AFL Commisson confirms cap on interchange

[Greystache]

The AFL Commission has confirmed that a cap on interchange rotations will be introduced from next season.

Interchanges will be capped at 120 per team per game for the 2014 and 2015 seasons, based on a recommendation from the AFL's football operations department.

There will no cap on interchanges per quarter, with clubs to be left to monitor their total rotations over the match.

The 120 limit will not include the use of the substitute or the changes made during breaks between quarters.
Advertisement

The number will be reviewed towards the end of the 2015 season and a recommendation made for future seasons.

Link (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-sport/afl-commisson-confirms-cap-on-interchange-20130827-2sndz.html)

[Happy Days]

!*!*!*! stupid.

Every single rule that Vlad and his legion of doom (Laws of The Game Committee) has brought in over the past few years, officially and unofficially (exile of dropping the ball, dragging the ball in, no contact in ruck contests, etc.) have been with regard to speeding the game up and diminishing stoppages. Now he brings in this trash, which not only runs directly against this and will have a negative effect on the speed of the game, but is wanted by no one of any relevance to the on field product. Not to mention that the standard wheeled out reasoning for the cap (contested marking) was only lessened in importance by Vlad's stupid hands in the back rule in the first place.

What possible reason is there for this.

[bulldogtragic]

Why?

[LostDoggy]

Will be interesting to see how clubs go about monitoring how many interchanges have been made. Would be frustrating having to spend time during the game on something so tedious.

[Greystache]

Will be interesting to see how clubs go about monitoring how many interchanges have been made. Would be frustrating having to spend time during the game on something so tedious.

It'll all be electronic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

[whythelongface]

I don't understand why they need to tinker with every frigging rule.

Seriously what is the reasoning behind this madness.

Just leave the game alone.

[Ozza]

In general - I'm never in favour of rule changes. I'm just glad they didn't make the cap as low as 80.

120 at least won't be a huge difference from how the game is played now.

You would think that clubs would have to employ another game day staff member just for rotations.

[bornadog]

!*!*!*! stupid.

Every single rule that Vlad and his legion of doom (Laws of The Game Committee) has brought in over the past few years, officially and unofficially (exile of dropping the ball, dragging the ball in, no contact in ruck contests, etc.) have been with regard to speeding the game up and diminishing stoppages. Now he brings in this trash, which not only runs directly against this and will have a negative effect on the speed of the game, but is wanted by no one of any relevance to the on field product. Not to mention that the standard wheeled out reasoning for the cap (contested marking) was only lessened in importance by Vlad's stupid hands in the back rule in the first place.

What possible reason is there for this.

Agree 100%. Add to that the stupid idea of the sub.

[Bulldog Joe]

!*!*!*! stupid.

Every single rule that Vlad and his legion of doom (Laws of The Game Committee) has brought in over the past few years, officially and unofficially (exile of dropping the ball, dragging the ball in, no contact in ruck contests, etc.) have been with regard to speeding the game up and diminishing stoppages. Now he brings in this trash, which not only runs directly against this and will have a negative effect on the speed of the game, but is wanted by no one of any relevance to the on field product. Not to mention that the standard wheeled out reasoning for the cap (contested marking) was only lessened in importance by Vlad's stupid hands in the back rule in the first place.

What possible reason is there for this.

Not sure that Vlad can be blamed for all the rule changes, but there have been plenty over time.

A few ruck rules, like the anti Darcy rule deeming grabbing the ball as prior opportunity, designed to keep the ball moving.

While I don't agree with all, I'm not sure the interchange cap is a bad idea. Remember when we had no interchange. The game is ever evolving.

At a function earlier this year, Brendan McCartney expressed a view that he was in favour of the cap.

I think it will suit our game style.

[bornadog]

Not sure that Vlad can be blamed for all the rule changes, but there have been plenty over time.

A few ruck rules, like the anti Darcy rule deeming grabbing the ball as prior opportunity, designed to keep the ball moving.

While I don't agree with all, I'm not sure the interchange cap is a bad idea. Remember when we had no interchange. The game is ever evolving.

At a function earlier this year, Brendan McCartney expressed a view that he was in favour of the cap.

I think it will suit our game style.

The most over officiated game in the whole world.

[Go_Dogs]

It'll all be electronic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

I the spot fines if your myki isn't topped up?

I can't say I'm surprised, was bound to happen.

[LostDoggy]

It'll all be electronic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

Gold!

Assuming clubs will now make 3 changes each quarter, and the sub doesn't count either, the actual rotations goes up to 130.

Still think it's a stupid rule.

What's the penalty for blowing the cap?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Gold!

Assuming clubs will now make 3 changes each quarter, and the sub doesn't count either, the actual rotations goes up to 130.

Still think it's a stupid rule.

What's the penalty for blowing the cap?

Free kick and 50m penalty.

Im intrigued to see how they view an injured player who has to come off for treatment/assessment. Is that counted as a rotation? And if not will it open the flood gates for 'fake' injury complaints

[bulldogtragic]

Gold!

Assuming clubs will now make 3 changes each quarter, and the sub doesn't count either, the actual rotations goes up to 130.

Still think it's a stupid rule.

What's the penalty for blowing the cap?
Good question...

Or do they have a couple of Maori bouncers on the sideline physically stopping rotations after 120?

[bulldogtragic]

Free kick and 50m penalty.

Im intrigued to see how they view an injured player who has to come off for treatment/assessment. Is that counted as a rotation? And if not will it open the flood gates for 'fake' injury complaints
Or what if there is a genuine injury after 120?

And ht determines 'genuine' as you rightfully pont out?

[GVGjr]

Given the 120 limit will likely decrease over time, I wonder if this will change the views of player recruitment? They will need players who are fitter and more versatile ie having a rest in a forward pocket rather than heading to the bench.

[azabob]

What I have found bizarre about it all is that the AFL is capping interchange rotations because the game is too quick and injuries are occurring.

But aren't the AFL the ones making the game quicker? Such as the kick out from full back and not having to wait for the flags to be waved or now quick ball ups etc.

As many posters have said - the AFL changes a rule which then impacts something else.

[DOG GOD]

If they are having a limit on the number of interchanges, then get rid of the sub for Christ sake. The whole game is becoming a joke.

[LostDoggy]

Given the 120 limit will likely decrease over time, I wonder if this will change the views of player recruitment? They will need players who are fitter and more versatile ie having a rest in a forward pocket rather than heading to the bench.

If the game starts to revert back to being more about football and less about endurance running, you might also see a shift towards good footy players first, athletes second?

[G-Mo77]

If they are having a limit on the number of interchanges, then get rid of the sub for Christ sake. The whole game is becoming a joke.

You'd need more if you got rid of the sub.

I don't see the problem in unlimited interchange and a 4 man bench. What were the arguments for that?

[Bulldog Joe]

What I have found bizarre about it all is that the AFL is capping interchange rotations because the game is too quick and injuries are occurring.

But aren't the AFL the ones making the game quicker? Such as the kick out from full back and not having to wait for the flags to be waved or now quick ball ups etc.

As many posters have said - the AFL changes a rule which then impacts something else.

A lot of the speed up changes, particularly the quick kick-out and ball-up are designed to get the game completed in as near to 2hrs 30 min as they can manage. They are struggling yet they allow 45 seconds after a goal for channel 7 to run ads.

They are happy to let fatigue slow the players as that will not compromise the time of the game.

[ReLoad]

It'll all be electronic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSpIL1_CIAAU8YM.jpg:large

Awesome!

[bornadog]

You'd need more if you got rid of the sub.

I don't see the problem in unlimited interchange and a 4 man bench. What were the arguments for that?

Because you have a bunch of old cronies who want the game played like it was once in the 70s and 80s, so they design rules that they think will make it the same. But it doesn't work because humans are getting bigger and faster and coaches are getting better at tactics.

You can't change the game back, you have to let the game run its course and develop by itself.

Believe me this will effect the players, to their detriment.

[Hotdog60]

we will most likely see more players having a week off to be rested and get over soft tissue injuries which in the past would have played through. I think there will be a growing trend to recruit mid fielders with good endurance and a club will want more of them on the list for the week off rotations. Players at the bookends of the ground will spend more time on field.

[soupman]

What I have found bizarre about it all is that the AFL is capping interchange rotations because the game is too quick and injuries are occurring.

But aren't the AFL the ones making the game quicker? Such as the kick out from full back and not having to wait for the flags to be waved or now quick ball ups etc.

As many posters have said - the AFL changes a rule which then impacts something else.

I believe those rules were brought in to tire the players to open the game up. Theoretically a cap on interchanges means more tired players, although you could argue that those that are on the bench get longer breaks.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I believe those rules were brought in to tire the players to open the game up. Theoretically a cap on interchanges means more tired players, although you could argue that those that are on the bench get longer breaks.

It will make for a new highly talked about statistic during games though: Number of rotations remaining. A team that is down at 3 qtr time by say 4-5 goals but has used a fair bit less rotations than the opposition is still in the game a lot more so than they would be today. It will be all over the telecasts and give the fans abit more hope of a comeback

[westdog54]

Or what if there is a genuine injury after 120?

And ht determines 'genuine' as you rightfully pont out?

I know that in the NRL, once they use up their interchange quota, that's it, injury or not. The only exception to this is if a player is injured as a result of foul play, they can be replaced without the need to use up an interchange.

[LostDoggy]

I know that in the NRL, once they use up their interchange quota, that's it, injury or not. The only exception to this is if a player is injured as a result of foul play, they can be replaced without the need to use up an interchange.

Seems fair. Perhaps to be adjudicated by the umpire on advice from the club doc?

[westdog54]

Seems fair. Perhaps to be adjudicated by the umpire on advice from the club doc?

As far as injuries picked up in the course of play, its bad luck, basically you need to allow for that. For a 'Foul Play' interchange there needs to be a penalty given or advantage allowed by the ref for it to count.