AFL has announced new Rules.

In future there will be three interchange players and one substitute player.

If the predictions are true then the "second Ruckman" role may disappear

in favour of a Forward / Ruckman.

So the value of North's Hale and others of his type may go up considerably.

He ( Hale )may now be a great buy.

Whats the thoughts guys?

Yep, it's now 3 interchange and 1 substitute. Wonder how this will affect us, we seem to be a high rotation side.

The days of the giraffe second ruckman are probably now ever deader than they were before. Doesn't bode well for a player like Jake Spencer.

Yep, it's now 3 interchange and 1 substitute. Wonder how this will affect us, we seem to be a high rotation side.

The days of the giraffe second ruckman are probably now ever deader than they were before. Doesn't bode well for a player like Jake Spencer.

You may well be right, I have wondered for the last month if the MFC were waiting on this decision to decide on PJ and Spencer.

God forbid but it may yet keep Newton on our list.

AFL has to be the most mismanaged sport in the world. Rule changes every year! I don't see the harm in keeping it the way it is.

This rule change will hurt Spencer's career prospects. I don't see a future for him. Unless you are a dominant forward, there is now no room for a 2nd specialist ruckman.

Does this now mean David Hale becomes top proroty, or do we allow Dunn or another part timer take over from the Russian?

Another Rule Change....WTF. Leave it alone, who decides this & why was the public not properly consulted??

Damm you Vlad and your Glass House Buildings.

Edited October 4, 201014 yr by why you little

Actually like the rule. It will hopefully eliminate some of this horrible congested footy we see.

Will also play into the hands of blokes like scully who can run for days instead of needing constant rotations.

And yes i agree that it will turn the clocks back towards the forward/ruck option. Hence the value of the Hale trade. He will be more useful as a forward than Spencer or PJ have or will ever be. It will then allow us to continue a primarily midfield rotation.

I too like the rule change.. 3 and a sub. might slow down this mania to constantly rotate and well see some better footy.

Stupid idea which has led to an unnecessary rule change, the interchange was fine the way it was. I wish the AFL would just let the game be, if it isn't broke why try fixing it?

How does this sub work? Can he only come on if someone gets injured, or can he be subed on soccer style, say halfway through the third or something for more impact.

Could be used to our advantage. Start with a Jones, sub on a Tapscott or someting- may allow us to ease fresh blood onto the scene?

Actually like the rule. It will hopefully eliminate some of this horrible congested footy we see.

Will also play into the hands of blokes like scully who can run for days instead of needing constant rotations.

And yes i agree that it will turn the clocks back towards the forward/ruck option. Hence the value of the Hale trade. He will be more useful as a forward than Spencer or PJ have or will ever be. It will then allow us to continue a primarily midfield rotation.

Cool, but let's test the rule out properly before bringing it in for a season. Minimum Testing 2 years worth of NAB Cup and practise games. Give Teams and coaches time to tweak it.

interestingly if could increase rotation as you now only have 3 on the bench for the game.

Though it could return footy to the 80/90's where players toughed it on the field for the entire game.

Maybe the return of the resting ruckman in the forward pocket.

It will be interesting.

You may well be right, I have wondered for the last month if the MFC were waiting on this decision to decide on PJ and Spencer.

God forbid but it may yet keep Newton on our list.

I would not have said this a day ago, but with the rule changes i now believe that we should delist both PJ and Spencer. This is due to the fact that with the interchange rule you now have to be a GUN tap ruckmen who can take a mark (both aren't) or atleast be very mobile around the ground and can go forward (which neither can). This is something i also wouldn't have suggested a day ago, but now i say keep Newton for a year, in which he can play that role and hope he actually comes on, and also try to bring Martin into that role. I have been very disappointed in Martin but this could be his big chance, due to the fact he is the best fit for this role

This new rule will not improve football.

Players will tire sooner and their skills will suffer.

Expect more mis-kicks and mis-handballs than normal...It will ruin the spectacle for ever.....

Edited October 4, 201014 yr by Kojak

Cool, but let's test the rule out properly before bringing it in for a season. Minimum Testing 2 years worth of NAB Cup and practise games. Give Teams and coaches time to tweak it.

HELLO- the rule is in.

One problem I can see happening with this new rule is the interruption to a players formline if they find themselves as the substitute player.

Say matty Bate has put together 2 or 3 blinders in the reserves and comes back into the side as the substitute player. Then say he gets all of

1 quarter or worse yet, no game time at all and therefore no play for that week because casey has played the day before. Who would want to be the

substitute player in that scenario considering most interchange players nowadays get upwards of 70 to 80% game time per game. As said above, this

major rule change requires a considerable trial run in the NAB cup before it is introduced into a game which is hardly in need of major change.

I hate continual rule changes

But

any rule keeping guys on the ground will be known in 2 or 3 years as "The SCULLY RULES"

Currently overrunning the competition in the fourth quarter, if people are constantly moving he'll only have more of a gap come Q4.

Could result in a lot of teams being very wary about players adding much muscle.

Cool, but let's test the rule out properly before bringing it in for a season. Minimum Testing 2 years worth of NAB Cup and practise games. Give Teams and coaches time to tweak it.

Why? You want to see 160 interchanges a game and a rolling scrum? That is the way it was heading.

Why not test how good coaches and match committee's of the various clubs are at using the rules to their advantage.

This new rule will not improve football.

Players will tire sooner and their skills will suffer.

Expect more mis-kicks and mis-handballs than normal...It will ruin the spectacle for ever.....

Disagree entirely. It will open the game up more because players will tire and not be able to chase as hard. Therefore players will have more time to dispose of the ball. It will also encourage players to get fitter, like the old style Robert Harvey's. we will see a return to gut running (Scully's forte) and less of the congested crap we've been dished up the last couple of years.

One problem I can see happening with this new rule is the interruption to a players formline if they find themselves as the substitute player.

Say matty Bate has put together 2 or 3 blinders in the reserves and comes back into the side as the substitute player. Then say he gets all of

1 quarter or worse yet, no game time at all and therefore no play for that week because casey has played the day before. Who would want to be the

substitute player in that scenario considering most interchange players nowadays get upwards of 70 to 80% game time per game. As said above, this

major rule change requires a considerable trial run in the NAB cup before it is introduced into a game which is hardly in need of major change.

Thought this may be a problem too. That's why i was actually in favour of the cap rule. I don't know if the sub player can be brought in at any time or only after an injury (although it isn't hard to manufacture hamstring tightness). If it is anytime then perhaps it won't be as bad as if it is strictly for injuries only.

It will come down a bit to the club managing reserve promotions well. It is the similar fate that is often dealt to the emergency player on an interstate trip who misses the Casey match but doesn't play for Melbourne. He is often overlooked entirely the next week.

I hate the idea that once a player is off they can't come back on. That's Soccer, not Australian Rules football.

I would love to see this data on collision injuries.

HELLO- the rule is in.

Yes i know the Rule is in, and that's why i am not too pleased, as it is once again mostly untried

Thought this may be a problem too. That's why i was actually in favour of the cap rule. I don't know if the sub player can be brought in at any time or only after an injury (although it isn't hard to manufacture hamstring tightness). If it is anytime then perhaps it won't be as bad as if it is strictly for injuries only.

It will come down a bit to the club managing reserve promotions well. It is the similar fate that is often dealt to the emergency player on an interstate trip who misses the Casey match but doesn't play for Melbourne. He is often overlooked entirely the next week.

Like i said, it is untried and should still be used only in the NAB Cup games thus far. i can handle rule changes, but not Knee Jerk ones.

I hate the idea that once a player is off they can't come back on. That's Soccer, not Australian Rules football.

Australian Rules football had only two substitutes for over a hundred years.

Actually like the rule. It will hopefully eliminate some of this horrible congested footy we see.

Will also play into the hands of blokes like scully who can run for days instead of needing constant rotations.

And yes i agree that it will turn the clocks back towards the forward/ruck option. Hence the value of the Hale trade. He will be more useful as a forward than Spencer or PJ have or will ever be. It will then allow us to continue a primarily midfield rotation.

I agree GsoaG, that they had to stop Malthouses more & more rotations.

I sent my thoughts to the AFL quite some time back re the 3 & I sub Idea. And even had a strong discussion with Montangia, Milne & Raph Clarke whilst I was having a coffee, & suggested to them, last year that the interchange was ruining the game & turning players into burst players.

No more Diesel Williams with those interchange No's, Nor Plugger Lockett's.

No there taking it back to what it was awhile back.

A good step.

Blame me as well for suggesting changes to the Umpires lack of Respect, & that changes were needed. Some 4 Years back. The writing was on the wall but people hadn't realised it, that the lack of Umpire talent is in a large part due to the abuse & poor status of our Umpires. That reduces the quality & numbers of available young Umpires.

As maurie said, the interchange is only a recent incarnation. Its actually a return to its roots!!

Australian Rules football had only two substitutes for over a hundred years.

Once they were off they couldn't come back on?

Either way it's just not football IMO.

Once they were off they couldn't come back on?

Either way it's just not football IMO.

Clint with all due ... Of course it's footy !! With unchecked subs it was becoming less like footy and more like bball or some other code. Now well see a slight return to better match ups and inspired tactics and play instead of crash run crash run etc. Who knows ... The art of KICKING may even return !!