Rule Changes, have your say

[Ozza]

It does to me. Games should not be decided by excessive player interchanges plus I want to see a game where footballers still have a spot in a side not just the athletes. I want to see games decided more on what happens on the field not off it.

I'm not sure of the right number to cap the interchanges at but I'm not against it.

If there were less rotations, then coaches and recruiting officers would be more likely to recruit and select 'athletes' who can run out games at a high intensity. With less rotations there is less room for the 'genuine footballers'.

[bornadog]

Lets assume they cap the changes to 80, or 100. What happens when a team reaches the cap, and they also sustain an injury at the same time? What happens if the cap is at 80 and there is 5 minutes to go, scores are close and no injuries. Does the coach fake an injury to get a player on the field.

There are so many things the coach can do to manipulate the cap. It.s a bloody joke

[LostDoggy]

I think the interchange should remain uncapped. Different circumstances happen in all games whether it be injuries, weather conditions, game intensity. Just leave it alone FFS!!

[Scorlibo]

I am truly shocked that the AFL is even considering capping interchanges, and the data they have provided to prove that increased interchanges are related to injury is bogus. Guess which other stats have risen in the last five years? Kicks, handballs, goals, just about every other game stat. Are we to limit the amount of kicks or handballs that a team can make because they have risen in accordance with the injury list? Any idiot can see that extreme fatigue will cause far more injury than 'running too fast'. Then there's the unfair disadvantage after having players injured during a game, fine, sure, let substitutes become a part of the game, but NOT instead of the 4 interchanges. Just turn emergencies into substitutes, easy.

As for the spectacle of the game, how is it better to watch guys run half as fast as they usually would? The pace of the game is what makes it the most loved sport in the country, we would be going backwards to make it slower, less tactical, less skilled, have fewer footballers and more athletes.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I am truly shocked that the AFL is even considering capping interchanges, and the data they have provided to prove that increased interchanges are related to injury is bogus. Guess which other stats have risen in the last five years? Kicks, handballs, goals, just about every other game stat. Are we to limit the amount of kicks or handballs that a team can make because they have risen in accordance with the injury list? Any idiot can see that extreme fatigue will cause far more injury than 'running too fast'. Then there's the unfair disadvantage after having players injured during a game, fine, sure, let substitutes become a part of the game, but NOT instead of the 4 interchanges. Just turn emergencies into substitutes, easy.

As for the spectacle of the game, how is it better to watch guys run half as fast as they usually would? The pace of the game is what makes it the most loved sport in the country, we would be going backwards to make it slower, less tactical, less skilled, have fewer footballers and more athletes.

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

[Scorlibo]

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

What makes you think this would stop with less interchanges? Such U10 clusters occur when there are stoppages, and players will always have time to arrive at these stoppages, pretty well regardless of how tired they are. So assuming player instructions remain the same, the density of players around the ball at stoppages will stay the same.

The only thing that less interchanges will do regarding the clusters is negatively affect players' abilities to break from the stoppage and find space.

[bornadog]

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

Come on SS that is not true.

I remember standing in front of the EJ Whitten stand, in the Melbourne Winter, watching guys slog it out in the mud and only a few goals kicked.

We cannot change the game through rules into something we want to see happen on the field. The game just continually evolves, and as you said in your post, the changes have different effects that no one can predict and the coaches come up with a new tactic.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Come on SS that is not true.

I remember standing in front of the EJ Whitten stand, in the Melbourne Winter, watching guys slog it out in the mud and only a few goals kicked.

We cannot change the game through rules into something we want to see happen on the field. The game just continually evolves, and as you said in your post, the changes have different effects that no one can predict and the coaches come up with a new tactic.

As I said in my earlier post, this is only one aspect I am changing.

My rule changes are about fixing up the rules committees earlier balls-ups, not changing the game. The evolution of the game has come about because we have dicked with the rules, you don't really think that coaches today have suddenly got smarter than those for the last 100 years?

New tactics and innovations will always occur, they are just happening at a massive rate because we have changed the rules on a whim and without thinking of the concequences.


Rolling mauls were unavoidable back in the days of the suburban grounds; there is no excuse today but they are more common than ever.

I don't want to cap interchanges, I don't understand why 150 interchanges are a blight on the game. I want the players resting less and getting too tired to flood. We already see games opening up after half time when players start getting tired. The coach that continues to flood with less chances to rest his players is destined to get smashed the longer the game goes on. Make him hold something back, we just need to give his defenders a chance to beat their opponents on their merits.

Let defenders defend and make it harder to sit 17 blokes in D50.

[GVGjr]

If there were less rotations, then coaches and recruiting officers would be more likely to recruit and select 'athletes' who can run out games at a high intensity. With less rotations there is less room for the 'genuine footballers'.

Disagree as there is nothing to suggest that would the the case. IMO, If the pace of the game wasn't at a premium then the more natural footballers would get a better go.

The problem that I see is that players sprint their hardest to come off the ground only to sprint back on sometimes 3 minutes later.

I'm not saying this is workable but I'd look at something like one rest per player per quarter and if they need to come off for a second time then they say off for the balance of the quarter.

[soupman]

The implications of a cap would be terrible, both on the spectacle and the game itself. It would encourage clubs to play a chipping around in the back line style of play to conserve energy, much like we have done in the last quarter of matches much like the Freo one after Darwin. On this, it disadvantages sides coming off a trip the previous week. And theoretically if more refreshed players result in more collision injuries why aren't there more injuries early in matches.

Weirdly in this year with all it's rotations I feel as if there have been fewer muscle injuries. We've barely had any player pull a hammy or the like, with most injuries coming from issues such as groin problems, which as I understand them are largely because of a weak core and more running, something which less interchanges would require. And those serious hamstring injuries that have occurred have either been freak injuries or something like the Riewoldt one where he was put back on after having already twanged it.

[soupman]

Just to add to my point I've just read in an article regarding the issue that part of the reason the AFL is looking to introduce these changes is to ensure sides that suffer injuries mid game don't suffer as a consequence. How does a cap help them in this regard? It actually means it's harder for them, as with 21 players it means more rotations are required to give their players an rest, and as they are capped the opposition has one player to run the game out better with.

It's just so poorly thought through and such an undesirable change.

[Go_Dogs]

What about something as simple as no interchanges for the first 10 minutes of a qtr? If a player is interchanged (due to suffering an injury) they cannot come back on for the duration of the qtr.

[Murphy'sLore]

What about something as simple as no interchanges for the first 10 minutes of a qtr? If a player is interchanged (due to suffering an injury) they cannot come back on for the duration of the qtr.

At least that has the virtue of simplicity. Suggestions of a cap on each player, even capped totals per game, are going to be a nightmare to track and enforce.

[bornadog]

I'm not saying this is workable but I'd look at something like one rest per player per quarter and if they need to come off for a second time then they say off for the balance of the quarter.

The other consideration to this and capping interchanges is the officiating that would be required to keep records of players going on and off. Mistakes will happen and then what is the penalty etc?