Is an interchange cap in AFL really the answer?

Here's a radical thought .... Why not scrap the interchange rule and just have 4 substitutes - i.e. once a player comes off the ground that's it; he cannot come back on? Now, I realise it's been a while since I closely followed AFL, but I honestly cannot recall there ever being more than 4 injured players in any one team in any game? Perhaps, even have 6 on the bench - but all subs; no interchange. I just don't see the point of having "interchanges"? For me, it's a much better contest to have essentially the same group of players slug it out for the same duration of the match. Of course, it means coaches would actually have to strategise and think before making a switch. If you switch too early in the game - perhaps, to overcome a positional or tactical deficiency - you may run out of options, should players get injured later in the game. The game then become a true test of endurance and tactics - both on and off the field.

If you want your say - visit the AFL website for the survey on the proposals.

Daren - Soccer at inception had no x-bars, allowed fair catches and hadn't nutted out corners until they merged with the lads from Sheffield. Since then - - they haven't tinkered much, a bit of stuff around passive off side, direct and in-direct free kicks etc but they resolutely refuse to do anything about goal-line technology, refuse to do anything about taller, fitter, more athletic goalies guarding the same size goal mouth, or do anything about only a single ref on the pitch with a watch to be both judge and juror on the game, it's adjudication and it's timings. As an example of 'stability' - - soccer is more an example of having been bogged down...........that said, we can understand that the confliction of the global games various confederations and national political agendas makes it hard to effect change. The other 'global' game of Rugby Union - - - they don't change much......oh, except the Stellenbosch ELV's and the way both RU and RL have transformed over the years from games focussed on scoring goals as the major point winner to now where in RL the goal is an after thought, the try is the major point scorer and kicking is a niche skill of absolute specialists. RL is the altimate example - - create a whole new code!!! Adapt and change the rules, get rid of a couple of players. RL in the 4 tackle rule and 5 metre rule, and then a couple of years on the 6 tackle rule.......designed to counteract the negative influence of the coaches and to ensure the opportunities for negative play were eradicated. Over the years they've tinkered constantly with interchange or not and how many, with golden point and extra time or not etc around drawn matches. NOW - - all this said - I'm not saying I support any or many of the current AFL ideas for comment. However - I do assert that the AFL is not on it's own at review the laws of it's game. That doing so is NOT a bad thing. That the AFL ought be commended for opening up it's website on a very regular basis for feedback........go take the survey on the AFL website. What has happened here (re AFL) is that widespread public discussion has been sparked. That's not a bad thing. Far better than a bunch of university academics behind closed doors!! And I agree about leaving the scoring as is. The interchange though - - deserves review. Mainly because it needs to be reviewed as per it's intended purpose. Is it primarily a source of cover for injured players?? It's gone from a single sub (19th man) to 2 subs who then became interchangeable and then Sheedy ensured we got to 4 I/C players and now people have figured that high rotation of those 4 players is a good way to gain a competitive advantage. I guess - - now is the time to work out for sure - - is the great game of Australian football supposed to be about on field rotations in the main?? Resting rover in a frwd pocket on a small defender, resting ruckman in a forward pocket on a tall defender, ruck rovers off the forward flank..........or do we get a more dynamic array of players with 4 free I/C players? Or should it be some mix of free I/C and subs............ I reckon it's a debate worth having. Better now than not at all. That all

In the space of aobut 10 years, the interchanges have gone from around 40 to a number approaching 150 (approx numbers), so we're talking about a huge change in the way the game is played. What have these endless rotations achieved on the field? It has basically allowed for a basketblal/soccer all men behind the ball approach to the game, with players now having the extra puff to run the greater distances to make such a game plan viable (recalling there's a fair bit of field to cover the other way when the turnover comes). That of itself isn't so bad, there remains a massive array of possibilities in the manner in which this rolling defence is set up - an infinite array - and that keeps things interesting. But this is the worst aspect: the ability to cover the extra distance, and an increased average speed has also coincided with an improvement in tackling, and one probably feeds the other - the amount of tackles per game has gone through the roof compared to a decade ago. Ok, tackles are part of the game, but put it all together and it makes for the possibility of the ball being clogged up in rugby style rucks and mauls, with 18 players per side facing each other, the ball sometimes disappearing under a stack of bodies for minutes at a time. Not every game ends up like this, but I've seen enough games like this this season and quite frankly, I don't want any more ending up like that. This isn't intended as a dig at rugby, it is played by a different set of rules, and it's not really what our game is about - the game is at its optimum when a healthy balance between defense and open attacking play is struck - I can't help thinking that reducing the number of rotations is part of the solution. At a minimum, we can at least ensure that the number stays at a similar level to recent years, and doesn't continue mushrooming to some idiotic number.

How do those poor professional sporting leagues outside of Australia manage to go for years, decades even without making any changes to the rules of their games and still generate billions of dollars in income and secure outrageous television rights fees?! Surely the AFL must know something they don't, because the AFL changes the rules of its game each and every year, usually a knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident, sometimes they even change the rules during the season, the same year the lone incident occurred! And amazingly look at what a global financial powerhouse the AFL is. How well respected it is among world sports. How many billions upon billions of dollars it generates each and every year world wide!? .... Soccer, dubbed "The World Game" has pretty much been playing by the same rules since its inception and is the richest, most popular sport on the planet. Running a close second, financially, is the NFL, which has pretty much been playing by the same rules for the past sixty years. Now consider that the NFL evolved, or "grown up" with television in America, making sure it was commercial tv friendly, it has still managed to keep playing by the same rules with one or two changes per decade (most of which were due to advances in technology) while generating embarrassingly high amounts of tv revenue (as well as merchandise) year in and year out. AFL fans like to believe that their game is fast and free flowing, and in theory today's running game is faster than the position style of play of yesteryear, but now it's speed has been its undoing. The referees seem to be constantly blowing their whistles and stopping play. Because the players move so fast the referees can't keep up and continually make errors because they didn't see the play properly and give penalties that didn't happen or don't give penalties that did. The AFL needs to suck it up and adopt instant replay, allowing them to get the calls on the field right, thus negating the need to change the rules every single year. Real Professional sports leagues, don't degrade themselves or their product by changing it every year. Each and every year the AFL degrades and diminishes its product by tampering with it. By changing the rules each and every year they are practically screaming out "Sorry, last year's product was no good, try this one." How would you feel if anything you had in your home, you car, your dishwasher, anything ,was recalled each any every year after being deemed faulty or inadequate by the manufacturer? Andrew Demitriou and Adrian Anderson clearly have no idea what they are doing or how to put a good product on the field and need to be removed. They try to justify their jobs by always being in the media discussing changes to the game. Like a good referee, a good admin should be invisible. Clearly these tow like seeing their names in print and like being on television, they are obviously narcissists. The ALF doesn't need them and would be better off without them. As for this so called rules committee, they should be the keepers of the game. Charged with preserving its integrity, its history and making sure it is fair. PERIOD! That's it, that is all they need to do. The NFL has a rules committee which is made up of past and present players and coaches and team owners and they make decision that are in the best interest of the game, maintaining its integrity while ensuring its future. The AFL rules committee seems to have ADD and can't stop playing with the rules and leave the game alone. Who is on this committee? Let's have them named and shamed publicly for ruining what was once a great game. As for the rule change about scoring goals and behinds if the ball hits the post, rather than going to instant replay (which the networks do instantly and effortlessly) they want to destroy one of the unique traits of AFL. Why would you even consider doing that? Surely the idiot that suggested that has never played the game and does not understand its proud history and traditions! If the AFL changes this rule then surely they MUST review every score sheet of every AFL/VFL game ever played and adjust all of the scores accordingly, changing the outcomes of games where necessary, and stripping/re-awarding premierships accordingly. The AFL scoring system is unique to Aussie rules, it is part of its charm, part of its history and traditions. As many hearts have been broken as dreams have been fulfilled by the kick being either a point or a behind. It is part of the great drama of the game and it is uniquely AFL. This would be like tennis changing its scoring system to 1-2-3-4 Game! It rubbishes the sport's history and all of its rich tradition. The AFL is getting worse by the year. Andrew and Adrian are driving the sport into the dumps. Soon all of the mothers in Australia that they are perpetually pandering to will just pop a skirt on their sons and have them play netball and be done with it, at least the rules are consistent and the mothers understand them. Then what will Anderson and Demitriou do, try to coax them back by allowing their mothers on the field with them? For once, leave the game alone. Let the interchange trend play itself out, leave the scoring the way it has always been. Let the men on the field play the game (and allow them to do so by the same set of rules for several consecutive years and you may be surprised at how good they get at it and how much that will improve the quality of the product on the field). Make the referees accountable, give them better training, make them have to be more fit, and give them the help they need in the form of instant replay from a video ref and lots of camera angles. Put a time limit on the review, and they will only use it when they need it, the refs wont give the game over to the eye in the sky. Most importantly STOP PANICKING! The game was fine ten years ago, it was fine twenty years ago, but twenty years from now, it A&A keep messing with it, it wont even be recognizable as the great game we once knew and loved.

I say leave it as it is, it works fine now, so why change it

I agree with Stephen that the Rules Committee exists currently merely to justify itself. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to get through a year without yet another rule change which, by and large, has been introduced because a previous rule change has been worked out by those smarty coaches and hasn't delivered all the perceived benefits. The interchange is an interesting one. It wasn't all that long ago that there were two "reserves" and if a player was taken off the ground, for any reason, he could not go back on. Two interchanges a game, maximum! Of course, in those days being 19th and 20th man meant just that. Not quite good enough to be in the starting 18 but better than reserve grade. Now, of course, the gun player may start on the bench and then revisit it several times during a match. Like every other "new rule", the coaches found a way to use the concept to advantage. Winning, after all, is everything. All these new rules and interpretations in the last decade or so lead us "watching veterans" to conclude that AFL today is a completely different game to VFL of yesterday. The AFL, of course, follow the view that all change is progress and, therefore, better. If only that were true. Those "watching veterans" now include many who think the game has been ruined and is more like basketball with a funny ball and a longer court. Indeed, it almost seems laughable that the non-contact sport, basketball, now seems to have more contact than AFL football. Anyone would think Adrian Anderson and Andrew D were mothers, worrying about their young lads getting hurt playing that nasty footy game. I just wish the AFL and its damnable Rules Committee would sit down for longer than five minutes, work out what they want to do with the game, do it and then disband the bloody Rules Committee. The AFL might argue that the game must continually evolve. Why? For the fans benefit, for television, for the players? Ah, yes, television. Personally, I'm looking forward to the day the AFL finds a way to play the game without the ball. I think that's half the problem. Funny bounces, unpredictable, slippery little thing. Yep, let's get rid of the ball and maybe then we can start reducing the number of umpires...... Now, that's what I call progress!

Agree that Michael's article is a good read too. I can understand the need to continually analyse the game and improve problem areas. Yes they've got a graph which shows the increase in injuries coinciding with an increase in player speed - but they haven't proved the relationship between the two. And they haven't proven what's sped the game up. It wouldn't be the interchange alone. It's obvious the AFL has gotten faster. Clubs are looking for athletic ability as much as the natural skills of the game - surely Anthony Rocca's retirement would've driven up player speed! I read recently the Dogs and Pies are two of the teams using the interchange most yet have relatively good injury lists - the Pies in particular have been extremely fortunate the last two years. I think it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction. And I don't like how fans get to have a say in this. If there is a serious problem and interchanges are the cause - they should find the best solution and implement it - not us. They shouldn't be afraid of public opinion if it will improve the game.

I more reckon 3 plus 2 subs or 2 plus 2. Reducing the number of players available for rotation, but, not reducing the capacity to cover for injuries.

Not really convinced the AFL has evidence either way re injuries more likely with more rotations or vice versa. I think the issue is congestion around the ball. It's a not major problem in every game, but some coaches (Mick Malthouse in particular) put too many numbers around the ball which lessens the spectacle. Fans like the one on one match ups, players in position competing as the ball hits their part of the ground, not a rolling mess of players with uncertain holding the ball intepretations making it difficult to hang onto the hot potato and get clean possession. The game is at its best when it opens up and flows. It's why people like watching Geelong, Melbourne, Essendon, Richmond, even Hawthorn of late. Collingwood , St Kilda and the Bulldogs shut the game down with too many players chasing the pill. I voted for 3 interchanges and 1 sub. I figure the cap is too difficult to get across the line, but 3 interchange instead of 4 creates a natural cap on rotations off the bench. I'm not totally against the idea of forcing teams to keep a number of players inside their defensive and offensive 50, how it would work is difficult, but some form of offside may stop 'some' AFL coaches taking advantage.

Enjoyed your article, thanks. The major problem is that if a body like a rule changes committee exists, it must justify its existence. Hence, the continual experimentation and ill-considered proposals (the recent hysteria over drawn games and footballs hitting the post being examples). As a lawyer, Adrian Anderson is likely to approach the game with a degree of nuance and complexity that is not always helpful. The AFL seems to be annoyed whenever what it seeks to achieve in the game by fiddling with its rules (e.g. hands in the back) is defeated, as it sees it, by coaches that have the gall to try to get an advantage over an opponent within the rules. The AFL redoubles its efforts and changes the rules again. But rules are always subject to interpretation and teams will always try to gain an advantage--that's why it is called a 'competition'. If the frequent use of the interchange bench increases injury, why has it been used to manage older players (e.g. Daicos, Buckley. Harvey, Hird etc.) to extend their careers? The proposed change to the rule about goals having to miss the posts is even worse!