The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Should there be an injury interchange rule in the AFL?

The wolves at Ken Hinkley's door are retreating after a 2-0 start. (Image: AFL Media)
Roar Guru
27th March, 2016
12

Amongst the numerous changes to the AFL’s interchange rule over the past few seasons, one glaring fault remains.

Following the removal of the universally hated red substitutes vest, clubs have now been limited to just 90 interchanges throughout the entirety of a match.

However, with injuries a common occurrence in such an intensely fought sport, how can clubs be expected to compete to the best of their ability a player or two down?

The beauty of the newly implemented limitation on the number of interchanges allowed is the introduction of another tactical element to the game, wherein coaches must manage their bench effectively – attempting to balance performance and longevity.

As it stands, teams start with four players on the pine, however in the event of injury claiming a player, one team are unfairly disadvantaged.

Injuries are a part of the game, and they will happen, but why should teams be hampered so severely for an element of the sport which is essentially beyond their control?

Perhaps, the answer is a system similar to the much maligned substitute rule, wherein teams are allowed to place an emergency on standby in order to ensure injuries do not impact too heavily on the flow of a match. This standby player would take no part in the match unless a player who has sustained an injury over the course of the four quarters is unable to complete the match.

Although there is potential for manipulation of such a rule, if the rule was policed by an impartial medical team rather than a club’s own physiotherapists, neutrality could be ensured.

Advertisement

For example, Round 1 saw Port Adelaide reduced to a three-man bench in their clash with St Kilda due to an injury to on-baller Matt White late in the opening term. While Port were good enough to emerge victorious in the match, this early injury setback showcased the frailties of the interchange rule as Port coach Ken Hinkley struggled to manage his side due to a gap in personnel.

Port’s interchanges were used up at a considerably faster rate than their opponents’ thanks largely to the absence of White. This is an example of a case where an amended injury rule would have evened up the playing field thanks to a replacement.

The cap on interchanges is a new introduction to the rulebook and it will be interesting to see how coaches adjust to the added need to manage the freshness of their players. It is only Round 1 and the men in charge will surely become more adept to doing so as the weeks and months roll by.

A rule which copes with injury would ensure no added strain on coaches and players, and would essentially aim to even up the playing field following an unpredictably game-changing event.

close