Time for the AFL to redo the list structure.

[Cleric]

This whole main list, rookie list, Cat B rookie list and all the rules about how long a player can be on the list etc is just not needed.

Increase the list size to a maximum of 46, no rookie and no Cat B.
The extra spots can be used for clubs to develop another ruckman, or to take a punt of a project player, without the restrictions on how long they can stay on the list before either delisting or elevating them.
Clubs don't have to have the full 46, but clubs can go to 46.
Players that would have qualified for Cat B rookie can still get on the main list via the same selection procedure they did before.
The reasons for the extra spots is simple. As most clubs now run a full reserves team this gives them a full list of two teams. Yes there will be injuries, and so some top ups are required, but if all healthy then you have two full teams.
The extra list spots will allow more kids to get drafted, and without a doubt a number of them will kick on and have full careers.

On game day, there should be five on the bench, with no need for a tactical or medical sub.
Two reasons.
1. The issue with the sub is that the player generally doesn't get on the field until the last qtr and then normally gets dropped back to get a full game under him. This does nothing for a developing kid, or for any player actually.
2. By allowing another full interchange spot it allows the teams to be more tactical (maybe they run another Ruck for instance) and it allows younger kids to get more games experience quicker.

Now people will say there isn't enough talent, but regardless with most clubs having a full reserves team what is the harm? You need them anyway.

To me it's all about exposing more players to getting experience and maximising the talent at the top level.

 

[Kwality]

Increasing the size of the bench will further reduce the average playing time of the players at a time when player welfare/cte is under scrutiny. Not a good look with Court cases pending.

 

[Cleric]

Increasing the size of the bench will further reduce the average playing time of the players at a time when player welfare/cte is under scrutiny. Not a good look with Court cases pending.

How would less playing minutes equate to a bad look for pending court cases?

 

[Freomaniac]

Increasing the size of the bench will further reduce the average playing time of the players at a time when player welfare/cte is under scrutiny. Not a good look with Court cases pending.

So no rotations then?

AFL teams have a full list of 45 or so players to choose from.

You play the same 23 players each week, your leaving out 22 players .

 

[Kwality]

So no rotations then?

AFL teams have a full list of 45 or so players to choose from.

You play the same 23 players each week, your leaving out 22 players .

We cant ignore cte. Be hard to deny in Court that interchanges increase the speed of the game/fresh players hit harder than physically tired players.

We started with 18 playing 100 minutes, now we've got 23 players sharing the load & it has been decided by those managing the game.

 

[Freomaniac]

We cant ignore cte. Be hard to deny in Court that interchanges increase the speed of the game/fresh players hit harder than physically tired players.

We started with 18 playing 100 minutes, now we've got 23 players sharing the load & it has been decided by those managing the game.

Well I won't deny the CTE and concussions and head injuries.

Yes we started with 18 players and no bench.

Then it became 2 players on the bench and who ever gets subbed off, didn't come back.

Then we went with 2 players on the bench coming in an out of the field.

Then it was 3 players when eagles won the flag in 1994.

Then it was 4 players when crows won the flag in 1997-8.

Then when the hawks made grand finals in 2012-15, it was 3 in the bench and a substitute.

Then it's 4 players on the bench and a tactical sub

 

[The 747]

This whole main list, rookie list, Cat B rookie list and all the rules about how long a player can be on the list etc is just not needed.

Increase the list size to a maximum of 46, no rookie and no Cat B.
The extra spots can be used for clubs to develop another ruckman, or to take a punt of a project player, without the restrictions on how long they can stay on the list before either delisting or elevating them.
Clubs don't have to have the full 46, but clubs can go to 46.
Players that would have qualified for Cat B rookie can still get on the main list via the same selection procedure they did before.
The reasons for the extra spots is simple. As most clubs now run a full reserves team this gives them a full list of two teams. Yes there will be injuries, and so some top ups are required, but if all healthy then you have two full teams.
The extra list spots will allow more kids to get drafted, and without a doubt a number of them will kick on and have full careers.

On game day, there should be five on the bench, with no need for a tactical or medical sub.
Two reasons.
1. The issue with the sub is that the player generally doesn't get on the field until the last qtr and then normally gets dropped back to get a full game under him. This does nothing for a developing kid, or for any player actually.
2. By allowing another full interchange spot it allows the teams to be more tactical (maybe they run another Ruck for instance) and it allows younger kids to get more games experience quicker.

Now people will say there isn't enough talent, but regardless with most clubs having a full reserves team what is the harm? You need them anyway.

To me it's all about exposing more players to getting experience and maximising the talent at the top level.

Agree on the list changes, too much complexity for no reason.

No to five on the bench. Rotations were capped so now the bench increases anyway.

Four on the bench, no sub. Would prefer three but that won't happen.