Interchange Cap

[Ruck Machine]

Looks like the cap is coming in .. so what do you think is the perfect number?

I say 88 i.e. one change per player per quarter.

 

[TheKITC]

My view on the vast majority of these rule change issues is quite simple.

Leave the game alone!

 

[Tas]

Zoning is the cause of injuries, not rotations. Clubs know this, AFL is clueless as usual.

We have so much front-on contact nowadays due to zoning where most of the contact prior to zoning was side-on or from behind. The front-on impact is far more damaging. Reducing rotations means clubs will put more emphasis on players with a high beep than football ability and they will just rotate players on-field to positions in the pocks/flanks.

It wont improve the quality of the football or reduce the number of injuries.

 

[brjafi]

I thought it was already unlimited????

 

[darcytiger]

Whats the max at the moment, Collingwood sometimes nudging 150?

I'd say leave it at around 150. That way it won't affect clubs that much but will stop teams having 22 Dane Swan's with 2-3 changes a quarter and it won't just become like musical chairs with a bit of footy on the side.

 

[Collingwould]

My view on the vast majority of these rule change issues is quite simple.

Leave the game alone!

I tend to agree with this school of thought, if this is the way the clubs are taking the game then let it be, it's their prerogative.

why does the AFL have to meddle with something which they perceive as a blight to the game that most people don't (see poll results so far), why not invest some time on more pressing and obvious issues such as the Etihad surface, sustaining a (to be) 18 team competition and how so many Melbourne teams can survive.

 

[Portia]

* 3 unlimited interchange positions.
* 1 reserve that can replace one active player permanently for the remainder of the match.

 

[Michael2010]

improve the playing surfaces first, reducing interchanges is the goer for me, 88 is the max that should be allowed

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

I'd rather see the AFL fixing wrong goal decisions with a video ref.

 

[flamethrower]

25 to 30 changes a quarter, with the changes at the breaks, blood rules and injuries not included.

 

[The Swert]

Rotations cost us the game twice on Friday. Once with the interchange infringement and secondly with the final ball up where McEvoy was allowed a free kick at goal because Skipper was trying to get off the ground to allow Renouf back on (so I heard somewhere).

Limit at 40 for the match and I'd rather see reserves than substitutes, if players aren't fit enough to run through a whole game then slow the game down. Who remembers when the TV coverage used to tell you all the interchanges as they happened?

 

[Zahki]

Happy with the game as it is, there's no good reason to change it.

 

[Funkalicous]

20 a quarter is more than enough IMO. Endurance and determination needs to be brought back into the game. Plus with less running, we'll see more contested footy, akin to the glory days of the 90s.

 

[luthor]

20 a quarter is more than enough IMO. Endurance and determination needs to be brought back into the game. Plus with less running, we'll see more contested footy, akin to the glory days of the 90s.

Agree!

Also the smarter players and those with more natural ability should come to the fore, instead of being subjected to 7 different opponents taking turn to nullify them.

 

[hawks_time]

Poll is pointless with hidden voters.

The sooner they make votes publicly viewable as the default setting the better.

I don't see how it matters with this poll? What does it matter who votes for what in it, it's not a supporter of one club being bias against another.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Rotations cost us the game twice on Friday. Once with the interchange infringement and secondly with the final ball up where McEvoy was allowed a free kick at goal because Skipper was trying to get off the ground to allow Renouf back on (so I heard somewhere).

So because Hawthorn couldn't control its interchange the whole comp should suffer?

Leave it as it is. The game will absorb, respond and adapt to this.

People forget that this is why Australian Rules is superior to all other codes to football. It is a free flowing game, where the play and ball can move in any direction by hand or foot and on the largest playing area.

Why try and constrain it?

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Ruck Machine]

bump

 

[Hoops]

If we are going to cap the interchange, I feel we should do it properly, and have quarter-by-quarter substitutes. So if you come off for the quarter you stay off giving a maximum of 16 interchanges a game. It will be a lot easier to police and with about 10% of the interchanges means that there will be about 10% of interchange infractions, which can only be described as blight on the game.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

I dont see how interchanging is linked with Injury

Collingwood are use to their fullest advantageous and have one of the healthiest list at the moment.

 

[Sloth]

I still have no idea why anyone would consider the number of interchanges a problem.... why not place a limit on how many tackles or kicks or handballs a team is allowed ?

 

[stmookeyj]

My proposal is different. Unlimited in number, BUT players when replaced need to be off the ground for a minimum of 5 minutes actual time. Therefore if a player comes off 5 minutes into the game, then he cannot return until the 10 minute mark of the game.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I don't think it should be limited at all, as it will take away from natural footballers, instead recruiters will rate endurance running even more importantly than they do now.

If it does go down that path, then there are only two logical and easy to manage solutions: 88, or 16.

88 (22 per quarter) = Every player can come off once per quarter, even those that start on the bench.

16 (4 per quarter) = Every bench player can come on once per quarter. Once a player comes off, they are off for the quarter. For this rule I would say substitutions only after goals.

As to how it's managed? Well 16 is pretty simple (four physical cards, must be handed to AFL steward before going on - returned to club official at each break.

88 is slightly more complex, each player would need a method of recording when they came off, steward would need to 'approve' each player going on. A simple "tick-a-box" with each player's number included would suffice - as players go on to the field (or into the interchange box), the AFL official checks their number off the list.

Of the options above, I choose unlimited.

 

[carntheroos4eva]

The AFL should really think this through a little more. They tried this in a NAB Cup series and it didn't work.
Mick Malthouse hated having 16 changes to the interchange per quarter. It didn't work.
Don't bring it in.
What I do like is the Substitutes they have in the Nab Cup. Bring that in.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

I believe the coaching staff are in the best position to judge the amount of interchanges, not someone in a suit sitting behind a desk.