I have read recent speculation about the imminent introduction of a five man interchange bench.

If this come to pass, then the Maxie and Brodie combination could be greatly enhanced. Imagine a fully rested ruckman at nearly all contests and less interference to our key forwards by Maxie flying for marks in the forward line when resting.

For once the AFL might get it right.

stinks, leave it at 4, we can barely field 22 down in the amo resies, dont need to try and find an extra player every week now

Fix up the medi-sub rule.

Allow the medi-sub to voluntarily come on,  ten minutes into the third quarter. By then a concussion ruling won't disadvantage a team too much.  

Have three interchanges and two subs.

Allow the subs to come on at any time for any reason, but once they're on the player they replace can't play for the rest of the match.

Could anyone please post where they found this speculation?

AFAIK, there isn’t anything in it beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

7 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

You've answered your own question.

11 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

You've answered your own question.

So ….. no?

28 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Could anyone please post where they found this speculation?

AFAIK, there isn’t anything in it beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

I did hear it being kicked around in the media last week but seemed nothing serious in it.

...but who would make the decision anyway?

The AFL are still without CEO and Head of Football for the coming season.

4 flat and an injury is just stiff [censored], wasn't a broken system so why fix it. 

same goes with the stand rule.

if a rule isn't going to last for 5 years or be changed within 5 years, then imo we don't need it. feel like people in these roles feel like they must make changes either to A) prove they are doing something in their role or B) for their own self-admiration that they had the ability to make a rule change so they just went and did it

How exciting will it be to do a best 23 instead of a best 22. It's got the tent up.

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Have three interchanges and two subs.

Allow the subs to come on at any time for any reason, but once they're on the player they replace can't play for the rest of the match.

Sounds like one step away from power plays and Zooper goals.

I think an alternative on the current model could be that once one team activates their sub, the other team has the option to  activate their sub (replacing an under-performing player) either within say 5 minutes of the sub being activated, or during any of the subsequent breaks in play (qrt time, half time, etc.). But if they have an injured player then then could still activated the sub at their discretion. 

Edited October 11, 20222 yr by Deetective Sgt. Taggert

9 hours ago, John Demonic said:

Sounds like one step away from power plays and Zooper goals.

Not really. It's just an interchange and going back to a 19th and 20th man.

13 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

Could anyone please post where they found this speculation?

AFAIK, there isn’t anything in it beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

Don't think this is where it came from ... but at a grandfinal breakfast function I went to, Damian Hardwick was asked a question about what he thinks of the rule changes over the last few years (given some people think they were designed to stop Richmond's dominance) and whether he thinks there will be any more changes.

He said (paraphrasing):

- doesn't think the rules have impacted Richmond specifically - they have been effective at achieving what they were designed to do.  Arguably the game is as good to watch from a supporter point of view than its ever been.

- doesn't think there'll be any more changes for a while.

and then he said 'actually, I think there will be a rule change for next year and that is increasing the number of interchange players by one and doing away with the sub.  Clubs have been consulted about this for some time.  He thinks it will effectively mean that most clubs will play two ruckman'

Ideally no subs but if we have to keep them I'd rather not tamper with 4 on the interchange. 

Why? The purpose of the sub was so club's weren't disadvantaged if a player was concussed. Then they just changed it to if a player was injured. Now it will just be an additional interchange so we're back to where we started but with a 5 man interchange. Next they'll need a sub for concussed/injured players so will be a 5 man interchange + 1 sub. And on and on it goes.

It's ridiculous, they should be limiting the interchange not expanding it.

So we were worried about the game being too defensive and we thought more fatigue would help. We reduce the number of interchanges. Now we might be adding an extra player. Huh? 
Meanwhile we were worried that standards were falling. But we’ll add an extra player to each team meaning 18 players who wouldn’t have been good enough to get a game, now are. And we can add another team, meaning a further 23 players will get a game.  The way this is going, I’m a chance for Albury’s team in 2031.

Ive heard a few commentators saying the potential rule change will benefit Grundy & Gawn working together. Can someone explain why that is?

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

If Gawn don't get ya, then Grundy must.

1 hour ago, tincan said:

Ive heard a few commentators saying the potential rule change will benefit Grundy & Gawn working together. Can someone explain why that is?

Because teams going in with one recognised ruck works with a 4 man bench as rotations are a premium and you need to have them through the middle but with an extra spot - suddenly a second ruck is an actual option and we would get massive benefit from that.

This has been talked about by media all year, and has ramped up in the media in the past week.

I noted this when we first went for Grundy and how it could work nicely.  

Coaches don't like the fact that a team gains an advantage when a player is injured, whilst i think if one side activates their sub then the other side should be allowed to also do so.  The AFL looks like they are just going to go to a 5 man bench, and no changes to rotation limits.

This fits very well with the Grundy/Gawn combo, and also allows us to play 2 talls up forward and maybe a tall/hybrid on the bench too

 

A few on here called this potential change for next season, hats off to them!

Gawn and Grundy pairing could benefit from extra bench option.

So, one option being suggested is that the "concussion sub" be replaced with someone called a "tactical sub". Apart from the change of name, how would a tactical sub be any different from the red vest/green vest sub used a few years ago which essentially everyone didn't like?

I suspect the 5 man interchange will be the decision because it's what the coaches have always wanted. What matters more, though, is whether there is an increase in the total number of interchanges allowed (is it 75 at the moment?) If the AFL keeps the number of rotations at whatever the number is now (or even reduces that number), I don't really see much harm in replacing the sub with a fifth interchange.

Having said that, though, I'm still in favour of massive reductions in rotations overall. Something like 20 per game would be better. It should open up the game and leave the best players on the ground longer. It should also provide forwards with better chances (because there will be less likelihood of onballers be able to defend space as effectively in front of the forwards). We might even see the return of the 100 goal a year key forward. 

I'm waiting for the coaches to start wingeing about how unfair it is if they get an injury early on and are one man down.

...so then we will get a 5 man bench and injury sub.

...but then the cry will be about how some are abusing it and it's not fair.

...then we will go to a 6 man bench.

....but then.

Anyway, you get the idea.