I might be by my lonesome, but I disagree with the coaches and their whining. I'm happy to have less rotations, more fatigue and the game opening up. Six or 7 years ago 40 rotations was the norm. I'll also get to see the better players on the ground for longer.

It works for me.

I completely agree BH. the game needs to be opened up more. as i said in another post the game is like a flock of seagulls fighting over a bag of chips these days. whether or not this cap manages to do that will be seen but im happy the AFL is attempting something at least. I wouldve preferred an unlimited rotation number but a minimum time limit the player had to stay on the bench once hed left the ground. 5min for instance. Its only a few years ago as oyu said that 30 or 40 rotations were the norm and who can forget the good old days when the only time you came off was if you were injured or youd stuffed up!

Totally agree. The interchange rotation has been fully exploited and needs to be rained in. Will make games on the smaller grounds like docklands and scg more bearable to watch.

the fact that so many people now refer to a game of football as "bearable to watch" or "watchable" shows that something had to be done. This is our great game, it should ALWAYS be bearable to watch. the huge congetsion, flooding, press has made it not so bearable to watch on many occasions. As ive said before , unless the game is a blockbuster with a alot hinging on the result, watching games without melbourne playing can be hard to watch.

This is the issue. No problem with the concept of a cap, but the number does not seem realistic. Players are going to be run into the ground and squads are going to be stretched to their limit. In an effort to make the game more entertaining, the opposite could result.

they managed just fine 10 years ago when the average was 40 rotations a game. The game was a superb spectacle back then. The players games will evolve to last out the game jsut as they did 10 years ago. How often did robert harvey or greg williams sit on teh bench in their day?!

Hope they dont make it 80.

160 was the average last year,maybe something like , cap it to 120, which makes a bit more sense

I think I heard that the average was about 130 odd, so I would be looking at about 100 as cap (not that I really think it's needed) and leave the amount of changes per quarter up to the coaches. If they run out without realising it then it's their own fault.

Changes per quarter should be left to the coaches, it stands to reason that you'll want more in the 4th quarter compared to the 1st.

I tell you what was interesting, KB (who cannot talk about the laws of the game) would not answer Tim Watson's questions. Watto asked very simply, how did the laws of the game come to 20/20/20/20 as the recommended amount? What data lead them to decide on that? Instead of answer it he just talked about how the coaches make comments to suit their own agenda. This was a question I was very interested to get an answer from, just so I knew the process they go through but he came across as being very petty and vindictive. As if the LOTG committee just make rules to one up the coaches. He could not answer why he thought the cap would improve congestion.

The game we see today has almost been entirely designed by the coaches .

The defensive flood - coaches

The forward press - coaches

36 players in one quarter of the ground - coaches

Extra numbers in and around the ball (ugly packs) - coaches

160 rotations - coaches

Key position forwards in the last line of defence - coaches

Fitness levels of players to be able to do all this (with the aid of rotations) - coaches

80 rotations may not entirely eliminate the ugly packs and flooding. It's a good first step though. The game was a much better spectacle before the advent of the large number of rotations that we now see.

What's wrong with wanting the following? ......... Forwards in the forward line, backmen in the backline and the best players remaining on the ground (predominantly)

Love it or hate it, the game evolves. It's not 7 years ago, it's current day, where 160 rotations are not unusual and the players are conditioned towards that. Suddenly cutting that in half in the space of a season seems drastic. As others have suggested, cut to 120 and review would be the smarter way to go in my view.

We all want footy played the traditional way but you only have to look at Melbourne in games where we play teams with proper defenses to work out footy is a lot harder that way.

Barcelona and Spain and even Brisbane Roar have shown you can win playing the beautiful game in soccer so maybe it will get around to it one day. Geelong played a very attractive brand of footy particularly from 07 to 09 so it can be done.

Could work well for us .

We will have a pretty tall ,mobile team that should be able to take marks ,and you would expect more long kicks as teams fatigue .

I think I agree with Ben Hur which can happen on rare occasions.

It will stop the rolling ruck ,the maul ,the flooding etc that has made the game a bit too congested for my liking.

Hate Vlads attitude and the way he has dictated rather than consulted but ultimately i think it will be a better spectacle for the change .

Well said, Biff. IMHO one of the annoying things about watching a game live (especially from the Northern stand) is the constant distraction of players running on and off the ground like blue-arsed flies. This move, no matter how silly the AFL's process is, may also reduce high-speed collision injuries, due to the players having a little less energy.

2 subs and 2 interchange

Or

Simply 2 subs

I want rovers resting in the forward pocket and players never touching the pine with epic 1 on 1 battles, all match long.

Real champions can dig deep when exhausted.

I am sick of rotations and players who are simply gifted for running flat out for 4mins.

If I see another bloke get benched after he kicks a goal, I'll puke.

Edited March 5, 201312 yr by tonatopia

Not that I don't think Demonland posters and a big head who finished playing 30 years ago aren't the best people to decide a very scientific rule, but here's a perspective from someone actually currently involved in the game... Although, warning, it's a coach and apparently they are out to wreck the game...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/adelaide-coach-brenton-sanderson-warns-an-interchange-cap-of-80-will-cut-careers-short/story-e6frf9ko-1226590819532

Once upon a time the League used to be ahead of the game. The 'Diamond' preceded the 'Centre Square'. The square was introduced because of the ugly packs and too many players around the ball. We now have the same sort of issue so why not try and fix it.

The modern game has a lot of the elements of past era's - toughness, athleticism, skills etc etc. But it is sometimes hard to watch because quite often, there are too many players around the ball.

Fair enough, have a go at the AFL for all sorts of issues. But they are not solely responsible for the current spectacle that we witness. For that we need look at the coaches.

The 4th interchange was originally brought in to cover the scenario of a team being disadvantaged by injury. It was never designed so that players wouldn't get tired.

Edited March 5, 201312 yr by Macca

I might be by my lonesome, but I disagree with the coaches and their whining. I'm happy to have less rotations, more fatigue and the game opening up. Six or 7 years ago 40 rotations was the norm. I'll also get to see the better players on the ground for longer.

It works for me.

'Ben', I'm not against the cap but I would also like to get rid of the sub and bring it back to 4 interchange. Having played in the days of 19th & 20th man, it is an absolute pain to be sitting on the bench not knowing when or if you will get a decent run.

16 a side is getting a bit more traction recently and it may well be an option if we keep getting these rugby style mauls. Paying decisions for incorrect disposal should be encouraged to clean this up as a first option, I don't see the interchange cap having a lot of effect here until later in the game so early doors will be more of the same so 16 a side might be a solution.

Someone mentioned the runner, well at least bring it back to only one runner per club. I think currently there are a couple virtually tag teaming to handle the workload.

Many of the coaches say their job is limited on match day and pretty much all their work is done during the week, take the runner away from them and lets see how that story stands up.

Not that I don't think Demonland posters and a big head who finished playing 30 years ago aren't the best people to decide a very scientific rule, but here's a perspective from someone actually currently involved in the game... Although, warning, it's a coach and apparently they are out to wreck the game...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/adelaide-coach-brenton-sanderson-warns-an-interchange-cap-of-80-will-cut-careers-short/story-e6frf9ko-1226590819532

He talks about the type of player drafted and the training etc. some players may have their careers cut short. He is not talking physical wear and tear here but physical characteristics. The type of player required to play the game. There is nothing new here.

If you look at how we are being trained then you can see a FD despite their protestations who know the game is changing, the opposite to us were Essendon last year who tried to bulk up and prepare for a game that was quickly becoming obsolete.

The only thing I don't understand is why we are waiting a year to implement the change if it is a forgone conclusion.

Dangerous Ground here. The game will continue to get quicker. It's human nature.

To drop the cap by half will mean players will need completely new training.

Personally i don't like capping. If a player needs a rest they should get one.

Its not 1979 anymore.

SO they spend 10 years trying to speed the game up. Ignoring fans who complain we are becoming like basketball now they are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

They are idiots. And unfortunately when you run a monopoly you can get away with what you like, Until people start switching off because they are sick of the duplicitous behaviour, constant rule changes, uneven playing field, rigged fixture, poor revenue sharing from stadium deals, ridiculous and inconsistent tribunal decisions, poor drug policies, lousy telecasts and corporate buffoonery.

You are one hell of a critic. Must be a real half glass empty kind of guy

can we please, please, please please leave the bloody rules alone?

I think teams will need bigger lists, players will need more time cpming back from injury due to more time needed to rebuild fitness base. Also more injuries may occur as coaches may be more reluctant to pull players off at any tiny hunch that they have hurt themselves.

I remember, think it were 2 years ago that Freo almost ran out of players to even field a team because of injuries.

can we please, please, please please leave the bloody rules alone?

Sometimes you have to act.

We need to slow the game down a bit.

I know it is frustrating but we need to tire the players out a tad and rotations are a good way to do it.

Aussie rules used to be an endurance game and we have moved too far toward a power running game in my opinion.

Burst speed has been a priority aswell as endurance which, I feel, has meant more athletes than footy players being given a shot.

If we go back to having endurance as a necessity then it gets rid of a few faux-footy players IMO.

Edited March 5, 201312 yr by rpfc

Just bite the bullet and remove the interchange altogether. 7 subs, no interchange. Bam! Problem solved.

hmmn, interesting.

Love it or hate it, the game evolves. It's not 7 years ago, it's current day, where 160 rotations are not unusual and the players are conditioned towards that. Suddenly cutting that in half in the space of a season seems drastic. As others have suggested, cut to 120 and review would be the smarter way to go in my view.

The average last year was about 130 not 160. The Crows were the only team that averaged as high as 160 I believe.

Just bring it back to 2 + 2 + 2 emergencies... 2 emergencies at the start of the game, reducing to 1 emergency @ the beginning of the 3rd Qtr. (emergencies can only replace badly hurt players needing hospitalisation).

Who hear plays local footy?

Who complained in 2008 that 80 interchanges wasn't enough?

The game will survive the interchange limitations but I agree at some stage we need to look at how we get players not to run so hard without them being completely fatigued as the answer.

One consideration is with 18 teams we've spread the talent too thin and thus given athletes a chance over footballers

I don't think it will stop players running hard. They will run as hard as they can. It will limit the number of times they can run hard or to try and continually run the whole field.

I expect it may influence the coaches to rethink their zones and more specifically how much territory a player is asked to cover, effectively reducing it

this in turn could limit the continuous maul tactics and open up a bit more space for offensive play and the more skilled players

the coaches will [censored] and resist it but eventually they will adapt and move on

A needed first move to turn the juiced up robots that currently play the game back into human footballers. Coaches will now have to consider in managing their players to last out the game rather than flogging them into the ground in ever increasing whirlwind cameos.

I hate most rule chanes that have made the game a mess with free kicks getting paid willy nilly where nobody has any idea which way thy are going. But this actually makes sense to me.

Although it doesn't excuse KB and Demetriou's behaviour.

hmmn, interesting.

Chook i actually like that idea. would seem a bit extreme to some but i like it. i cnat ever remember watching hocking, harvey, platten matthews have to come and sit on the pine 8 times a game. why do these guys have to? slow the game a bit and keep the stars out on the ground