cleomenes
Cancelled
- Nov 18, 2010
- 1,483
- 2,052
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #151
Can't argue with any of this, except perhaps that injured players cannot come back on in the same quarter rather than the next.Wasnt the interchange initially justified to remove the imbalance caused by injury
No one imagined it would become a revolving door
Limit interchange to quarter breaks
Injured players needing to come off during a quarter are ineligible to play the next quarter.
That would be 12 interchanges a piece
With probably some feigning injury /resting shenanigans in the last quarter increasing it to 15 each side
The selected 18 each quarter becomes crucial
Non injury changes during the quarter would come with the penalty of only 3 available changes in the following quarter
No more blind siding play with fresh players on the I/c wing
The spectators would become more involved in the player changes during the game
It's a beautiful simplification
Still allowing for surprise moves
In fact each change would be far more significant and known by all
Because of its simplicity it is likely to become consistent across all leagues. It is essentially what happens in under age football anyway - it is just codifying the obvious
Love it