AFL moves to safeguard tough style of game

Yes I do, and do *you* realise the change from 0 to 120 was *gradual*? It didn't happen overnight, the players got accustomed to it slowly over a period of decades.

You do realize Gene that there was no interchange at all prior to 1978 don't you? I mean heaven forbid that these full-time professional athletes find themselves getting "tired" during the course of a game! It's not like clubs haven't managed to successfully adapt to every other rule change the AFL has introduced, I have a feeling teams would cope without an interchange bench better than you might think.

The AFL's already taken a step in the right direction by ditching KB, Geischen & Rowan Sawers from the Laws of the Game committee. Ideally their next move would be to remove Wayne Campbell & Joel Bowden who were both notoriously soft players who didn't like getting their hands dirty. If the sport is ever going to revert back to its roots of encouraging rather than punishing physicality then the league must take the power to create new rules out of the hands of softc*cks who hated the contact themselves.

Storm boy - you left out the word "soccer" before "mums"!

But mums won't let their kids play hard footie codes.

"Thompson said coaches were responsible to win and that fans were more interested in premiership points than pretty games of football." - whilst this may be true for tha vast majority whilst watching their OWN team, if neutral fans don't tune in to TV Football because the game devolves into a boring chip kick slog then advertisers fall away, TV right$ plummet and the entire money trail dries up. But you can't blame the coaches/teams, clearly their mandate is to "win at all costs" , the onus falls onto the games administrators. If we don't want the game to move in a particular direction because coaches have found a way to employ an effective, albeit, "unattractive" strategy then it it is up to the custodians of the game to effectively react to that change. The real problem is they are usually not bold/brave enough to take decisions that will be truly effective. To take a single example. Hawthorn for instance exploited (legally) the "rushed behind" so flagrantly as a defensive ploy in the 2008 GF that it was considered that this was not a "good look" for the game. Of course Hawthorn employed the strategy not because it looked good, but because it was effective, ie they deemed it was better to concede a point and then be able to launch a set play through good ball control that gave them a chance of scoring a counter attack goal. Yes the AFL "tightened" the rules to "discourage" teams from doing this, but the response in terms of rule change was nowhere near bold enough. Any fan who watches week in, week out, will tell you it still happens, players have just been taught to disguise it better. It's ludicrous that scoring (a behind) is actually viewed in all but a drawn game scenario a negative outcome, scoring was always meant to be a positive (even a behind). How often do you hear when the ball goes over the boundary line next to the post from a commentator instead of scoring a behind that - "that was the best result" for the team. If the AFL was serious about changing this outcome they would take the brave (some would say radical) step of recognising that in today's modern game allocating a single point for a behind is not adequate. By changing the rules so that a behind is now worth 2 points (or even more boldly, 3 points) the game would take care of itself. Defenders would not be inclined to force a behind and rather keep the ball alive in play because now there was a real incentive to do so. Forwards would be more inclined to take shots on goal, especially from difficult angles or at range because the risk/reward equation is moved to favour attacking play. But so long as the powers that be continue to use a "sticky tape instead of changing the pipe" approach, nothing really changes. For those that cry "but what about tradition, it wouldn't be football anymore". The game has always been evolving, the modern game itself is a vastly different incarnation of its former self. Back in the day the public were shocked and mocked and critical of all sorts of changes that we now accept as part of the game. Not that long ago the 50m penalty was only a 15m penalty until (like scoring only 1 point for a behind) it was deemed inadequate in the current context of the game, there was no centre square or how many people could be in it, we didn't even have "subs" let alone an interchange bench with rotation caps, and if you want to go back far enough in "tradition" there weren't even any point posts and the captains used to agree on the distance between the goal posts before the match."Food for thought folks" - hopefully Gilligan's menu is more appealing, or perhaps more importantly, more daring than Vlad's offering to the coaches on Monday night. Fingers crossed for a brave new world, but more than likely as Roos said, “What I’ve learned in 10 years of coaching is you can have some sort of say, but at the end of the day they’ll do what they want to do,”

next to your duffle coat, with the players name sown into them

The real issue is rules/interpretations, however, there may be a case for some further restriction on interchange. Interchange has been a success especially when coupled with greater fitness, incredible improvements in professionalism and coaching, greater ball skills, and presence in the game, and h things like the bag of balls at kick-ins. Going back to almost no interchange at all would result in a style of game most of us would now call unexciting because so slow. We want the speed and flow minus the rule/interpretation generated mauls. That relies on all those in rule and interpretation arms of the game to change their attitude. Let's not go back; let's go forward. The game's ready for it in all other aspects, only this glitch is standing in its way. Unnecessary.

The AFL are going all 'retro'. I love it. Where's my beanie?

Imagine if NRL has had unlimited for 30 years prior to the change back ...

According to Melb journo Caroline Wilson the new AFL boss has also decided to make fixturing changes for 2015. Sunday night and Monday night footy are likely out. A more traditional fixture is envisaged (Read Sat afternoon in Melb.) Also the new ticketing set up in Melb is also gone. He also wants to meet the 18 AFL Coaches regularly to discuss game trends. The AFL Commission has given him the go ahead to address the lower Melb attendances and it is rumored that Suns manager Travis Auld maybe tapped to check out the possibility of getting their hands on Etihad earlier. It has been done before we know that but the AFL is having another look. Auld has done a good job with the clean Suns stadium management from scratch. Interesting times ahead if only a bit of this stuff goes ahead.

When the NRL put in limited interchanges after about five years of unlimited, it brought with it a welter of soft tries, thrashings, and the highest scoring season on record. Quite exasperating at times. Took about another five years to level out again.,

Was sued. The lawsuit has been settled. Doesn't mean collision sports will go away, just means more attention has to be paid and lawyers will draft better contracts to protect leagues from indemnity. The lawsuit isn't so much about the fact that players have had brain injuries, its about the NFL's mishandling/forcing players to play when they shouldn't have.

The collision sports all have a problem with long term brain injuries so the game will become safer not tougher. The NFL is being sued by thousands of ex players and 35 out of 40 ex AFL legends have been diagnosed with brain injuries as well. Helmets are not the solution and preventing head contact doesn’t address the whole problem. When the brain smashes up against the skull during collisions then it results in long term damage.

But those historical sportsmen never rotated throughout their careers, you're asking players who are used to and conditioned to rotate to suddenly stop. It took 20+ years for the interchange numbers to climb where they are, players didn't suddenly just start doing it, and they certainly won't be able to suddenly stop.

Historically there was no 'massive rash' of injuries with limited or no interchange. Smart sportsmen do not run until they 'fall in a heap', they pace themselves and use clever positioning. They would tend to hold their position on the ground. This worked historically, until people 'improved' the game with rule changes to enable foreign concepts to change it's unique nature.

Freo are the 7th highest scoring team this year having scored more points than Geelong, North Melbourne and Essendon to name a few.

yeah and going from 120 rotations instantly down to 16 per game wouldn't result in a massive rash of injuries? And with exhausted players of the ground they wouldn't just fall into heaps and make more rolling mauls right? I mean with tired players they'd be more likely to run and spread? /baffled

An easy fix to 'stop the mauls' may be to greatly limit player interchanges. Maybe one only per quarter for each of the 4 bench players (do away with the illogical green-vested 'emergency'). This would create real interest and tension with regard to tactical interchanges, because at present there is none. More importantly, the Paul Roos' basketball/soccer style mass flood would be unlikely to be sustainable. This may return Aussie Rules to it's unique, historical, gladiatorial and contested nature.

McLachlan should ask the more innovative coaches, like Roos and Lyon, how they plan to get around any new rules. No use introducing more changes if Roos and Lyon can just find new methods to make the game ultra-defensive.