Based on this article, looks like the AFL is getting ready to meddle again:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lay-off-bench-players-20121006-276av.html

Interested in Demonlanders' thoughts.

I personally have finally settled into the three-and-one that we currently have. I'm sick of the AFL continually changing the rules, but aside from that, I fundamentally disagree with the idea they're looking at here. They want to reduce intensity and speed to open the game up. Intensity and speed is what makes the game as good as it is. Finals are all about intensity and speed. I don't want the finals to be slow and monotonous with players unable to make contests in the final quarter because they're tiring.

Leave it! Ffs. When was the last time another sport changed its rules?

Based on this article, looks like the AFL is getting ready to meddle again:

http://www.theage.co...1006-276av.html

Interested in Demonlanders' thoughts.

I personally have finally settled into the three-and-one that we currently have. I'm sick of the AFL continually changing the rules, but aside from that, I fundamentally disagree with the idea they're looking at here. They want to reduce intensity and speed to open the game up. Intensity and speed is what makes the game as good as it is. Finals are all about intensity and speed. I don't want the finals to be slow and monotonous with players unable to make contests in the final quarter because they're tiring.

what speed is there in having a continuous slow moving rugby style maul with 3/4 of each team within 30m of the ball

i'll grant you the intensity but it's all wasted on the maul and trying to stay within 30m of the ball

Leave it! Ffs. When was the last time another sport changed its rules?

does that mean you want to go back to 19th and 20th man before they changed the rules?

I completley agree with the AFL on this. These rolling congested mauls are killing the game. Even league and union mates of mine say it was a better game to watch a few years ago. Us footy followers will keep watching it but its going to be bloody hard to attract new people to the game the way it is. late 90's footy was brilliant to watch. a cap on rotations will help get us back to a fast flowing but physical game. this game of hot potatoes is not great football unless the game is close or its a blockbuster. Remember the days when a hocking or harvey would get 35 touches it was big news. nowadays theres always about 3 guys in any one game with at least that many. half of it is lots of dinky in close handballs tryingn to clear congestion. pull out some old video guys and see how good this game used to be

if they're going to do anything they should re-vert back to the 4 bench system! that was far better than the current system imo and if they were to make it a 2-2 bench it would absolutely take the game backwards!

This game is becoming more about long distance runners that can kick and handball as opposed to true footballers and that's something I hate about the current AFL administration.

These new stupid interchange rules only inflate the egos of Demetriou and Anderson for making unnecessary changes and getting away with it.

Just like the true ruck position is already dead, there's no chance of ever finding another Tony Lockett.

My vote would go to the 4 man bench without any subs... but it's not an option on the poll.

I definitely think capping the rotations is the key to getting rid of this rugby crap. Keep the three and one, cap the rotations and the effect should be a more open game as players will be instructed to keep more to their 'positions', therefore saving energy for the latter stages of the game.

This is getting out of hand. Knee jerk changes like this are ridiculous. Soon the coaches will implement something else, and the AFL will decide they want more rotations and introduce a bench of every listed player at the club. They have made the game incredibly frustrating to watch over the last few years with the holding the ball interpretations changing so much and all the soft frees in the ruck where nobody knows which way they are going. Where I used to watch a few games a week I now find myself watching Melbourne games (although that is frustrating for entirely different reasons) are barely any others. And judging by crowd sizes and just the general vibe I get from others, I am not alone.

I would do away with the sub and go back to 4 interchange but cap the rotations as they should have done it in the first place.

The trouble with using subs is the full effect that they are trying to achieve (getting rid of the packs, mauls etc) doesn't happen until into the last quarter. Capping the interchange will make it harder from the first quarter and make for a better game.

I would do away with the sub and go back to 4 interchange but cap the rotations as they should have done it in the first place.

The trouble with using subs is the full effect that they are trying to achieve (getting rid of the packs, mauls etc) doesn't happen until into the last quarter. Capping the interchange will make it harder from the first quarter and make for a better game.

probaly the best option i feel

another alternative, though a bit more radical, is to put a minimum time on how long a players stays off for. say 10 minutes. this would naturally slow down the rotations as anyone coming off will be off for a while. coaches will be reluctant to lose a key player for that long.

it also bypasses the potential problem caused by a max number of rotations per team when there is an injury after the team has reached its maximum. this would be an issue with the option touted by the afl

instead say unlimited rotations but anyone who comes off is off for 10 minutes.

4 man bench, unlimited rotations, no sub, 10min off minimum.

Edited October 7, 201212 yr by Munga

I definitely think capping the rotations is the key to getting rid of this rugby crap. Keep the three and one, cap the rotations and the effect should be a more open game as players will be instructed to keep more to their 'positions', therefore saving energy for the latter stages of the game.

agree 100%

Why not just make it 4 subs, soccer style?

No I don't want the game to go back to the 19th man. But leave the rules alone for a while. It's so annoying! This includes interpretations thereof

another alternative, though a bit more radical, is to put a minimum time on how long a players stays off for. say 10 minutes. this would naturally slow down the rotations as anyone coming off will be off for a while. coaches will be reluctant to lose a key player for that long.

it also bypasses the potential problem caused by a max number of rotations per team when there is an injury after the team has reached its maximum. this would be an issue with the option touted by the afl

instead say unlimited rotations but anyone who comes off is off for 10 minutes.

4 man bench, unlimited rotations, no sub, 10min off minimum.

I think the threat of injury will mean the coach would always keep at least one interchange up his sleeve each quarter (I think it should be capped each quarter and not the match) in turn that would make for even less rotations.

Your 10 mins idea has some merit.

My vote would go for 3 and 3.... That way we have 6 backs, 6 mids, 6 forwards and 6 on the bench...

Should be 4 man bench 20 rotations per quarter with four extra benchings clubs can use for injuries from which the benched player cannot return

My vote would go to the 4 man bench without any subs... but it's not an option on the poll.

I didn't put this on there because I feel like this is about the same as if Lance Franklin declared he wanted to come to Melbourne.

Would be fantastic, but it's just not ever going to happen.

The only reason there are too many stoppages. Get rid of the stoppage and the game will flow.

How do you do that?

By cleaning up the holding the man and holding the ball rules for once and for all.

Make some clear cut rules about player on the ground over the ball. Like third player in free kick against him because he is only trying to lock the ball in.

And here is one to stir up controversy only one tackler; do away with two and three tacklers by law if necessary.

Those will see the game speed the game up.

I would also like to see them come down hard or legalise illegal disposals like throws, handing the ball to a team mate and the two hands moving hand ball.

I want it to go back to a 2+2 bench.

It would be closer to a 1990's style with added 'sports science' & 'professional training'.

So the skills will be higher than the 90's, but with better endurance than the 90's, and better disposal skills.

Bigger bodies as power takes over from some of the burst style players.

More footballers and less of the athletes.

More man on man matchups, than todays quagmire.

More long kicks & chains of play, etc.

Easier to follow, & honestly, less hard work to watch & enjoy. More exhilarating. More atmosphere.

I want it to go back to a 2+2 bench.

It would be closer to a 1990's style with added 'sports science' & 'professional training'.

So the skills will be higher than the 90's, but with better endurance than the 90's, and better disposal skills.

Bigger bodies as power takes over from some of the burst style players.

More footballers and less of the athletes.

More man on man matchups, than todays quagmire.

More long kicks & chains of play, etc.

Easier to follow, & honestly, less hard work to watch & enjoy. More exhilarating. More atmosphere.

yep. too true

I like that 10min idea. May be a touch too long - a 5min forced rotation with a 4-man bench would work though. Allow, I spose, for injuries - in the event of blood rule/stretcher/trainers there can be a swap sooner, but apart from that no swap.

Makes it more tactical - do you fire all and have them sit for 5mins, or do you keep it steadily ticking over?

I like that 10min idea. May be a touch too long - a 5min forced rotation with a 4-man bench would work though. Allow, I spose, for injuries - in the event of blood rule/stretcher/trainers there can be a swap sooner, but apart from that no swap.

Makes it more tactical - do you fire all and have them sit for 5mins, or do you keep it steadily ticking over?

KISS

We are changing too many things with new laws & interpretations,,,,, instead of just the Obvious Simple Way. Take one away to a sub. So Simple is KI.

The only reason there are too many stoppages. Get rid of the stoppage and the game will flow.

How do you do that?

By cleaning up the holding the man and holding the ball rules for once and for all.

Make some clear cut rules about player on the ground over the ball. Like third player in free kick against him because he is only trying to lock the ball in.

And here is one to stir up controversy only one tackler; do away with two and three tacklers by law if necessary.

Those will see the game speed the game up.

I would also like to see them come down hard or legalise illegal disposals like throws, handing the ball to a team mate and the two hands moving hand ball.

I agree with you on a lot of this. I think we will always have some grey areas but things like incorrect disposal where a player drops the ball or if the ball is dropped in the tackle should be a free kick against.

In rugby league it is all about what they call ball protection and unless an opponent deliberately strips the ball it's called a knock on and effectively goes to the tackling team.

For our game the basic idea would be that if the ball falls free in the tackle or bump without the tackler forcing it free by getting a hand in (stripping) then it's a free kick for incorrect disposal. The player with the ball would have to protect the ball or dispose of it in the correct manner. No prior opportunity would still exist so if he hasn't had a chance to dispose of it he holds it and doesn't just shuffle it off as happens now.