Interchange cap will make for better spectacle

And what about the known fact that, in any sport or physical activity, more injuries occur when the player/person is tired? Plus, can you guarantee that an interchange cap will definitely, without question cause more one on one play? Of course, you can't. No one can. To say so is to engage in speculation. You hit the nail on the head with the first words of your second paragraph, "the AFL tinkers too much with the game". Stop, already. In any sport, once coaches identify a "problem", they devise strategies to counter it and the game evolves without rule changes. Leave the game alone and let the coaches deal with the so-called problem of too many interchange moves.

How much energy does a player expend when he sprints 20-30 metres (or sometimes a lot more) to get to the interchange zone during a stoppage? Less interchages might actually save the players some energy.

My opinion is that a interchange capping or indeed scrapping will make for a better game, but TBH that is just a guess, no-one really knows for sure. For anyone who is interested here is a time line of subsitutes/reserves and interchange. In the VFL/AFL, the number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line: •Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played with 17 on the field (19 prior to 1899) if a player was injured. •1930 – the introduction of a single substitute •1946 – the introduction of a second substitute •1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges •1994 – the introduction of a third interchange •1998 – the introduction of a fourth interchange •2011 – the replacement of four interchanges with three interchanges and a substitute

Good article and an interesting debate. I enjoyed reading your comment fatboi which brought back memories of one on one battles we regularly saw. The AFL changed rules to speed up the game and clubs have adapted over the years to recruit and develop players into running machines. Clubs have invested heavily to develop their lists to enable midfielders to be rotated frequently to maintain running power. Sides that have more players able to run through the midfield will be affected the most with a cap. The current policy of reversing the effect of past rule changes and slowing the game down to create more one on one contests should be introduced gradually over a few years to enable clubs to adapt their lists accordingly. Perhaps the sub rule should be scrapped when the agreed cap is introduced could be a happy medium.

good article champ. I STRONGLY SUPPORT an interchange cap. The sports science and fitness departments and to a lesser extent the coaches have hijacked this great sport and turned it into a mass all-in sprinting contest. They coaches hysterically prophesy that a cap on interchange would bring back flooding. Really? What about the current flooding of players around the ball and around ball ups and throw ins? it's a disgrace. just like watching a pack of seagulls fighting over a chip. why are coaches putting such a heavy physical demand on players? why are they forcing them to sprint up and down the ground like headless chooks? no wonder they need to make 150 interchanges a match. the use of your players as nothing more than hard running robots around the ground HAS TO STOP. do we really need to have all 36 players on one end of the field? I shed a tear every time a great forward is forced to run down the ground to help out his defence. ALF has slowly but surely turned into a bigger version of basketball. Every now and then i relive the wonderful 1992 grand final between West Coast and Geelong. That match was just as hard, fast and furious as the matches they applaud today. the only difference is, every player had set positions. The ball still travelled quickly, but you had 1-on-1 contests all over the field. The great full-forward/full-back and centre-half-forward/centre-half-back contests were the main attractions. Most of the time, these great warriors battled each other over four quarters without ever coming off. You came off if you played a shocker, going to the bench was a punishment. Who could forget the great midfield battles where the same half-dozen players contested the ball around the ground, leaving forwards and backs to do what they best - kick goals or defend. Sure the players were tired back then. but they were not asked to run around like headless chooks, sprinting up and down. you had your "rests" when the ball left your area. I'm sorry but modern football sucks thanks to the ALF coaches and their fitness/sports science people molesting the interchange rule.

Hawk lost At games

What has been wrong with "the spectacle" we have had before now? And given some coaches have already flagged the idea if simply "resting" players in their defensive 50 which would effectively mean teams play 10 minutes of attacking football followed by 5 minutes of havving everyone behind the ball before another 10 minutes of attack it hardly means the end of the flood or the scrum.

Clearly the cap has worne players down so badly that Sanderson is forced to play his star CHF at CHB for a breather.

It's meant to be Harry Taylor of Geelong.

Also, WTF? "where Buddy Franklin is engaged in a wrestle with Taylor Walker." In what universe does Taylor Walker play fullback?

Worsfold will support any rule change as long his players are still getting cheap, high tackle, free kicks.