Andrew Demetriou says an interchange cap is coming in 2014 and that is final

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-boss-andrew-demetriou-says-an-interchange-cap-is-coming-in-2014-and-that-is-final/story-e6frf9jf-1226590638074)

AN interchange cap for the 2014 AFL season is coming so stop complaining about it.
That's the emphatic message from AFL boss Andrew Demetriou to the league's senior coaches following widespread condemnation of the interchange cap, which has proved a sour point for clubs during the NAB Cup.

Several AFL coaches have slammed the rule, which restricts them to a total of 80 rotations per match. But Demetriou says the cap was agreed to in principal late last year, and that was final.

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today.

"It said at the end of the year the cap is coming in.

"And they wanted to look at this year to see if the actual number of 80 (the cap) is correct.

"There's no going back on that - that is already put in place."

A high number of AFL coaches expressed their displeasure at the cap rule last weekend.

Hawthorn premiership coach Alastair Clarkson led the charge to condemn the rule following his side's one-point loss to the Western Bulldogs on Friday night.
"Take it back to old reserves and just play 18 men on the ground if that's what you want to do," Clarkson said.

"It's a pretty dramatic change to go to 80.

"Goodness knows, no one knows, what's going to happen to the game so hopefully common sense will prevail.

"If they want to introduce a cap hopefully they do it at a sensible rate like 120 and then we can see what a minor cap does to the game rather than take it to 80."

Bulldogs coach Brendan McCartney said he spent “a stupid amount of time” counting interchange rotations during the game rather than coaching his team, while Carlton coach Mick Malthouse – a staunch advocate of unlimited bench moves - will meet with rules committee member Kevin Bartlett this week to express his frustration at the change.

“Coaches get driven mad by having reduced (interchange) numbers," Malthouse said after the Blues’ big win against Fremantle on Saturday. "I just don't get it.

"It's not friendly to the players. If (the AFL) wants the medical evidence which they've chosen to dismiss, it will suggest that there's a very strong link between more interchanges and less injuries, not the other way around."

The AFL chief executive said he did not understand the level of criticism.

"I'm not quite sure why after one round of NAB Cup, everyone is up in arms," he said.

"We've been through the proper process - we actually advised the coaches and told them at the coaches' dinner we had last year.

"I'm not quite sure whether there is something in people's Wheaties at the moment."

Demetriou said the final number of rotations allowed per game may change, but not the rule itself.

"Unless after we get all the results of this year from the data and the injury survey to see if there are any trends, whether that should be higher or lower and I'm just speculating, but there will be a cap," he said.

"That has already been decided."

[bornadog]

The most over officiated game in the world.

Demetriou, Anderson and the AFL Commission have officially ruined what was once a great game. Now its just a good game and heading south.

No wonder fans are turning away from the game. Last year almost a $1 million down on attendance. Lets see what happens this year.

[F'scary]

Along with all the non-playing personnel littering the ground, I can't stand all the interchanging. I would like to see it limited to something like 2 a quarter per side and the umpire's attention has to be got and it is only allowed at stoppages. I would be prepared to countenance a significantly expanded interchange bench to get the Players Association on-side.

I recognise that injury treatment is an issue with a system like this but there could be a workable set of rules devised perhaps that would not stop players being replaced while getting necessary treatment and would not encourage injury faking to get fresh players on.

[bornadog]

Along with all the non-playing personnel littering the ground, I can't stand all the interchanging. I would like to see it limited to something like 2 a quarter per side and the umpire's attention has to be got and it is only allowed at stoppages. I would be prepared to countenance a significantly expanded interchange bench to get the Players Association on-side.

I recognise that injury treatment is an issue with a system like this but there could be a workable set of rules devised perhaps that would not stop players being replaced while getting necessary treatment and would not encourage injury faking to get fresh players on.

Lets go back to 18 plus two reserves.

[F'scary]

Lets go back to 18 plus two reserves.

Very appealing to me.

Injured players were hidden in the pockets.

Sometimes a team finished with less than 18 on the field.

Sometimes the team still won and the sealer was kicked by a bloke who couldn't say which day of the week it was let alone count how many fingers the trainer was holding up.

Those were the days. Alas, they're gone.

[bornadog]

Very appealing to me.

Injured players were hidden in the pockets.

Sometimes a team finished with less than 18 on the field.

Sometimes the team still won and the sealer was kicked by a bloke who couldn't say which day of the week it was let alone count how many fingers the trainer was holding up.

Those were the days. Alas, they're gone.

I don't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, unlimited interchange no sub.

[bornadog]

Western Bulldogs young gun Mitch Wallis backs AFL coaches' cap angst (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/western-bulldogs-young-gun-mitch-wallis-backs-afl-coaches-cap-angst/story-e6frf9jf-1226590752034)

WESTERN Bulldogs midfielder Mitch Wallis backed the AFL coaches' condemnation of the 80 interchange limit being trialled during the NAB Cup.
Wallis said today that he believed such a restriction week after week would take a heavy toll on players over a season.

"Talking to the coaches earlier on, it would be fine for a game, but to have it for a while season, fatigue would set in,'' Wallis said.

"Like I said, it would be right for a week, but as the season wore on and you played 22 games with 80 rotations, I think fatigue would set in.''

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou today re-iterated the league's position on the cap despite the disapproval from coaches.

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today.

"It said at the end of the year the cap is coming on."

Meanwhile, Bulldogs defender Easton Wood said he felt more weary after the one-point win against Hawthorn at Etihad Stadium last Friday night.

"I'm always pretty tired any game I play, but I was pretty tired at the weekend. It's like anything, we'll play with the parameters we get,'' he said.

Wood said Melbourne's hot summer had helped prepare the Bulldogs for a potentially hot conditions when they play Fremantle in Mandurah, south of Perth, late on Saturday afternoon.

"It's just another chance to work on what we've been doing for the whole pre-season. We've had a pretty hot pre-season, so we're well prepared for it,'' he said.

"We'll just follow advice from the dietician as normal, drink up and prepare yourself.''

Wood said the loss of tall defender Brian Lake to Hawthorn has been more the offset by the return of experienced Dale Morris after being forced to sit out last season while recovering from a badly broken leg.

"I look at it the other way. It's such a positive, we've got our most experienced player in Dale Morris back. It had a huge impact last year without him playing,'' the Dogs backman said.

"I played with him in the first couple of years and the impact he has is enormous and to have him back, I couldn't be happier. But at the same time we have a young group and we can all work together to where we want to go.''

Wallis and Wood said the mood around the Whitten Oval has been buoyed by the Dogs' ability to hold out the Hawks last weekend. And Wood dismissed gloomy predictions for the club this season.

"You never like hearing that sort of stuff. Look, we don't work as hard as we do to just write a season off like that,'' Wood said.

[Remi Moses]

To paraphrase J McEnroe
You cannot be serious
The game is 100 times faster, players more athletic, bigger , stronger than ever before.
To say the game was better in the Oldin' days is romantic nostalgic nonsense to be honest.
Clearly people who never saw Footscray or Stkilda play would think that.
They'll cap it at 120 I reckon. The interchange area looking like Flinders st at 5pm is not a good look for mine, and bringing one player at a time .

[bornadog]

I don't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, unlimited interchange no sub.


To paraphrase J McEnroe
You cannot be serious
The game is 100 times faster, players more athletic, bigger , stronger than ever before.
To say the game was better in the Oldin' days is romantic nostalgic nonsense to be honest.
Clearly people who never saw Footscray or Stkilda play would think that.
They'll cap it at 120 I reckon. The interchange area looking like Flinders st at 5pm is not a good look for mine, and bringing one player at a time .

If you are referring to my post, it was a joke based on the previous post. As I said, I couldn't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, no cap, no sub.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

As I've said a few times, my interest in AFL declines every year. There once was a time I would crave the weekend and watch every single game I could. Sometimes, I'd even go as a neutral to big games when I was younger.

These days, I put other priorities before the AFL and that can include the Dogs, from time to time.

The constant rule changes, the stubbornness of the AFL, the introduction of two BS teams, the ridiculous stadium deals and lack of equality -- it's turned me away from what was once a much, much better product. The sub rule is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game -- I can't state my hatred enough for it. No surprise this interchange rule is coming in, and it'll be no surprise that the players (and the game overall) suffers.

Demetriou is a smug, stubborn, manipulative, power hungry game killer.

[Remi Moses]

If you are referring to my post, it was a joke based on the previous post. As I said, I couldn't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, no cap, no sub.

Sorry born, thought you were serious

[bornadog]

Sorry born, thought you were serious

No probs

I feels like the AFl wants to take the game backwards and for the life of me I can't see what they are trying to achieve. What is the purpose does anyone know?

[Remi Moses]

As I've said a few times, my interest in AFL declines every year. There once was a time I would crave the weekend and watch every single game I could. Sometimes, I'd even go as a neutral to big games when I was younger.

These days, I put other priorities before the AFL and that can include the Dogs, from time to time.

The constant rule changes, the stubbornness of the AFL, the introduction of two BS teams, the ridiculous stadium deals and lack of equality -- it's turned me away from what was once a much, much better product. The sub rule is the worst thing that has ever happened to the game -- I can't state my hatred enough for it. No surprise this interchange rule is coming in, and it'll be no surprise that the players (and the game overall) suffers.

Demetriou is a smug, stubborn, manipulative, power hungry game killer.

Be careful what you wish for .
Previous AFL VFL admins were quite pleased to kill our footy club off.
I take your points on some aspects.
Fitzroy Bulldogs

[AndrewP6]

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today."

The arrogance of this man is astounding. Way to keep the punters on side...

[Ghost Dog]

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today."

The arrogance of this man is astounding. Way to keep the punters on side...

He's like an annoying school principal I had once.

[GVGjr]

I listened to Rocket last night talk about this very issue and I thought he was spot on.

A couple of questions are around "What is the AFL trying to achieve?" "How is the number determined?"

If it's 120 I think everyone can live with that. Maybe 100 is OK but anything less sounds too controlled for my liking.

We shouldn't have to have someone counting the changes.

[bornadog]

"What is the AFL trying to achieve?"

You have hit the nail on the head - it is truly baffling how we have to have constant tinkering in this game.

[jeemak]

Vlad's arrogance does annoy me a great deal, though I think the issue with the AFL has gone well and truly beyond his sphere of influence. Tho whole place is full of people running an agenda.

As the AFL has been equipped with layer upon layer of stakeholders at head office over the years, there seems to be a constant need for the game to be meddled with for people to justify their own positions.

None of it seems to be making the game any better, and I think its time a serious cleanout at AFL HQ was initiated. There's just too many people agreeing the code is bonkers at the minute, and HQ with another poor year of attendances surely won't have any excuses for maintaining the current structure.

As for the interchange cap, I can't see how it's going to make the game any better or what it's trying to achieve. The AFL has form in tweaking the rules a certain way to gain a benefit in an area, only to see it turn around on them full circle (think making the head sacrosanct, and awarding players a free kick for headbutting the knees of other players).

I'm with TBB on this one.

[soupman]

To quote a certain movie I'm very disenchanted with the system right now.

I've typically been one to give the AFL a bit of benefit of the doubt, and have tried to see what they are hoping to achieve, but this off season in particular has been terrible.

The league it seems is full of arrogant politician like leaders at the top, and it's barely made a decision I agree with in the last year. Between the Rendell incident, the GWS and GC money, draft picks and 2016, 17, and 18 premiership donations, the non punishment to Carlton, the fining Melbourne but they're innocent episode, the suspend Connoly and Bailey for a short amount of time then wait for peoples attention to flicker to the NAB cup, the Essendon saga, their bullshit drug policy, their need to screw around with rules involving subs, caps and players making contact on the knees (making umpires jobs even harder to perform satisfactorily), and of course all the issues that we as Bulldogs notice more (the inequal draw, the concept of blockbuster games etc.), they are the most uninspiring unlikeable people in the game.

For some reason they've instilled a culture of "what can we change to make the game better", when they should really be looking at letting the game evolve and only changing things when it is glaringly blatent that a rule has become outdated or irrelevant.

[LostDoggy]

I look forward to players 'blowing up' on the field, possibly leading to an increased injury rate, matches becoming slower and more stale, then Andrew or his successor to the Throne of Ignorance holding up the "Nothing to see here" sign.

[G-Mo77]

I don't see anything wrong with 4 interchange, unlimited interchange no sub.

This.

I've made enough comments on here about the sub rule, it's a joke. The interchange cap is ludicrous. What is the purpose? How does it benefit our game? I'm being serious if someone has an answer I'd love to hear it.

General Soreness will be the next discussion point because so many players will need to be rested because of these rules.

[Maddog37]

I personally like a cap as I disagree with the interchange being used as a coaching strategy tool. I felt that have 150plus interchange meant that as a spectacle you often had players coming on and off the ground constantly and it was a distraction from the action.

Also quite a few players were getting blindsided by a player coming from the bench which is very dangerous and not in the spirit of the game.

Per the article in today's Sun, impact injuries should reduce if players are slightly fatigued and unable to be at 100% explosive speed all the time. Being unable to make as many contests will lead to less congestion.

The coaches were the ones that bastardized what the interchange was for and whine like sheep when they are reigned in.

Cap of 100 would be ideal IMHO.

[LostDoggy]

General Soreness will be the next discussion point because so many players will need to be rested because of these rules.

Yes, but then they're suspect drug-cheats aren't they?

[bornadog]

I personally like a cap as I disagree with the interchange being used as a coaching strategy tool. I felt that have 150plus interchange meant that as a spectacle you often had players coming on and off the ground constantly and it was a distraction from the action.

Also quite a few players were getting blindsided by a player coming from the bench which is very dangerous and not in the spirit of the game.

Per the article in today's Sun, impact injuries should reduce if players are slightly fatigued and unable to be at 100% explosive speed all the time. Being unable to make as many contests will lead to less congestion.

The coaches were the ones that bastardized what the interchange was for and whine like sheep when they are reigned in.

Cap of 100 would be ideal IMHO.

Can't agree with you at all. The pace of the game is great to watch and no amount of rules will stop human beings getting bigger and faster.

The trouble is with all the rule changes, no thought is given to the future impact on the game.

What we have is a bunch of ex-players from the 1980's trying to make the game what it was back then. But they forgot about evolution.

[Greystache]

I don't know what the objective is for reducing the interchange, it doesn't seem like it's really been explained, but at the same time the outrage from some of the players, coaches, and supporters has been way over the top too.

It was only 5 years ago that 20 or so interchanges for a match was standard, now the coaches are talking like limiting interchange is going to change the core fabric of the game. It has little to do with the welfare of the players. The difference in the demands of the game now and 5 years ago is minimal, it's about coaches wanting players fresh at all times to allow them more tactical options. The demands on the players won't change, just the demands on what the coach can ask them to do will.

What I don't understand is the outrage from the supporters. In almost every comment I hear how the game is going down hill and they used to love the game the way it was, and this rule will just be another thing to make the game worse again, yet in fact the rule will actually go towards taking the game back to the "good old days". Constant rotations are a new phenomenon, not something inherently part of the sport. I would've thought that would be a good thing for those lambasting the modern game.

[Maddog37]

Can't agree with you at all. The pace of the game is great to watch and no amount of rules will stop human beings getting bigger and faster.

The trouble is with all the rule changes, no thought is given to the future impact on the game.

What we have is a bunch of ex-players from the 1980's trying to make the game what it was back then. But they forgot about evolution.



The coaches are waging a propaganda war and you have been sucked in accordingly BAD. I understand why you disagree with me but the game survived and flourished for alot longer with minimal interchange than it has with this recent obsession with swapping players incessantly.

[bornadog]

[/B]

The coaches are waging a propaganda war and you have been sucked in accordingly BAD. I understand why you disagree with me but the game survived and flourished for alot longer with minimal interchange than it has with this recent obsession with swapping players incessantly.

Well either go back to 18 plus two reserves and forget all this BS counting the interchanges, or just leave the bloody game alone. Cannot see the point, and you have not given us one reason to change the game again. ok, you mention injuries - sorry can't buy into that, and can't be proven.

The impact on the game will be massive, just like all the other changes brought in. The only changes I agree to is enforcing the rule on head high impact, otherwise, everything else changed in the last 20 years is just what I said - trying to make the game resemble the 1980's.

[G-Mo77]

Yes, but then they're suspect drug-cheats aren't they?

Touché :D

[bornadog]

I don't know what the objective is for reducing the interchange, it doesn't seem like it's really been explained, but at the same time the outrage from some of the players, coaches, and supporters has been way over the top too.

Why shouldn't they complain about the game being constantly tampered with. I think the public have had a gut full.


It was only 5 years ago that 20 or so interchanges for a match was standard, now the coaches are talking like limiting interchange is going to change the core fabric of the game. It has little to do with the welfare of the players. The difference in the demands of the game now and 5 years ago is minimal, it's about coaches wanting players fresh at all times to allow them more tactical options. The demands on the players won't change, just the demands on what the coach can ask them to do will.

Its the over officiating of the game. The game has evolved from 5 years ago and no matter what rule change, the game will be changed. In this case its forced to change.


yet in fact the rule will actually go towards taking the game back to the "good old days". .

No it won't take the game back to the so called good old days. There will be other effects on the game that will only become apparent in a few seasons.


Constant rotations are a new phenomenon, not something inherently part of the sport. I would've thought that would be a good thing for those lambasting the modern game.

So what if there are constant rotations. I want to see the athletes performing at their best, not huffing and puffing because they can't catch someone.

[LostDoggy]

One thing that's always bemused me regarding these interchange rotations is who actually notices them? Do you go to the football and your peripheral is constantly blurred by players going to the interchange? If you sit behind the bench then fair enough, but 99% of the viewing seats in the stadiums wouldn't be affected.

Only thing that I’ve noticed, and I don't agree with, are players not coming on straight away once a player has left the field, then running to a contest when not actually in the field of play a second or so before.

Outside of that the interchanges mould into the background imo.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Vlad's arrogance does annoy me a great deal, though I think the issue with the AFL has gone well and truly beyond his sphere of influence. Tho whole place is full of people running an agenda.

As the AFL has been equipped with layer upon layer of stakeholders at head office over the years, there seems to be a constant need for the game to be meddled with for people to justify their own positions.

None of it seems to be making the game any better, and I think its time a serious cleanout at AFL HQ was initiated. There's just too many people agreeing the code is bonkers at the minute, and HQ with another poor year of attendances surely won't have any excuses for maintaining the current structure.

As for the interchange cap, I can't see how it's going to make the game any better or what it's trying to achieve. The AFL has form in tweaking the rules a certain way to gain a benefit in an area, only to see it turn around on them full circle (think making the head sacrosanct, and awarding players a free kick for headbutting the knees of other players).

I'm with TBB on this one.


To quote a certain movie I'm very disenchanted with the system right now.

I've typically been one to give the AFL a bit of benefit of the doubt, and have tried to see what they are hoping to achieve, but this off season in particular has been terrible.

The league it seems is full of arrogant politician like leaders at the top, and it's barely made a decision I agree with in the last year. Between the Rendell incident, the GWS and GC money, draft picks and 2016, 17, and 18 premiership donations, the non punishment to Carlton, the fining Melbourne but they're innocent episode, the suspend Connoly and Bailey for a short amount of time then wait for peoples attention to flicker to the NAB cup, the Essendon saga, their bullshit drug policy, their need to screw around with rules involving subs, caps and players making contact on the knees (making umpires jobs even harder to perform satisfactorily), and of course all the issues that we as Bulldogs notice more (the inequal draw, the concept of blockbuster games etc.), they are the most uninspiring unlikeable people in the game.

For some reason they've instilled a culture of "what can we change to make the game better", when they should really be looking at letting the game evolve and only changing things when it is glaringly blatent that a rule has become outdated or irrelevant.

Both good posts that have put it better than I did.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The difference in the demands of the game now and 5 years ago is minimal, it's about coaches wanting players fresh at all times to allow them more tactical options.

The players (and coaches) regularly comment on how much the game changes from year to year, particularly those who miss chunks of a season through injury (eg. Morris).

The AFL wants to continually speed the game up, yet they introduce a sub rule and a interchange capping? It doesn't match and something has to give: the players welfare and the overall product of the game.

[Greystache]

The players (and coaches) regularly comment on how much the game changes from year to year, particularly those who miss chunks of a season through injury (eg. Morris).

The AFL wants to continually speed the game up, yet they introduce a sub rule and a interchange capping? It doesn't match and something has to give: the players welfare and the overall product of the game.

From a tactical perspective it does, and every year fitness departments push the players to get more out of them, but the physical capabilities of players today is not vastly different from 2007. I'm sure someone like Scott West would still be at the front of the pack in running drills.

The difference is coaches use rotations to change the demands on the players. There's very little continuous running done at training these days, it's mostly interval running to improve burst efforts followed by a brief recovery then going again. The coaches argue that burst players will become obsolete, but they don't acknowledge that the strengths of players like Daniel Cross are in danger under the current system.

Dane Swan is an elite runner under the current system but without rotations players like Boyd, Gia, and Cross would carve him up. I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.

[Topdog]

"The fact of the matter is, unless people have got amnesia, the AFL Commission has already passed the rule," Demetriou said on SEN Radio today."

The arrogance of this man is astounding. Way to keep the punters on side...

I must have amnesia because I distinctly remember AD saying that anyone involved in tanking would be kicked out of the game for good.

[LostDoggy]

[QUOTE=Greystache;311044 I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.[/QUOTE]

This is where I stand. A player like Robert Harvey was great because he could run all day and his opponent(s) struggled to keep up. There needs to be a balance so that the game isn't lost to potential talent like him.

[hujsh]

The game will always change and evolve. We can let it evolve naturally with coaches finding new ways to gain a tactical advantage or we can try and stifle any changes in the interest of preserving the game in it's golden 1980s form which will create more unforeseen changes which will then need to be curbed creating the endless rule shitstorm we have now.

The current burst running could be seen as an evolution of the AFL tampering with rules in an attempt to speed up the game to counter flooding, which became a non issue on it's own when tactics evolved to implement to forward press. Now anything could happen with the new interchange rules but I bet in 5-10 years the AFL will be trying to counter the effects of these new rules changes again.

[Topdog]

The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

[bornadog]

The game will always change and evolve. We can let it evolve naturally with coaches finding new ways to gain a tactical advantage or we can try and stifle any changes in the interest of preserving the game in it's golden 1980s form which will create more unforeseen changes which will then need to be curbed creating the endless rule shitstorm we have now.

The current burst running could be seen as an evolution of the AFL tampering with rules in an attempt to speed up the game to counter flooding, which became a non issue on it's own when tactics evolved to implement to forward press. Now anything could happen with the new interchange rules but I bet in 5-10 years the AFL will be trying to counter the effects of these new rules changes again.


The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

This

[LostDoggy]

The only part I disagree with there hujsh is the golden 1980's. The current leaders and rule committee keep doing the same thing over and over.
Create rule, wait for rule to create something else they dont like and then create another rule to counter act the previous rule.

Yes, just too much tinkering for too long and no consolidation in the game. Is the Nrl like this? The world game certainly is not.

[FrediKanoute]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.

What I think they should do to compensate though is get rid of the Sub. It should be 4interchange and a capped number of changes per quarter.

[jeemak]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.

What I think they should do to compensate though is get rid of the Sub. It should be 4interchange and a capped number of changes per quarter.

Appreciate your view, but why does having a cap or a sub make any difference?

Agree that it can be frustrating to see players come off the ground after dominating a piece of play, but why should any sort of restriction be placed on the interchange?

All rotations are calculated, cap or no cap. With a limited interchange cap you're still going to have players that kick goals but are due for a rest within the schedule of resting players dictated by that cap. If anything, players who have just dominated play but are due for a rest will be placed at more risk of injury due to fatigue if they are left on the ground under a capped system.

[LostDoggy]

To paraphrase J McEnroe
You cannot be serious
The game is 100 times faster, players more athletic, bigger , stronger than ever before.
To say the game was better in the Oldin' days is romantic nostalgic nonsense to be honest.
Clearly people who never saw Footscray or Stkilda play would think that.
They'll cap it at 120 I reckon. The interchange area looking like Flinders st at 5pm is not a good look for mine, and bringing one player at a time .

I wonder: If the AFL had trialed a cap of 120 in the NAB Cup instead of 80, would we now have players and coaches telling us the cap should have been 150?

I actually agree with the players, 80 is too few as it doesn't allow every player to rest every quarter, which was the point Bobby made on AFL 360 the other night. If you're going to have 22 players on the field/bench, and 4 quarters, common sense dictates the minimum cap should be 88. Players with higher endurance like Daniel Cross are not going to need as many breaks as less fit blokes like Stringer, but it still becomes easier to manage and puts players minds at ease if they know they have a spell on the bench under their belt each quarter.


From a tactical perspective it does, and every year fitness departments push the players to get more out of them, but the physical capabilities of players today is not vastly different from 2007. I'm sure someone like Scott West would still be at the front of the pack in running drills.

The difference is coaches use rotations to change the demands on the players. There's very little continuous running done at training these days, it's mostly interval running to improve burst efforts followed by a brief recovery then going again. The coaches argue that burst players will become obsolete, but they don't acknowledge that the strengths of players like Daniel Cross are in danger under the current system.

Dane Swan is an elite runner under the current system but without rotations players like Boyd, Gia, and Cross would carve him up. I don't why we should be so concerned about protecting the skill set of burst players yet be ambivalent to endurance runners.

Or Dustin Fletcher.

[FrediKanoute]

Appreciate your view, but why does having a cap or a sub make any difference?

Agree that it can be frustrating to see players come off the ground after dominating a piece of play, but why should any sort of restriction be placed on the interchange?

All rotations are calculated, cap or no cap. With a limited interchange cap you're still going to have players that kick goals but are due for a rest within the schedule of resting players dictated by that cap. If anything, players who have just dominated play but are due for a rest will be placed at more risk of injury due to fatigue if they are left on the ground under a capped system.

I'm not one to to hark back the old days, what I loved about footy in the 80's, 90's and early 00's was that guys like Plugger, Dermie, Grant, Carey, Dunstall, God etc played the game and largely played in one position. What you have now is forwards who are midfields, midfields who are backmen and most of all a constantly moving maul. Playes don't play positions anymore. They play zones. The reason they can play zones is that they are trained to be burst athletes who go at full pelt, control/affect their zone and then come off for a break. It means that aside from a Ruckman, arguably the only specialist position on the field, everyone else is practicallly interchangeable. That to me is not what footy is about.

Maybe the skills are better than they were in the 80's and 90's, but somehow the game was less predictable. Good players still shone, but they shone on the field for a longer time. If capping interchange will move us back to that then I am all for it. Players will adjust. They will adjust to pacing themselves more through a game.

The game evolved from Sub, to 2 interchange, to 3 interchange and then to 4 interchange before a sub was introduced. Coaches got smart and evolved the game away from specialist players in set position to a bland mass of players occupying space rather than winning the ball. They evolved the game away from the specky/pack marking spectacle to a physical game of keeping off.

I live in London, so I watch pretty much only Bulldogs games. I have to compare it to watching Premier League football. Aussie Rules is always going to be my favourite game, but if I watch a Premier League game then I know that Spurs' best players and the opposition's best players are going to be on the pitch most if not all of the game, meaning they have a greater ability to influence the result. I'm not saying they always do, but having Bale or Dembele or Lennon on the pitch for 90 minutes gives more excitement to the average fan than seeing them run hard for 5 mins and the take a break. The game is better paced.

[Sedat]

I actually think the interchange cap is a good thing. Whether its 80, 100 (which I think it will be) or 120 doesn't really matter too much. Having it in place will mean that better players are on the park for longer. Nothing annoys me more than seeing Griffin go streaming into goal and kick one from 50 and then jog to the boundary line for a break.
The cap rule will be responsible for returning the game back to the mid 00's risk-averse era, where mass numbers behind the ball and sideways chipping to retain possession will be the new norm. That is probably good news for plodding, unskilled teams who bat very deep when it comes to elite endurance.

[jeemak]

The cap rule will be responsible for returning the game back to the mid 00's risk-averse era, where mass numbers behind the ball and sideways chipping to retain possession will be the new norm. That is probably good news for plodding, unskilled teams who bat very deep when it comes to elite endurance.

So given some time I assume the same people that had an issue with the aethsetic of the game then (which happen to be the same who have an issue with it now), will want to do something to change it again, once they realise they want to make it better!

I've always said that coaches will be risk averse with fatigued playes, meaning they'll do everything they can not to be scored against. So you're spot on, as far as I'm concerned, in that they'll just put numbers back and coach to find a way forward through slow considered movement.

[westdog54]

So given some time I assume the same people that had an issue with the aethsetic of the game then (which happen to be the same who have an issue with it now), will want to do something to change it again, once they realise they want to make it better!

I've always said that coaches will be risk averse with fatigued playes, meaning they'll do everything they can not to be scored against. So you're spot on, as far as I'm concerned, in that they'll just put numbers back and coach to find a way forward through slow considered movement.

The rules committee have never been great if-then thinkers and it would seem that they refuse to learn from their mistakes.

[bornadog]

Cap could cause flooding: Longmire (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/cap-could-cause-flooding-longmire-20130328-2gxfj.html)

Bookmark this article as I think Longmire is on the money.

[jeemak]

Cap could cause flooding: Longmire (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/cap-could-cause-flooding-longmire-20130328-2gxfj.html)

Bookmark this article as I think Longmire is on the money.

Jesus Christ.

We all know that AFL coaches will put fatigued players behind the ball to rest them and stop opposition teams scoring against them. This is one of my biggest frustrations with the capping rule. The good teams will just stifle their opponents, and back their better players to use the ball going forward more effectively.

The AFL is a very very lucky no other football code in the country can get its shit together. It's an absolute gravy train for some to get a lick out of. I continually have to pinch myself over the fact these dickheads have free reign to run the competition without anyone stepping in and calling shenannigans.

They're impressed by Longmire and Malthouse, so they decide they might add a layer of governance over the ridiculous tampering with the game's rules that go on each year. What a load of bullshit.