Andrew Demetriou says an interchange cap is coming in 2014 and that is final

[GVGjr]

I listened to Rocket last night talk about this very issue and I thought he was spot on.

A couple of questions are around "What is the AFL trying to achieve?" "How is the number determined?"

If it's 120 I think everyone can live with that. Maybe 100 is OK but anything less sounds too controlled for my liking.

We shouldn't have to have someone counting the changes.

[bornadog]

"What is the AFL trying to achieve?"

You have hit the nail on the head - it is truly baffling how we have to have constant tinkering in this game.

[jeemak]

Vlad's arrogance does annoy me a great deal, though I think the issue with the AFL has gone well and truly beyond his sphere of influence. Tho whole place is full of people running an agenda.

As the AFL has been equipped with layer upon layer of stakeholders at head office over the years, there seems to be a constant need for the game to be meddled with for people to justify their own positions.

None of it seems to be making the game any better, and I think its time a serious cleanout at AFL HQ was initiated. There's just too many people agreeing the code is bonkers at the minute, and HQ with another poor year of attendances surely won't have any excuses for maintaining the current structure.

As for the interchange cap, I can't see how it's going to make the game any better or what it's trying to achieve. The AFL has form in tweaking the rules a certain way to gain a benefit in an area, only to see it turn around on them full circle (think making the head sacrosanct, and awarding players a free kick for headbutting the knees of other players).

I'm with TBB on this one.

[soupman]

To quote a certain movie I'm very disenchanted with the system right now.

I've typically been one to give the AFL a bit of benefit of the doubt, and have tried to see what they are hoping to achieve, but this off season in particular has been terrible.

The league it seems is full of arrogant politician like leaders at the top, and it's barely made a decision I agree with in the last year. Between the Rendell incident, the GWS and GC money, draft picks and 2016, 17, and 18 premiership donations, the non punishment to Carlton, the fining Melbourne but they're innocent episode, the suspend Connoly and Bailey for a short amount of time then wait for peoples attention to flicker to the NAB cup, the Essendon saga, their bullshit drug policy, their need to screw around with rules involving subs, caps and players making contact on the knees (making umpires jobs even harder to perform satisfactorily), and of course all the issues that we as Bulldogs notice more (the inequal draw, the concept of blockbuster games etc.), they are the most uninspiring unlikeable people in the game.

For some reason they've instilled a culture of "what can we change to make the game better", when they should really be looking at letting the game evolve and only changing things when it is glaringly blatent that a rule has become outdated or irrelevant.

[LostDoggy]

I look forward to players 'blowing up' on the field, possibly leading to an increased injury rate, matches becoming slower and more stale, then Andrew or his successor to the Throne of Ignorance holding up the "Nothing to see here" sign.

[G-Mo77]

I don't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, unlimited interchange no sub.

This.

I've made enough comments on here about the sub rule, it's a joke. The interchange cap is ludicrous. What is the purpose? How does it benefit our game? I'm being serious if someone has an answer I'd love to hear it.

General Soreness will be the next discussion point because so many players will need to be rested because of these rules.

[Maddog37]

I personally like a cap as I disagree with the interchange being used as a coaching strategy tool. I felt that have 150plus interchange meant that as a spectacle you often had players coming on and off the ground constantly and it was a distraction from the action.

Also quite a few players were getting blindsided by a player coming from the bench which is very dangerous and not in the spirit of the game.

Per the article in today's Sun, impact injuries should reduce if players are slightly fatigued and unable to be at 100% explosive speed all the time. Being unable to make as many contests will lead to less congestion.

The coaches were the ones that bastardized what the interchange was for and whine like sheep when they are reigned in.

Cap of 100 would be ideal IMHO.

[LostDoggy]

General Soreness will be the next discussion point because so many players will need to be rested because of these rules.

Yes, but then they're suspect drug-cheats aren't they?

[bornadog]

I personally like a cap as I disagree with the interchange being used as a coaching strategy tool. I felt that have 150plus interchange meant that as a spectacle you often had players coming on and off the ground constantly and it was a distraction from the action.

Also quite a few players were getting blindsided by a player coming from the bench which is very dangerous and not in the spirit of the game.

Per the article in today's Sun, impact injuries should reduce if players are slightly fatigued and unable to be at 100% explosive speed all the time. Being unable to make as many contests will lead to less congestion.

The coaches were the ones that bastardized what the interchange was for and whine like sheep when they are reigned in.

Cap of 100 would be ideal IMHO.

Can't agree with you at all. The pace of the game is great to watch and no amount of rules will stop human beings getting bigger and faster.

The trouble is with all the rule changes, no thought is given to the future impact on the game.

What we have is a bunch of ex-players from the 1980's trying to make the game what it was back then. But they forgot about evolution.

[Greystache]

I don't know what the objective is for reducing the interchange, it doesn't seem like it's really been explained, but at the same time the outrage from some of the players, coaches, and supporters has been way over the top too.

It was only 5 years ago that 20 or so interchanges for a match was standard, now the coaches are talking like limiting interchange is going to change the core fabric of the game. It has little to do with the welfare of the players. The difference in the demands of the game now and 5 years ago is minimal, it's about coaches wanting players fresh at all times to allow them more tactical options. The demands on the players won't change, just the demands on what the coach can ask them to do will.

What I don't understand is the outrage from the supporters. In almost every comment I hear how the game is going down hill and they used to love the game the way it was, and this rule will just be another thing to make the game worse again, yet in fact the rule will actually go towards taking the game back to the "good old days". Constant rotations are a new phenomenon, not something inherently part of the sport. I would've thought that would be a good thing for those lambasting the modern game.

[Maddog37]

Can't agree with you at all. The pace of the game is great to watch and no amount of rules will stop human beings getting bigger and faster.

The trouble is with all the rule changes, no thought is given to the future impact on the game.

What we have is a bunch of ex-players from the 1980's trying to make the game what it was back then. But they forgot about evolution.

The coaches are waging a propaganda war and you have been sucked in accordingly BAD. I understand why you disagree with me but the game survived and flourished for alot longer with minimal interchange than it has with this recent obsession with swapping players incessantly.

[bornadog]

[/B]

The coaches are waging a propaganda war and you have been sucked in accordingly BAD. I understand why you disagree with me but the game survived and flourished for alot longer with minimal interchange than it has with this recent obsession with swapping players incessantly.

Well either go back to 18 plus two reserves and forget all this BS counting the interchanges, or just leave the bloody game alone. Cannot see the point, and you have not given us one reason to change the game again. ok, you mention injuries - sorry can't buy into that, and can't be proven.

The impact on the game will be massive, just like all the other changes brought in. The only changes I agree to is enforcing the rule on head high impact, otherwise, everything else changed in the last 20 years is just what I said - trying to make the game resemble the 1980's.

[G-Mo77]

Yes, but then they're suspect drug-cheats aren't they?

Touché

[bornadog]

I don't know what the objective is for reducing the interchange, it doesn't seem like it's really been explained, but at the same time the outrage from some of the players, coaches, and supporters has been way over the top too.

Why shouldn't they complain about the game being constantly tampered with. I think the public have had a gut full.

It was only 5 years ago that 20 or so interchanges for a match was standard, now the coaches are talking like limiting interchange is going to change the core fabric of the game. It has little to do with the welfare of the players. The difference in the demands of the game now and 5 years ago is minimal, it's about coaches wanting players fresh at all times to allow them more tactical options. The demands on the players won't change, just the demands on what the coach can ask them to do will.

Its the over officiating of the game. The game has evolved from 5 years ago and no matter what rule change, the game will be changed. In this case its forced to change.

yet in fact the rule will actually go towards taking the game back to the "good old days". .

No it won't take the game back to the so called good old days. There will be other effects on the game that will only become apparent in a few seasons.

Constant rotations are a new phenomenon, not something inherently part of the sport. I would've thought that would be a good thing for those lambasting the modern game.

So what if there are constant rotations. I want to see the athletes performing at their best, not huffing and puffing because they can't catch someone.

[LostDoggy]

One thing that's always bemused me regarding these interchange rotations is who actually notices them? Do you go to the football and your peripheral is constantly blurred by players going to the interchange? If you sit behind the bench then fair enough, but 99% of the viewing seats in the stadiums wouldn't be affected.

Only thing that I’ve noticed, and I don't agree with, are players not coming on straight away once a player has left the field, then running to a contest when not actually in the field of play a second or so before.

Outside of that the interchanges mould into the background imo.