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

interesting concept, 18 onfield, but what about 19th, 20th, 21st, & 22nd men... no rotations? needs some thought.

And I see that the AFL is also investigating the numbers of non-playing personnel on the field (presumably runners, trainers and waterboys and girls). I'm all for a restriction on runners. The number I'd go with is zero.

I'm still at a complete loss as to why....

Lucky they have not capped the amount of times you can change a head coach :/

interesting concept, 18 onfield, but what about 19th, 20th, 21st, & 22nd men... no rotations? needs some thought.

Until the mid-thirties there were no "Reserves", if a man was maimed he got up and played on or you played short.

The 19th man became the 19th and 20th men who in turn with a 21st man became The Interchange.

We know the rest.

Vote for the rules committee to be outed. They just cant help themselves fiddling about with needless rule changes every year. Its a blight on the game.

I;m all for improving existing rules (the way it was originally layed out). Protect the ball player, and the rest of the basic rules may do with a fine tune.

Its being over goverened, the ave supporter agrees. The $hit will hit the fan when a team loses a close game, due to a interchange infringment, then declare the offical miscounted the rotations. It will happen, its just a matter of when it happens.

What i cant work out is, they (AFL / Rules committee) agree the game is faster and needs changes to slow the game down, yet they bring in a new rule, that it is now ok NOT to wait for the goal ump to stop waving his flag after a score,and bring the ball back into play without delay. Right there is a confliction of what they are saying. While waiting for the goal ump, you got a bit of a breather,had more time to pick up loose players etc etc. I cant figure this mob out.

The rotations and extra players on the interchange, only assist stronger clubs with more depth players. Players survived for 70 years with no rotations, they just got more fatigued as the game went on. It then began a battle of will power and fitness, not who has more depth on a list.

Until the mid-thirties there were no "Reserves", if a man was maimed he got up and played on or you played short.

The 19th man became the 19th and 20th men who in turn with a 21st man became The Interchange.

We know the rest.

thats the problem champ, "the rest"... things have gone backwards at an alarming rate, leaving So Many people & past players uninterested in the new game.

the only ones who love it are imo addicted to being over active mentally,,, & have stats running thru their heads when other things like enjoyment matter.. the games lost its pizzazz, & is too congested... its like basketball crossed with soccer. both I don't like...

I tend to Rugby league since the games changed.

Vote for the rules committee to be outed. They just cant help themselves fiddling about with needless rule changes every year. Its a blight on the game.

I;m all for improving existing rules (the way it was originally layed out). Protect the ball player, and the rest of the basic rules may do with a fine tune.

Its being over goverened, the ave supporter agrees. The [censored] will hit the fan when a team loses a close game, due to a interchange infringment, then declare the offical miscounted the rotations. It will happen, its just a matter of when it happens.

What i cant work out is, they (AFL / Rules committee) agree the game is faster and needs changes to slow the game down, yet they bring in a new rule, that it is now ok NOT to wait for the goal ump to stop waving his flag after a score,and bring the ball back into play without delay. Right there is a confliction of what they are saying. While waiting for the goal ump, you got a bit of a breather,had more time to pick up loose players etc etc. I cant figure this mob out.

The rotations and extra players on the interchange, only assist stronger clubs with more depth players. Players survived for 70 years with no rotations, they just got more fatigued as the game went on. It then began a battle of will power and fitness, not who has more depth on a list.

at the moment the clubs have More Than 1 interchange rotation Per Minute of match played. its crazy & there are so many people who cannot tell who's even playing let alone where they are & in what role they're acting.

the players have too much say, & are ruining a great game along with bartlet.

at the moment the clubs have More Than 1 interchange rotation Per Minute of match played. its crazy & there are so many people who cannot tell who's even playing let alone where they are & in what role they're acting.

the players have too much say, & are ruining a great game along with bartlet.

Wait so now it's the players fault? I can blame the coaches but I can't see how it's the players fault.

The way I see it the AFL got spooked by 2 things:

1. The success of Sydney in 2005 based upon a heavy stoppage game. And say what you want if you have poor skilled teams playing heavy contested footy it's going to be low scoring and boring.

2. Dangerous collision injuries from players been faster and heavier.

So all the rule changes have been about trying to change one of those 2 things. The kick in rules, the relaxing holding the ball in space but pinging it quickly under a pack, the ruck rules, the 30 second for goal rules. It's all about getting the players to run quicker and longer and get out of congestion, then at the same time avoid injuries. So the coaches said there is no way that our midfielders can do 120 minutes of this stuff, so they'll have to rotate through the benches. Then the AFL goes the other way and now wants the game to be played out of congestion but also with players at a much slower speed. It's a difficult conundrum and I've seen no obvious example on how to keep the game safe and be the best product.

I don't mind the cap because I don't like "rotations".

I like one on one battles, not zones. If the players can't run zones, the game will speed up as uncontested attacking football will be easier.

But that's not the only thing I think it will change for the better. I think it will even teams up: it won't be about who can repeat sprint the most often (which needs to be trained over multiple years) it will be about endurance running.

Teams won't be as disadvantaged of they are down a "rotation".

Players will have to play in position more than they won't be able to run back and forth all day. This should reduce zoning and flooding and own the game up on the ground.

Players will have to rotate around the ground - rovers and rucks into pockets, flankers to the wing or Centre.

I don't like constant changes to the game but the rotation tend is one I don't like, because I think endurance is a fundamental of football and we're losing that.

Wait so now it's the players fault? I can blame the coaches but I can't see how it's the players fault.

The way I see it the AFL got spooked by 2 things:

1. The success of Sydney in 2005 based upon a heavy stoppage game. And say what you want if you have poor skilled teams playing heavy contested footy it's going to be low scoring and boring.

2. Dangerous collision injuries from players been faster and heavier.

So all the rule changes have been about trying to change one of those 2 things. The kick in rules, the relaxing holding the ball in space but pinging it quickly under a pack, the ruck rules, the 30 second for goal rules. It's all about getting the players to run quicker and longer and get out of congestion, then at the same time avoid injuries. So the coaches said there is no way that our midfielders can do 120 minutes of this stuff, so they'll have to rotate through the benches. Then the AFL goes the other way and now wants the game to be played out of congestion but also with players at a much slower speed. It's a difficult conundrum and I've seen no obvious example on how to keep the game safe and be the best product.

the players & the players union are starting to get over-involved in changes to the game, even playing out their thoughts & grievances publicly through the main media.

I think they should be represented at commission hearings, but I don't like the lobbying going on by them publicly as a way of politically weakening the AFL commissions position. this all eats away at the games integrity, piece by piece.

I don't mind the way Sydney plays at all... I like contested footy, particularly players matched up with space around them so we see plenty of one on one contests & the winner finds some space to run & carry or feedoff.

as far as the too many numbers to the one contest, I don't like it at all. Its a blight on the game where the ball player has 6 opponents surrounding him, like a pack of wolves, this is rugby union.

So to me we need to make it so the players are physically unable to get to so many contests, stopping 32 players all in one half of the ground.

I'm much more interested in what the players think about the rules than what the coaches think.

coaches are interested in winning and advantage and how their own theories and plans will achieve that. What the have looks like or what the have becomes is secondary to then winning games of football.

Players will tend to want the best for the game because they enjoy playing it.

I think the players comments on interchange are the exception: after 8 years in the afl training fitness for rotations the players don't want the cap because they haven't trained to run and play without it, so it will impact them, for the first couple of years at least.

Rules need to be constantly changed because the coaches do not care about how the game looks. Their only motivation is to win, whether it's winning ugly or not. So, coaches will do whatever they can within the rules as they stand to gain an advantage. If that means the game gets uglier, coaches don't care.

Which is why the holding the ball rule is what it is. Coaches used to train their players not to let the ball go free, even if they were on the ground, thereby inevitably causing a stoppage which was seen as a better percentage risk (ie, 50/50). So the rule was changed so that if the umpire believes the player dragged the ball in, a free will be paid against that player.

I'm much more interested in what the players think about the rules than what the coaches think.

coaches are interested in winning and advantage and how their own theories and plans will achieve that. What the have looks like or what the have becomes is secondary to then winning games of football.

Players will tend to want the best for the game because they enjoy playing it.

I think the players comments on interchange are the exception: after 8 years in the afl training fitness for rotations the players don't want the cap because they haven't trained to run and play without it, so it will impact them, for the first couple of years at least.

I'm interested in what they all think. but not their demands while their playing..

I think we need a bench of past successful coaches to oversee the laws of the game. they have the insight to maintain values,,, as well as the knowhow to see whats needed as well. & to take suggestions from the players association & from present day coaches.

Players, whilst their playing, tend to be a bit self oriented. better to have Ex players...

The capping, of course, is an AFL strategy to arrest further escalation of rotation numbers.

I suppose it also pays a lip service to consideration of player welfare.

In practice a 120 cap (against a recent across the board average of 133) will not even be noticed by anyone except for the Interchange Stewards who probably would see the limit as just a further PitA.

I would have liked to see the number down to 100 or even less. I'm a big fan of old time contested footy and while we haven't been all that flash in the past, I can see our new coach exploiting our strength in talls both back and forward and doing everything to minimise our current weak suit in the midfield. Until we can develop more midfielders with big engines, a lower number of rotations will help us.

Does this mean that the Sub can now be scrapped?