? Should a team be penalised for an injury (that may have been caused by the opposition).
I think most seem to be against the idea because of "tradition" reasons.

I can imagine after a while, the game would change. Imagine the difference in the tactics and the speed of the game. (Imagine what would happen in Aussie Rules if they weren't allowed to sit on the bench half a dozen times during the game. I reckon it would slow down considerably, on ballers and midfielders would need to become superhuman to maintain the same pace all game.)
You could pick a bench of midfielders and change one at a time every 5 minutes. & imagine the time spent doing so if they were to be done at stoppages. Free kick against you outside your box, make a sub so they can't take it quickly. Free kick in your own half, opposition makes a sub so you can't catch them on the break. I think the higher the level of football that interchange is introduced, the more it would change the game. That's what I reckon anyway.
Other rule changes mentioned (backpass, substitutes etc.) have been in the interest of the sport itself and applied pretty much to all levels, not in the interest of a small pocket of amateur players at reserve level in one state of one country.

As I have said several times...only interchange if there were some capping....3 players only available...limit number of times returning to the field....wouldn't want unlimited changes.
PS - who said only a small pocket of amateur level are interested ?
Still can't "imagine" a huge difference....games I have been involved in where interchange has been allowed have not demonstrated any of the scenarios you have put forward.
What coach would seriously pick a bench of midfielders... ?

[God is an Englishman]

As I have said several times...only interchange if there were some capping....3 players only available...limit number of times returning to the field....wouldn't want unlimited changes.
PS - who said only a small pocket of amateur level are interested ?
Still can't "imagine" a huge difference....games I have been involved in where interchange has been allowed have not demonstrated any of the scenarios you have put forward.
What coach would seriously pick a bench of midfielders... ?

I assume these were pre season games. I imagine it would become "more serious" in a league match.

You could keep a free kick specialist on the bench.

[Ernie Cooksey]

I thought that was what was being suggested, interchange for SAASL reserves. Surely nobody is suggesting it being applied to a broader scope.
As for it not changing the game, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, I can just see tactics changing/evolving if applied for good. Maybe I am over thinking the idea or deep down holding on to traditionalist views, I don't know, I guess only doing it will prove it.

[Ga Pala]

Interchange is wrong . It changes the fabric of the game far too much .

[swannsong]

Interchange is wrong . It changes the fabric of the game far too much .

Here we go again....skins have changed the fabric more !
In the 45 years I have been involved in the game the fabric has changed many times, leather water sodden balls to plastic coated vinyl balls, cotton gloves (or no gloves) to the special grip gloves they use now, lightweight boots, the rules I have already mentioned....etc. etc.

[Paleon Patros Germanos]

What capping on interchange do you propose Swansong?

[swannsong]

What capping on interchange do you propose Swansong?

I would have envisaged still the same number on the bench (as per substitutes) only 3 substitutes or interchange players to be used (really just believe that players substituted should be able to come back on)...originally listed player and or interchange only allowed to re-enter play 2-3 times during the game.
As I have said previously...I am not proposing the change, or for the change....but I would not have any opposition to the change.
Don't really see what the big issue with it is :?

[God is an Englishman]

Wth 87 subs now being allowed to be named for a premier league game, how far away is interchange from the modern professional game?

[sirstevieg]

Works really well with the O35's but can't see this working for the A's & B's...

There would be a lot of time wasting!

[Fact Hunt]

To introduce interchange at the higher levels of the game would change it dramatically.

True but we are talking about amateur football in South Australia.

[The General]

they even use it in tag team wrestling, and fine cotton wished they had the interchange rule for horse racing.

[Caretaker Coach]

If its used properly can be good for the game, probably speed it up a bit more, maybe less chance of players getting injured ?

[Outlaw 2.0]

Maybe for Div 3 and below where the clubs are less likely to have a C team but otherwise I'm a no.

Otherwise this....

Works really well with the O35's and C's but can't see this working for the A's & B's...

There would be a lot of time wasting!

It does work very well in pre season friendlies when the reward is to get as much game time into players legs as possible, when points are on the line coaches will find a way to exploit it.

[God is an Englishman]

Lots of "nos" but as the realthing pointed out, still no really strong justifications as to why not !

LOTG

The LOTG not matter in C grade and Over 35's then?

[God is an Englishman]

Picture this game, it's 1-0 and there's 2 minutes to play, the team winning need to win the game to win the league and it's 2:48pm.

Now the B's have to be off the pitch at 2:50, as a coach I would make an "interchange" at EVERY stoppage.