http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap-

Cap will be 120 per match, no cap per quarter.

Thoughts?

I'm strongly against the continued changes to the rules, and I'm strongly against a cap in particular, but so be it I guess.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap-

Cap will be 120 per match, no cap per quarter.

Thoughts?

I'm strongly against the continued changes to the rules, and I'm strongly against a cap in particular, but so be it I guess.

The cap should be 30. While the skills are better today, the game was better when players played in their positions.

Who notices how many interchanges there are in a game? I don't go to the MCG and then spend half my time watching who is coming on or off and how much game time they play. I watch ball movement by hand and foot, high marks, huge tackles, bone-bruising crashes, goals from 50. I see Rioli, Howe, J Selwood, Ablett. Let them have 200 interchanges if they like just let them play footy and let me watch!!!

Any mention of whether blood rule interchanges are included in the count ?

Another Stat.

"Demons had 35 interchange that 3rd quarter to bring up a total of 97 for the game". "What does that tell you Alastair"?.

Nothing. except its just a relatively meaningless stat that will be examined and reported by meaningless commentators.

Does this mean another AFL stats man that may give a 50Metre penalty at the 30 minute mark of the last quarter?

ooooops sorry

thought this was a story about new demon caps for sale

I'm glad they've at least decided to make no limit per quarter. Let the coaches decide how they want to use the cap.

I don't know whether this is a good thing or not, but we'll see how it plays out.

That article isn't very informative. It tells you what is happening but not why it is happening.

Is it to stop the conga line of players running to the bench at every break in play or is it a injury related change?

Uncontrolled interchange numbers benefits running players. However, it also penalises key position players like Nick Reiwoldt who find that they have to work harder because they can burn off one defender only to see him replaced with another. I don't know if I'm for or against the cap - but I sympathise with the hard running key position players under the current unrestricted system.

Is it to stop the conga line of players running to the bench at every break in play or is it a injury related change?

My guess is they'll be basing it off injury figures, if prodded. Something along the lines of repeated interchanges = fresher players = more high-speed collision injuries.

I know that the AFLPA doesn't agree with this, though.

My guess is they'll be basing it off injury figures, if prodded. Something along the lines of repeated interchanges = fresher players = more high-speed collision injuries.

I know that the AFLPA doesn't agree with this, though.

Can you also elaborate on your objection to the cap?

Uncontrolled interchange numbers benefits running players. However, it also penalises key position players like Nick Reiwoldt who find that they have to work harder because they can burn off one defender only to see him replaced with another. I don't know if I'm for or against the cap - but I sympathise with the hard running key position players under the current unrestricted system.

Agree with that it penalises the natural ability of a player and allows several ordinary footballers to keep him in check. Personally I'd rather see a top footballer run his opponent ragged and play great football than some hacks keep him quiet and turn the game in to a bore.

i hate seeing 4 players come off only to go back on 2 minutes later; keep them on the ground and let's see the survival of the fittest and the natural talent of the players shine through.

Can you also elaborate on your objection to the cap?

The more we prevent rotations, the more we tire our players out. I'm in the camp of those who believe the increased fatigue will lead to more soft-tissue injuries, to less skill being exhibited on the ground, to a lower quality game overall.

What's more, I can't see any real problem with allowing unrestricted interchange. Some say it benefits the unfit - players like Nick Riewoldt have easily demonstrated their superior fitness with interchanges increasing, so I'm not sure that's a true argument. Some say it will reduce collision-style injuries - the AFLPA rejects this, and though I'm not across the research/evidence, even if it's true, we're simply trading off collision injuries for soft tissue injuries.

ooooops sorry

thought this was a story about new demon caps for sale

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

I thought that was worth sharing.

Somewhere tonight Sam Blease is crying.

Say goodbye to players with no aerobic capacity.

Somewhere tonight Sam Blease is crying.

Say goodbye to players with no aerobic capacity.

strangely Im not

It's a start... an acknowledgment that there are issues, & numbers dropping off...

the game has lost a lot of its charms, & has become a bit mish mash.

personally I miss the matchups of superstars playing on one another, in their specialist positions.

the game is too busy with rotations & negating tactics,,, & with eyesight going off a bit, is to hard to follow. even with binoculars.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

I thought that was worth sharing.

well done Young Dee... maybe we could privatise the interchange benches, & put Toll Ways in there.

Another layer of bureaucracy on a game that's already becoming like doing your taxes once a week.

Get rid of interchange all together and bring back the 19th and 20th man I say.

Well, at least it'll be easier to tank now. Just keep rotating players on and off and giving away 50s and goals

Well, at least it'll be easier to tank now. Just keep rotating players on and off and giving away 50s and goals

Wooden spoon 2014 is in the bag!

100% against this rule. Why on earth do they feel the need to constantly tinker with the rules? Because the laws of the game committee are a pack or reactionary old fools who are fighting to convince the world that they are in some way relevant. 90% of their changes backfire, and rather than admitting a mistake and reversing the change they simply make more changes in a vain attempt to repair the damage. I think the AFL need to look at the most successful sport in the world and take a leaf from their book. No rules get changed without exhaustive studies over a number of years and a great deal of political movement to push them through. We need to be far less willing to make changes.

I'm not sure that a free kick and 50 metre penalty is a wise choice for any rotation over the cap.

It is going to be another thing for the interchange steward to flap up.

Surely merely stopping any further rotations once the cap is reached is the logical answer?

In the event of an injury forcing a rotation then you could apply a penalty or an exception as warranted.

Edited August 27, 201311 yr by Robot Devil