1. I think the sub rule was a good way to even the game in the event of injuries and I'd like to see it back in that format.
2. When you look at it through that lens the rule is very consistently applied and well understood by the players.
1. Agree the rule was fine, but pointed out it was very hard on the sub player. I think a concussion sub is a great idea, but tweek it to protect the sub player??
2. disagree its consistently applied but dont blame the umps, I blame the rule maker. barristers use 'intent' as a euphemism for Maseratis and beach houses.
plus, its important to understand I was commenting from a grassroots level as well. A lot of people (in AFL house) forget that these rules get applied to kids.
I havnt got words that capture the true absurdity of watching a 13 year old kid in her first game of AFL, getting planted in a back pocket, and getting pinned for DOB by a 12 yo umpire, after she dropped her first ever kick from above her head and just caught a boot stud.
the same will happen with the no movement mark rule. They feed kids red frogs at 1/4 time these days. imagine trying to get them to stand still on the mark?