http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-cap-on-bench-moves-likely/story-e6frf9ix-1225865743926

these a few articles floating around today on the topic of limiting the interchange.

I think it is inevitable. The question is: will it help us or be a hindrance?

I think with our elite runners it will actually play into our hands and make those strengths even more pronounced.

Scully is a freak, but remember so is Morton, Trengove, Grimes, Bate, Dunn, etc etc.

Even Jack Watts, with his man not being able to get a rest, should more easily run defenders into the ground.

It appears to me that the current interchange situation actually lessens our dominance in this area.

Any thoughts?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-cap-on-bench-moves-likely/story-e6frf9ix-1225865743926

these a few articles floating around today on the topic of limiting the interchange.

I think it is inevitable. The question is: will it help us or be a hindrance?

I think with our elite runners it will actually play into our hands and make those strengths even more pronounced.

Scully is a freak, but remember so is Morton, Trengove, Grimes, Bate, Dunn, etc etc.

Even Jack Watts, with his man not being able to get a rest, should more easily run defenders into the ground.

It appears to me that the current interchange situation actually lessens our dominance in this area.

Any thoughts?

another knee jerk reaction from the AFL , if Reiwalt had not gone down I doubt this would be happening, they did everything to speed it up and now because of a few twinged hammies they want to slow it down

The turnsyle use of the interchange in conjunction with rule changes like speed of point kick ins have increased the pace of the game dramatically. The constant speed of the play driven by the continual rotation has had a profound impact on the game plans, strategies and preferred player types.

For a fleet footed team like ours the restriction of the interchange will hamper our capacity to move players behind the ball and gut run for 4 quarters. It will probably mean that slower players or players without the huge fitness tanks will not be as exposed as they are today.

Coaches will review and alter the way they move the ball when they have control of it and how they contest and defend when they dont have control of it.

The turnsyle use of the interchange in conjunction with rule changes like speed of point kick ins have increased the pace of the game dramatically. The constant speed of the play driven by the continual rotation has had a profound impact on the game plans, strategies and preferred player types.

For a fleet footed team like ours the restriction of the interchange will hamper our capacity to move players behind the ball and gut run for 4 quarters. It will probably mean that slower players or players without the huge fitness tanks will not be as exposed as they are today.

Coaches will review and alter the way they move the ball when they have control of it and how they contest and defend when they dont have control of it.

interesting points.

So "burst" players will be less effective and it will bring steady long distance runners back into the game, like McLean...

I think you have a point there.

But guys like Scully will come to the fore with their running ability in either case.

Gotta say, I would rather I see Scully, Grimes et al play 300 games instead of just over 200.

Interchange - Horrible stuff - Get rid of it.

Aussie rules is supposed to be 18 on 18. They have now made it 22 on 22. Its becoming more like basketnball or gridiron.

Interchange - Horrible stuff - Get rid of it.

Aussie rules is supposed to be 18 on 18. They have now made it 22 on 22. Its becoming more like basketnball or gridiron.

More like basketball, as in 5 on 5?

Bahahahahaha nice work Einstein

interesting points.

So "burst" players will be less effective and it will bring steady long distance runners back into the game, like McLean...

I think you have a point there.

But guys like Scully will come to the fore with their running ability in either case.

Gotta say, I would rather I see Scully, Grimes et al play 300 games instead of just over 200.

One of the aims of the interchange use these days is to ensure players can run hard towards the end of the game as at the start.

I dont think a change necessarily benefits individual player types as to how a coach actually uses the 18 men on the ground at anyone time.

It will also impact the ability to get numbers consistently around a contest.

I seriously dont know why the AFL has been so hell bent on speeding up the game.

I dont think it is because of 1 twinged hammy, but because of the many serious injuries,the shorter careers and the overall healthof the players, as well as the aesthetics of the game.

I think we need to cap the interchange.

We need to stop this style of football, it really annoys me how football is played in 2/3 of a ground and everyone just runs.

Yes, it may help our freak runners, but I want a great spectacle to watch.

The quick kick ins, the fact they never want to ball the ball up and let rugby scrums go on, to let the ball "keep moving", it all annoys me.

Cap the interchange and see what happens. And ball the bloody thing up when it is in a pack, dont give it 30 seconds to roll loose.

Make it 20 a quarter, 80 a game.

That's plenty, simple really.....

Considering a rotation schedule is drawn up before the game, surely a player like Scully becomes an asset because he can run for longer and keep his other, less fit teammates fresher for longer.

A player like Morton at KPF who can either run harder than his opponent, or run out the game longer means we could, at times, have an extra midfielder on the bench instead of someone who can rotate into his role.

It will also impact the ability to get numbers consistently around a contest.

All true, but it will impact every team in the same way.

So really the more endurance runners you have in your team, and the more players with bursts of speed in your side, the more likely you are to get on top of the contest, especially late in the game.

You do raise an interesting point about our running game plan, especially up forward, but I think that longer term we will adjust that slightly and have one of Watts, Jurrah or Green permanently up forward to avoid needing that constant run.

Considering a rotation schedule is drawn up before the game, surely a player like Scully becomes an asset because he can run for longer and keep his other, less fit teammates fresher for longer.

The problem is that a player like Scully will be more fatigued with less rotations toward the end of a game. Part of Scully's skill is speed and endurance.

All true, but it will impact every team in the same way.

So really the more endurance runners you have in your team, and the more players with bursts of speed in your side, the more likely you are to get on top of the contest, especially late in the game.

You do raise an interesting point about our running game plan, especially up forward, but I think that longer term we will adjust that slightly and have one of Watts, Jurrah or Green permanently up forward to avoid needing that constant run.

Its going to depend upon the way a team's game plan. If their plan has a greater throwing number behind the ball and running hard forward then its a challenge.

Under the interchange system now, nearly all players get one or more rotations off. This is regardless of whether you are a burst or endurance player. The key issue is that will less rotations is how does a team cope with player fatgue toward the end of the game.

A good example of what less rotations mean in a football match is the game against Adelaide early this year. Adelaide were down to one interchange early in the third quarter. They had no interchange by the start of the last quarter. It was obvious that the remaining 18 players fatigued more than Melbourne. They stopped running. contesting and competing.

I also think that having the Fwd line clear then having mobile players running into space may have to be adjusted slightly.

http://www.heraldsun...x-1225865743926

these a few articles floating around today on the topic of limiting the interchange.

I think it is inevitable. The question is: will it help us or be a hindrance?

I think with our elite runners it will actually play into our hands and make those strengths even more pronounced.

Scully is a freak, but remember so is Morton, Trengove, Grimes, Bate, Dunn, etc etc.

Even Jack Watts, with his man not being able to get a rest, should more easily run defenders into the ground.

It appears to me that the current interchange situation actually lessens our dominance in this area.

Any thoughts?

I agree that there's too many interchanges made & it causes the lovers of our great game to missout on things like the Great High mark, that real screamer & the long bombed Torp into the forward line where someone can take a hanger or someone will come come through the pack flattening everyone to either take the mark or the ball spills free for some elite small to pounce.

The randomness of this style of footy was incredibly exhilarating & kept one on the edge of their seats at all times.

I've been saying now for years, since Malthouse first uttered that he wanted 6 interchange players on the bench, that I thought immediately, NO! His argument was about the injured players who couldn't return to the field left his side at a disadvantage. My thoughts were, Take the interchange back to 3 interchange players with 2 reserve players (like the old 19th & 20th men) who could replace seriously injured players on the field.

I would propose that their may be 2 reserves allowed for the 1st half, reducing to one reserve available for the second half.

The availability of 2 reserves would tempt coaches to try to bend the rules to their advantage, so this may help reduce too much 'bending the rules'.

I had a debate a couple of years back @ the local cafe with Montagna, Milne & I think it was Raph Clarke about the amount of rotations that were occurring, & that I thought it was to the detriment of the game, & that it was near impossible from behind the goals to KEEP UP with who was onfield & where they were playing.

I said I thought it would reduce the game to burst players & that the likes of Diesel Williams would disappear & that Forwards like Plugger would become dinosaurs.

they didn't agree at the time, but, there you go. It's starting to happen.

Lets get back just a little with the rotations, to 3 interchange, with 2 reserves, & we may see the return of the Torpedo Punt & some Monster Forwards return to their own stomping ground. We'd see players tiring at different times & bomb long with all the excitement of the randomness that brings.

This ridiculous, overly administrative imposition on the game is far more likely to exacerbate injuries than prevent them. If this rule comes in, I guarantee we will see a farcical situation where a player is injured and is unable to come from the field because a random limit has been reached.

It's stupid, it's unnecessary, and it's one more bloody rule everyone has to keep on top of.

If injury tolls are such a problem then the game will evolve to decrease this issue. Leave the rules alone.

This ridiculous, overly administrative imposition on the game is far more likely to exacerbate injuries than prevent them. If this rule comes in, I guarantee we will see a farcical situation where a player is injured and is unable to come from the field because a random limit has been reached.

It's stupid, it's unnecessary, and it's one more bloody rule everyone has to keep on top of.

If injury tolls are such a problem then the game will evolve to decrease this issue. Leave the rules alone.

The problem has happened because they DIDN"T leave the rules alone ie 18 v 18.

Soccer has no interchange and rugby league improved greatly when they limited the number of interchanges.

The way we are going it will be 26 on 26 with 200 interchanges per match

The problem has happened because they DIDN"T leave the rules alone ie 18 v 18.

Soccer has no interchange and rugby league improved greatly when they limited the number of interchanges.

The way we are going it will be 26 on 26 with 200 interchanges per match

How so?

No one is advocating extending the bench and speeding the game up further.

You've lost the plot.

This ridiculous, overly administrative imposition on the game is far more likely to exacerbate injuries than prevent them. If this rule comes in, I guarantee we will see a farcical situation where a player is injured and is unable to come from the field because a random limit has been reached.

It's stupid, it's unnecessary, and it's one more bloody rule everyone has to keep on top of.

If injury tolls are such a problem then the game will evolve to decrease this issue. Leave the rules alone.

They already mucked with the rules, now it's time to turn them back down just a tweak.