I also agree that the immediate on-field impact of interchanges is one of the great unstudied phenomena of the game. Not sure how you could possibly measure whether a bloke might have impacted the play had he not been blindly heading towards the interchange area, but it must be pretty significant.

AT any rate, I reckon 2 + 3 subs would get us back to on field rotations.

3 + 2 wouold be more the compromise of the existing system. You get the extra injury cover, but, the cost is one less free interchange.

Personally, I don’t much like what I regard as over use of interchange at present. I still reckon for every goal scored the coaches can claim credit, that they concede one the other way when making so many changes and being at time 2 or 3 short out in the field of play. 2 weeks ago, Brent Harvey was coming off injured (play not stopped and not able to be replaced until over the boundary). At the same time North pulled a I/C move with a player coming from the far side of the ground. Effectively for a reasonable period of time, we were 2 down. Surely they have the sense to hold off until the injured man has been replaced?? Surely they can be flexible and use common sense………..nah!!!, ‘course not.

These days, the modern AFL coach hides behind too much sports science, players are pre-programmed to come on and off during the game. They might as well be robots.

“. interchange facilitates fresh running midfielders and defensive flooding”

Art has alluded to is his post, footy is best played at full attack speed not in congested ball ups because 20 players are in old fashioned speak “on the ball”. interchange facilties fresh running midfielders and defensive flooding. Watch how St kilda are playing, the entire team is running around the ground chasing or correlling the ball.

Whereas we at Essendon go straight down the middle, no guts no glory.

Redb

It cheapens the game when you have 100 interchanges by one team in a game if football.
I would have six substitutes on the bench. If you go off be it for injury or tactics you stay off.

This would be a truer test for player and coach alike.

The result of this will be more man on man footy which is what made AFL great to begin with.

Why is the game less likely to get clogged without substitutes? Surely fresher players will mean quicker ball movement?

Assuming that four on the interchange is here to stay (there’s no way coaches will want to go backwards on that one), then the additional two emergencies available as permanent subs has a lot of appeal to it (much better than allowing an inujured player to remain on the ground to maintain numbers).

Redb, agree that a full six players isn’t the way to go. It’s more than we need, and even then, if injuries occur there would still be inbalance between the two teams! The 4+2, however, is designed more for the purpose of limiting the impact of injuries.

Kazama, like the idea about the rookies. I think fringe players should also get a chance, but I agree that attempts to exploit such a system should be stamped out.

Clogged up herds of players around the ball and flooding defensive games can also be pretty boring to watch.

Redb

That said, I don’t mind the idea of the emergencies being available throughout the game. I mean, if they can come in for a player who is injured 5 minutes before the first bounce, why shouldn’t they be able to come in for someone who’s injured 5 minutes after the bounce?

The problem here of course is that an injury could inadvertently lead to an advantage by being able to bring in a fresh player, thereby actually disadvantaging the opposition. Perhaps the best way to avoid this would be that if a team does have to replace a player due to injury, the opposition automatically then gains the right to fully replace a player at any time for the rest of the match regardless of injury.

Thoughts?

A test of endurance and survival of the fittest is often pretty boring to watch.

To stop teams exploiting the rule by having experienced guys (e.g. Port may have had Josh Carr as a sub last week) waiting to come on fresh in the last quarter for a spent player, perhaps teams should only allowed to have rookie-listed players as their subs. That way teams would only substitiute if desperate or winning comfortably.

Redb

If players are vomiting and hyperventilating now, won’t that become worse if a 6-man bench is bought in?? Having extra fresh players isn’t going to slow the game down..

Now that clubs have almost perfected the art of using a rotating interchange bench to freshen up players, a couple of injuries at the start of a game is a bigger handicap than ever.

Substitutes would even it up somewhat. Might also generate a bit more excitement near the end of some games as a couple of fresh running players come on.