Breust's knockout suggests need for interchange rule

The AFL, more than any other other domestic code, has an obsession with rule changes.

Some make perfect sense, whether at the time or in hindsight, others frustrate both fan and player alike, others come with some really unexpected results.

One rule which could very easily do the latter while agitating the purists and blending into the game for the better is a subtle change in the interchange law.

Before you call for my head, this rule change has nothing to do with the number of men on the bench. It has nothing to do with the number of substitutes, and certainly has nothing to do with capping rotations.

But it could potentially save a career, or even a life.

The in-vogue tactic of throwing a player into the game when the ball is in the vicinity of the interchange gates can be a damaging one, essentially giving teams an extra number at the contest from nowhere.

But in this weekend’s Hawthorn versus Adelaide game at the MCG, we saw this tactic used with a rather unfortunate effect, as young sharpshooter Luke Breust was KO’d by the freshly interchanged Brodie Martin.

The sickening collision saw Breust, who had been enjoying a purple patch of form up until that point, stretchered from the ground and clearly not in the same time-zone as the club doctors.

In the time it took for the Hawk doctors to remove him safely from the game, Dennis Commetti, that great font of knowledge and great man of Western Australian sporting personalities, outlined two ideas which could conceivably remove this risk from the game.

His plans involved either limiting the entry point of players into the game to a point when the ball is not near the interchange gates, or only allowing the interchange after a goal is scored.

For mine, the former is the most practical and easiest to police in-game, and a reasonably elegant and well thought-out option for the administrators to think about.

Now I am a footy purist, and do think the amount of rule changes in the highest level of our game is reaching a ludicrous level. Knee-jerk reactions to incidents are no model for progress in any venture, and the game must be allowed to evolve naturally and self regulate.

The aforementioned tactic of throwing fresh players straight into the fray isn’t necessarily a damaging one and does not prompt the phrase used to convey concern over grey areas, negative tactics, or outright dangerous methods, “What if it happens in a grand final?”

Having said that, I couldn’t help but think further on the repercussions of Dennis’s idea, and the potential repercussions of such a rule change.

For one thing it would remove the risk of such an injury occurring again. Players coming from the bench have the natural advantage of being able to see the game and the flight of the ball clearly, allowing a free run at the contest, as Martin had. Unfortunately other players in the game don’t necessarily have such a clear view, as was the unfortunate case of Breust.

Injury concerns aside however, I believe such a tactic could conceivably change the face of the game.

Imagine limiting the interchanges to the window after a goal, with no cap on the amount of players coming on or going off the ground.

Whole lines of players could be recycled effectively, with no concerns over leaving one line under strength in the time it takes one player or more to leave the ground.

An entire forward line reshuffle in the blink of an eye.

Tall to small backlines instantly.

It happens today, yes, but we would see gradual rolling changes transform into dramatic changes within a few games!

Imagine coming back from an ad break to see your team’s forward line is unrecognizable to the one you just saw score a goal?

I’m not advocating the rule change – the AFL rules committee are over-worked as it is in my opinion – but remember it’s always fun to pretend, and perhaps the next major issue of concern which will arise after the Luke Breust’s knock-out is the timing of interchange players.