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

[The Bulldogs Bite]

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.

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.

Both good posts that have put it better than I did.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

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 players (and coaches) regularly comment on how much the game changes from year to year, particularly those who miss chunks of a season through injury (eg. Morris).

The AFL wants to continually speed the game up, yet they introduce a sub rule and a interchange capping? It doesn't match and something has to give: the players welfare and the overall product of the game.

[Greystache]

The players (and coaches) regularly comment on how much the game changes from year to year, particularly those who miss chunks of a season through injury (eg. Morris).

The AFL wants to continually speed the game up, yet they introduce a sub rule and a interchange capping? It doesn't match and something has to give: the players welfare and the overall product of the game.

From a tactical perspective it does, and every year fitness departments push the players to get more out of them, but the physical capabilities of players today is not vastly different from 2007. I'm sure someone like Scott West would still be at the front of the pack in running drills.

The difference is coaches use rotations to change the demands on the players. There's very little continuous running done at training these days, it's mostly interval running to improve burst efforts followed by a brief recovery then going again. The coaches argue that burst players will become obsolete, but they don't acknowledge that the strengths of players like Daniel Cross are in danger under the current system.

Dane Swan is an elite runner under the current system but without rotations players like Boyd, Gia, and Cross would carve him up. I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.

[Topdog]

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today."

The arrogance of this man is astounding. Way to keep the punters on side...

I must have amnesia because I distinctly remember AD saying that anyone involved in tanking would be kicked out of the game for good.

[LostDoggy]

[QUOTE=Greystache;311044 I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.[/QUOTE]

This is where I stand. A player like Robert Harvey was great because he could run all day and his opponent(s) struggled to keep up. There needs to be a balance so that the game isn't lost to potential talent like him.

[hujsh]

The game will always change and evolve. We can let it evolve naturally with coaches finding new ways to gain a tactical advantage or we can try and stifle any changes in the interest of preserving the game in it's golden 1980s form which will create more unforeseen changes which will then need to be curbed creating the endless rule shitstorm we have now.

The current burst running could be seen as an evolution of the AFL tampering with rules in an attempt to speed up the game to counter flooding, which became a non issue on it's own when tactics evolved to implement to forward press. Now anything could happen with the new interchange rules but I bet in 5-10 years the AFL will be trying to counter the effects of these new rules changes again.

[Topdog]

The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

[bornadog]

The game will always change and evolve. We can let it evolve naturally with coaches finding new ways to gain a tactical advantage or we can try and stifle any changes in the interest of preserving the game in it's golden 1980s form which will create more unforeseen changes which will then need to be curbed creating the endless rule shitstorm we have now.

The current burst running could be seen as an evolution of the AFL tampering with rules in an attempt to speed up the game to counter flooding, which became a non issue on it's own when tactics evolved to implement to forward press. Now anything could happen with the new interchange rules but I bet in 5-10 years the AFL will be trying to counter the effects of these new rules changes again.

The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

This

[LostDoggy]

The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

Yes, just too much tinkering for too long and no consolidation in the game. Is the Nrl like this? The world game certainly is not.

[FrediKanoute]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.

What I think they should do to compensate though is get rid of the Sub. It should be 4interchange and a capped number of changes per quarter.

[jeemak]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.

What I think they should do to compensate though is get rid of the Sub. It should be 4interchange and a capped number of changes per quarter.

Appreciate your view, but why does having a cap or a sub make any difference?

Agree that it can be frustrating to see players come off the ground after dominating a piece of play, but why should any sort of restriction be placed on the interchange?

All rotations are calculated, cap or no cap. With a limited interchange cap you're still going to have players that kick goals but are due for a rest within the schedule of resting players dictated by that cap. If anything, players who have just dominated play but are due for a rest will be placed at more risk of injury due to fatigue if they are left on the ground under a capped system.

[LostDoggy]

To paraphrase J McEnroe
You cannot be serious
The game is 100 times faster, players more athletic, bigger , stronger than ever before.
To say the game was better in the Oldin' days is romantic nostalgic nonsense to be honest.
Clearly people who never saw Footscray or Stkilda play would think that.
They'll cap it at 120 I reckon. The interchange area looking like Flinders st at 5pm is not a good look for mine, and bringing one player at a time .

I wonder: If the AFL had trialed a cap of 120 in the NAB Cup instead of 80, would we now have players and coaches telling us the cap should have been 150?

I actually agree with the players, 80 is too few as it doesn't allow every player to rest every quarter, which was the point Bobby made on AFL 360 the other night. If you're going to have 22 players on the field/bench, and 4 quarters, common sense dictates the minimum cap should be 88. Players with higher endurance like Daniel Cross are not going to need as many breaks as less fit blokes like Stringer, but it still becomes easier to manage and puts players minds at ease if they know they have a spell on the bench under their belt each quarter.

From a tactical perspective it does, and every year fitness departments push the players to get more out of them, but the physical capabilities of players today is not vastly different from 2007. I'm sure someone like Scott West would still be at the front of the pack in running drills.

The difference is coaches use rotations to change the demands on the players. There's very little continuous running done at training these days, it's mostly interval running to improve burst efforts followed by a brief recovery then going again. The coaches argue that burst players will become obsolete, but they don't acknowledge that the strengths of players like Daniel Cross are in danger under the current system.

Dane Swan is an elite runner under the current system but without rotations players like Boyd, Gia, and Cross would carve him up. I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.

Or Dustin Fletcher.

[FrediKanoute]

Appreciate your view, but why does having a cap or a sub make any difference?

Agree that it can be frustrating to see players come off the ground after dominating a piece of play, but why should any sort of restriction be placed on the interchange?

All rotations are calculated, cap or no cap. With a limited interchange cap you're still going to have players that kick goals but are due for a rest within the schedule of resting players dictated by that cap. If anything, players who have just dominated play but are due for a rest will be placed at more risk of injury due to fatigue if they are left on the ground under a capped system.

I'm not one to to hark back the old days, what I loved about footy in the 80's, 90's and early 00's was that guys like Plugger, Dermie, Grant, Carey, Dunstall, God etc played the game and largely played in one position. What you have now is forwards who are midfields, midfields who are backmen and most of all a constantly moving maul. Playes don't play positions anymore. They play zones. The reason they can play zones is that they are trained to be burst athletes who go at full pelt, control/affect their zone and then come off for a break. It means that aside from a Ruckman, arguably the only specialist position on the field, everyone else is practicallly interchangeable. That to me is not what footy is about.

Maybe the skills are better than they were in the 80's and 90's, but somehow the game was less predictable. Good players still shone, but they shone on the field for a longer time. If capping interchange will move us back to that then I am all for it. Players will adjust. They will adjust to pacing themselves more through a game.

The game evolved from Sub, to 2 interchange, to 3 interchange and then to 4 interchange before a sub was introduced. Coaches got smart and evolved the game away from specialist players in set position to a bland mass of players occupying space rather than winning the ball. They evolved the game away from the specky/pack marking spectacle to a physical game of keeping off.

I live in London, so I watch pretty much only Bulldogs games. I have to compare it to watching Premier League football. Aussie Rules is always going to be my favourite game, but if I watch a Premier League game then I know that Spurs' best players and the opposition's best players are going to be on the pitch most if not all of the game, meaning they have a greater ability to influence the result. I'm not saying they always do, but having Bale or Dembele or Lennon on the pitch for 90 minutes gives more excitement to the average fan than seeing them run hard for 5 mins and the take a break. The game is better paced.

[Sedat]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.

The cap rule will be responsible for returning the game back to the mid 00's risk-averse era, where mass numbers behind the ball and sideways chipping to retain possession will be the new norm. That is probably good news for plodding, unskilled teams who bat very deep when it comes to elite endurance.

[jeemak]

The cap rule will be responsible for returning the game back to the mid 00's risk-averse era, where mass numbers behind the ball and sideways chipping to retain possession will be the new norm. That is probably good news for plodding, unskilled teams who bat very deep when it comes to elite endurance.

So given some time I assume the same people that had an issue with the aethsetic of the game then (which happen to be the same who have an issue with it now), will want to do something to change it again, once they realise they want to make it better!

I've always said that coaches will be risk averse with fatigued playes, meaning they'll do everything they can not to be scored against. So you're spot on, as far as I'm concerned, in that they'll just put numbers back and coach to find a way forward through slow considered movement.