This will be interesting -

Interchange cap set at 20

More evidence the AFL approved of tanking...

Kevin Bartlett wins again. Exhausted players is his wish.

It's 20 interchanges per quarter. I just don't see the point- change for the sake of change again. Is there any other sport in the world that introduces new rules every damn season?

The rules are stupid because the rule has been brought in without thinking the repercussions though. Since teams who reach the maximum rotations allowed will be forced to keep injured players on the ground until the end of the quarter? What are the penalties for exceeding the maximum, what are the legal repercussions for clubs that do not allow injured players to come off the field? The blood rule forces players off the field. The rules are changed by reactionaries not thinkers.

Kevin Bartlett wins again. Exhausted players is his wish.

i'm with hungry.......sick of the conga line............class over athleticism every time

i'm with hungry.......sick of the conga line............class over athleticism every time

trouble is the game is not a one on one contest anymore.

Clubs will not be pleased.

The rules are stupid because the rule has been brought in without thinking the repercussions though. Since teams who reach the maximum rotations allowed will be forced to keep injured players on the ground until the end of the quarter? What are the penalties for exceeding the maximum, what are the legal repercussions for clubs that do not allow injured players to come off the field? The blood rule forces players off the field. The rules are changed by reactionaries not thinkers.

Or people posting without reading the article?

The capped system to be used in the NAB Cup series also contains a provision for a medical assessment to be made without an interchange being recorded.

When a club official advises an AFL interchange official that a player has left the ground for a medical assessment, no interchange will be recorded but the player being assessed will be off the ground for 15 minutes of playing time.

The replacement player in that instance will be one of the three interchange players rather than the substitute player.

The provision was considered sufficient to allow doctors time to assess players suspected of concussion and trial some of the practical implications of the decision-making process in those instances

trouble is the game is not a one on one contest anymore.

Clubs will not be pleased.

rubbish wyl

afl is he only football competition (or other sport for all i know) that allows unlimited interchange

who says x interchange players with unlimited rotations is the correct number

why not have 5 or 6 or whatever interchange players in the future just to "evolve" the game?

all it does is increase the congestion reduce the impact of skilled footballers and increase negative or defensive play to the detriment of exciting offensive football

its already looking more like rugby for congestion and soccer for defensive play

i'd have 2 interchange players with a limit on rotations (say 10/Q) and 2 one-time substitute players

the game would cope quite nicely

rubbish wyl

afl is he only football competition (or other sport for all i know) that allows unlimited interchange

who says x interchange players with unlimited rotations is the correct number

why not have 5 or 6 or whatever interchange players in the future just to "evolve" the game?

all it does is increase the congestion reduce the impact of skilled footballers and increase negative or defensive play to the detriment of exciting offensive football

its already looking more like rugby for congestion and soccer for defensive play

i'd have 2 interchange players with a limit on rotations (say 10/Q) and 2 one-time substitute players

the game would cope quite nicely

you are not taking into account how far a modern footballer runs in a game.

It's not rubbish.

You either have an interchange bench or return to 19th & 20th men.

You can't have both imo

rubbish wyl

afl is he only football competition (or other sport for all i know) that allows unlimited interchange

who says x interchange players with unlimited rotations is the correct number

why not have 5 or 6 or whatever interchange players in the future just to "evolve" the game?

all it does is increase the congestion reduce the impact of skilled footballers and increase negative or defensive play to the detriment of exciting offensive football

its already looking more like rugby for congestion and soccer for defensive play

i'd have 2 interchange players with a limit on rotations (say 10/Q) and 2 one-time substitute players

the game would cope quite nicely

I liked your post 'dc' but reckon that 10 per quarter is a bit low. 15-20 would be more to my liking. If they're using 20 as a benchmark in the NAB Cup then that's probably a pointer to what could happen in the future.

You're spot on with the congestion argument. Without the unlimited interchanges that we currently have, I can't see how that congestion could happen as frequently. Most people you speak to hate seeing all the players in one quarter of the ground.

We've already seen a rule change of 'sorts' with regards to rotations. The coaches have exploited a situation in order to keep their players fresh. The new 'rule of thumb' is at least 150 rotations per team, per game. (roughly) The extra interchange was originally designed to help a team square the balance with regards to injuries.

4 interchange was never designed so that teams could have in excess of 150 - 160 rotations. The demands of the modern game have in some ways 'forced' the coaches to have more rotations. 2 and 2 helps get more positional play. Do we really want to see KPF's run up and down the ground all day?

How many times do we see teams get hold of the ball in the backline and then have literally nowhere to go with the ball (other than to hold it up until the forwards go rushing back) . The 'Press' and the 'Flood' would have to become less frequent if rotations were capped (at a workable level)

you are not taking into account how far a modern footballer runs in a game.

It's not rubbish.

You either have an interchange bench or return to 19th & 20th men.

You can't have both imo

Q. how far does a modern footballer run in a game

A. as far as he can - within the limitation of his stamina and the number of interchange players and rotations

Where is it written that a player has to run a certain distance?

If i want to watch an endurance competition I'll watch long distance athletics events

I want to watch good football

but each to their own

I liked your post 'dc' but reckon that 10 per quarter is a bit low. 15-20 would be more to my liking. If they're using 20 as a benchmark in the NAB Cup then that's probably a pointer to what could happen in the future.

You're spot on with the congestion argument. Without the unlimited interchanges that we currently have, I can't see how that congestion could happen as frequently. Most people you speak to hate seeing all the players in one quarter of the ground.

We've seen a rule change of sorts with regards to rotations. The coaches have exploited a situation in order to keep their players fresh. The extra interchange was originally designed to help a team square the balance with regards to injuries.

4 interchange was never designed so that teams could have in excess of 150 - 160 rotations. The demands of the modern game have in some ways 'forced' the coaches to have more rotations. 2 and 2 helps get more positional play. Do we really want to see KPF's run up and down the ground all day?

Macca, had a freshen up?

Q. how far does a modern footballer run in a game

A. as far as he can - within the limitation of his stamina and the number of interchange players and rotations

Where is it written that a player has to run a certain distance?

If i want to watch an endurance competition I'll watch long distance athletics events

I want to watch good football

but each to their own

talk to the coaches dc not me.

The modern strategy is to run in waves not to play man on man.

How did it evolve? When the interchange bench was bought in.

Macca, had a freshen up?

Ha ! A change is as good as a holiday, JR

Just on rule changes ... in our game it seems that the sport itself can morph into looking quite different in just a few years. What we can possibly identity is that the game started to change quite noticeably from the time we brought the 4th interchange in.

Footy will never go back to what it looked like in the 70's and 80's but I reckon nearly all the fans would prefer to see less congestion and at least a few forwards stay in their area of the ground.(consistently)

Apart from putting lines on the ground (which wouldn't happen) the only possible way to 'fix it' is with less rotations. I'm happy with the NAB cup rule and would be even happier if the new 'rules' were brought in for the real stuff (immediately)

talk to the coaches dc not me.

The modern strategy is to run in waves not to play man on man.

How did it evolve? When the interchange bench was bought in.

i know the current status wyl and how it came about

i just don't like the impact on the game as a spectacle

basically i think it adversely alters the balance between athleticism and football ability, and also defence vs offense and congestion vs space

i'm not wanting to remove rotations but just restore a bit of balance

reducing the rotations doesn't mean a return to the man on man football

i know the current status wyl and how it came about

i just don't like the impact on the game as a spectacle

basically i think it adversely alters the balance between athleticism and football ability, and also defence vs offense and congestion vs space

i'm not wanting to remove rotations but just restore a bit of balance

reducing the rotations doesn't mean a return to the man on man football

i agree, but i doubt coaching strategies will regress. Players will keep running with less rotations.

That is dangerous territory in one game, let alone a season.

i agree, but i doubt coaching strategies will regress. Players will keep running with less rotations.

That is dangerous territory in one game, let alone a season.

That's a real possibility...potentially, this could affect training in the future as there'll be more 'miles in the legs' rather than 'burst, get to a contest and then another...'

KB's era was gut wrenching running and no footies until Feb...I don't think he fully understands the modern game.

One thing I'm calm about - at least we have a coach who has a clue.

i agree, but i doubt coaching strategies will regress. Players will keep running with less rotations.

That is dangerous territory in one game, let alone a season.

agree coaches won't agree to it voluntarily and will [censored] and whine

but i have faith that if it is forced on them that they will adjust accordingly. they are not stupid

i agree, but i doubt coaching strategies will regress. Players will keep running with less rotations.

That is dangerous territory in one game, let alone a season.

If we had far less rotation then it's hard to see coaches 'exhausting' their players. They would need 'run in the legs' for the 2nd half and/or the last quarter. Without adequate 'rest', many players may burn up and start dropping like flies.

Ice Hockey is a reasonable example. That sport has unlimited interchange because any given player only has 2.5 to 3 minutes before they 'blow up'. I'm only using the comparison in regards to the lactic acid bit or the exhaustion factor.(whatever you want to call it) There is literally nowhere to rest or hide on an Ice Hockey rink although the way our game is played now, you could nearly say the same thing about AFL.

With way less rotations the coaches would adjust their tactics. They would have to.

Kevin Bartlett wins again. Exhausted players is his wish.

he has my vote.

If we had far less rotation then it's hard to see coaches 'exhausting' their players. They would need 'run in the legs' for the 2nd half and/or the last quarter. Without adequate 'rest', many players may burn up and start dropping like flies.

Ice Hockey is a reasonable example. That sport has unlimited interchange because any given player only has 2.5 to 3 minutes before they 'blow up'. I'm only using the comparison in regards to the lactic acid bit or the exhaustion factor.(whatever you want to call it) There is literally nowhere to rest or hide on an Ice Hockey rink although the way our game is played now, you could nearly say the same thing about AFL.

With way less rotations the coaches would adjust their tactics. They would have to.

We might have less of 36 players in the one half if they cannot go off for a rest every 5 minutes.

We might have less of that crap of immediately taking off a player when he kicks a goal.

We might have ruckman resting in the forward line instead of going off.

We might have less of a rolling maul.

Sounds like football a few years ago before this 100+ rotations crap started.

I look forward to it.

So what will players do after they kick a goal?

So what will players do after they kick a goal?

Good point....probably run back to their position.

I agree with what is said above...but when does human nature in anything regress.

It doesn't. The running game evolved with the era of the professional footballer.

Sports Science will work out another way to keep players running without rotations. I am not saying it is right but KB or anyone is delusional if they believe they can return the game to a one on one contest.