Hooray! It’s not often that AussieRulesBlog is in almost complete sync with the AFL, but we are today.

First and foremost we’ll see an end to the ugly blight of ruck wrestling. Making the rule trialled during the 2012 pre-season a permanent feature, ruckmen will no longer be able to make contact with each other before the ball has left the umpire’s hands.

AussieRulesBlog has a real problem with anyone who thinks the above scene is either attractive or within the other rules of the game. If Mike Pyke and David Hale aren’t holding each other in this image, then AussieRulesBlog should be watching the Melbourne ‘Victory’.

We’re not concerned that inability to wrestle for five minutes before the ball is back into play will somehow advantage ruckmen like Nic Naitanui. For all of a couple of weeks it might, and then the competition’s strategists will figure out a way to limit Naitanui’s effectiveness.

Even supposed ‘dinosaurs’ like Shane Mumford and Darren Jolley will manage. How often have either conceded an easy contest at a centre bounce in the past couple of years? No contact beforehand there, and both Mumford and Jolley have somehow contrived to deliver the ball to their midfielders pretty effectively.

We’re also in the mood to applaud the game’s custodians on their other rule changes, although we’re sad to see the relegation of the umpire’s bounce to a largely ceremonial role. It’s the beginning of the end for the bounce. In five years, it’ll be a curiosity.

Laying on tackled players and pulling the ball in beneath an opponent have been highly unattractive features of the game for too long. We’re not totally convinced about forceful contact beneath the knees, but we acknowledge the danger it poses.

Of course, there’s often quite a distance between our expectations of how a new rule will influence the game and how The Giesch’s mob implement that rule. that will be the test and we’ll reserve absolute applause until we see the rules in action.

Interchange cap
Unfortunately, there’s been a lack of will to implement an interchange cap. Long-time readers will recall that AussieRulesBlog wrote passionately of the benefits of a cap over a substitute. And, largely, our fears have been realised. There’s not that big a difference between rotation numbers in 2012 and what they were before the substitute. Entirely predictable — and we predicted it!

Surprising no-one, Barcodes chief cook and bottle washer, Eddie Everywhere, decided to wheel out the super hyperbole and suggested AFL players will be blood doping within weeks.

We’re not sure what Eddie has been sniffing, but we want some! The facts are that the game has become quicker because of unfettered interchange. Yes, players have become fitter, but their running capacity has been significantly enhanced by having more short rests. Some of Dane Swan’s visits to the pine last only thirty seconds.

It’s only logical that reducing interchanges — which the three-and-one bench was supposed to do and patently failed to achieve — will reduce players’ running capacity. They could dope, and thanks for that helpful suggestion, Eddie, or they could simply pace themselves more so they have some petrol tickets left for the last ten minutes.

Eddie and those who think like him are locked into maintaining the game exactly as it is played at the conclusion of 2012. There’s no law or logic that says that must be the case!

If players can’t rest as often, they’ll have to ration out their effort across their game time. It’s not hard to figure out. And we would likely see a reduction in soft tissue and collision injury to boot.

AussieRulesBlog waits with bated breath for the 2014 rule changes.

It’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that AFL umpires don’t watch pre-season games back to assess their performance. How else to describe their touching but misplaced faith in a video referral ‘system’ that doesn’t include goal line cameras?

Once again tonight, during the WCE–Saints pre-season match, a goal umpire perfectly positioned on the goal line decided to refer the decision to video. Had the umpire, or the controlling field umpire, watched this year’s pre-season matches and seen the shemozzle that is Adrian Anderson’s video referral system, they would never waste everybody’s time by making the referral.

The powerful ego known as Dwayne Russell, calling the game for Foxtel, enthusiastically reminded his incredulous colleagues that it was important to ensure that the umpires got the decision right. The whiney, quavering voice of Mark Ricciuto blurted out that the referral had done nothing of the sort (before he was summarily silenced on the matter).

Is Russell doing the AFL’s bidding on this? Despite weekly evidence to the contrary, he is not stupid. And yet he runs Anderson’s line

Quite how anyone — Adrian Anderson, Jeff Gieschen, the AFL Umpiring Department, Dwayne Russell or anyone with even the slightest degree of interest in AFL — could believe that a camera at 45° to the goal line or an elevated camera directly behind the goal umpire could possibly shed light on a decision on whether the ball was touched before the line or not ranks as one of the great mysteries.

AussieRulesBlog is quite tempted to send an invoice to the afore-mentioned Mr Anderson asking for a refund of the comprehensively wasted forty seconds consumed by this particular video referral. “Inconclusive” just doesn’t do the process justice!

You’ve got to love Jeff Gieschen. Well, if you’re a blogger, you have to. He just gives us material pretty much every week of the year. And this week he has dribbled a doosy into his bib.

“ ‘What I do know is we are up for any initiative which can improve the level of accuracy of what we do or can improve the coaching of our umpires,’ Gieschen said.”

Now, it might surprise some readers to know that the goal umpires are trialling spectacle frames with TV cameras in them to help judge goal line scoring decisions in tonight’s pre-season game at Docklands. The sting in the tail? Foxtel are funding the fancy specs.

In recent weeks, The Giesch has been telling us that the AFL could “nail” goal line video referral, but this trial of tricky specs suggests they know their system is fatally flawed and are looking for an out.

So, in Giesch-speak, “up for any initiative which can improve accuracy” has a silent codicil — “as long as we don’t have to pay for it.”

Now to this latest whizzbangery, the spectacular specs. We saw some footage of them taken from a cricket broadcast and we can’t say we’re all that confident that they’ll be of much use at an AFL goal line. IF the umpire holds his head perfectly steady, there may be a usable image, but the resolution didn’t seem to be anything to write home about.

If, as is more likely, the umpire is moving, then the lack of a stable platform for the camera renders the image all but unwatchable. Certainly it’ll be of problematic effectiveness in assuring improved accuracy in scoring decisions.

There’s a reason TV cameras are positioned on big heavy tripods. There’s a reason that the TV cameras taken out on the field are mounted on large steady-cam frames. Why the AFL doesn’t just shell out the readies for goal post cameras isn’t clear. Perhaps it would eat into Vlad’s bonus?

More fiddling while Rome burns!

Back in February, we commented on the plans to trial video referral for “goal line decisions”.

Somewhat presciently, we wrote:

“Let’s hope that we don’t have a repeat of last year’s nonsense of video replays being used to try to determine whether a hand has touched a kicked ball fifteen metres out from goal. Goal line decisions only please, if we must go through this nonsense.”

Well, it only took two rounds for our worst fears to be realised. This weekend, a field umpire called for a video referral to determine if a ball had been touched off the boot.

Who is instructing these umpires and why are they making demands of this system that it cannot meet? Heavens, the ‘system’ can’t even meet the expectations of its primary prompter, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson. The system is rubbish and Gieschen can’t even get his mob to use it appropriately.

There are no good stories to come out of this trial. Despite a couple of legitimate corrections, the litany of failures must surely be a millstone that keeps it from surfacing for the season proper. Indeed, the only trial that should be occurring is that of Anderson’s competence and judgement to be presiding over decisions that so fundamentally affect the game.

Anyone who thinks there’s been a bit of controversy over a couple of poor decisions, or non-decisions, should wait until there’s four real Premiership points on the line. Then you’ll hear some complaining!

Time to administer the lead Aspro, Vlad — to the video referral trial and your footy operations manager.

The AFL have wheeled out Jeff Gieschen, head of the umpiring department, to spin the video referral system being ‘trialled’ during the pre-season. And spin it he did.

The AFL sees a positive in two incorrect decisions being overturned for the cost of six referrals. Add in the incidents where a referral wasn’t made — three by our count, two according to the AFL — and the picture starts looking a bit messier.

"We want to back the goal umpire as much as possible, but we have the ability to check and see and we should be doing just that." Gieschen is quoted in the story as saying.

The problem is that goal umpires can be certain of their decision — so certain they don’t entertain a video referral — and still be wrong. We’ve seen three such examples just in the first round of pre-season.

It’s great to back the umpires, but then the AFL ‘backs’ them by introducing video referral. Apart from the Hawkins and Wellingham ‘goals’, this is a non-issue.

All video referral is doing is highlighting exactly how many mistakes the ‘goalies’ do make — and it looks like it’s going to be a lot more than Gieschen and the AFL would have had us believe.

Video referral is a solution in search of a problem. We reckon they’ve picked the wrong problem!

On the AFL’s own website in relation to video referral:

Anderson said introduction of a tennis-style challenge system was unlikely.

"The problem with the challenge is the potential for manipulation or (for it) to be used to delay."

 

And then . . .

But he said he didn't see a problem with umpires listening to players who called immediately for a review. 

"A player can be a valuable indication that there's something worth having a look at, as long as they let the guys do their job once they've made the point," Anderson said.

To quote John McEnroe, “YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!”

Just which bit of “potential for manipulation” does he think doesn’t apply if umpires listen to players’ appeals for review?

Speaking on AFL 360 tonight on Foxtel’s Fox Footy channel, AFL Football Operations boss Adrian Anderson claimed the lack of goal line cameras to use in video decision referral  during the pre-season competition was the broadcaster’s issue, because the AFL would not fund goal-line cameras.

This just gets worse and worse for Anderson. The decision to proceed with a trial of goal umpiring video referral knowing there would be no goal line cameras just beggars belief. That the AFL will not pay for the required cameras suggests that either they’re not serious or they’re playing games

Anderson further claimed that the final referral in Sunday’s Port-Adelaide-Carlton game where the replay showed a ball hitting the behind post vindicated the trial. He failed to mention that a ball on a slightly different trajectory hitting the post may not have been so clearly seen brushing the post. On this occasion, the camera was in the perfect location. So much for vindication.

Anderson also drew comparisons with tennis and cricket where assistive technologies are not available at every venue or in every series. While true, it’s hardly the point. Cricket doesn’t, for instance, use a camera at deep extra cover or third man — where the camera is a 45° to the batting crease — to judge runouts. When there is a camera for runouts, it’s located right on the plane of the batting crease.

Anderson claimed that only six goal umpiring errors were made in 2011. The evidence of 2012 thus far suggests that Gieschen and Anderson are kidding themselves with their figure of one tenth of one percent error rate.  In one ‘round’ of six games in 2012, we’ve had at least three errors. that leaves only three more for the rest of the season. . .

Most likely, like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, Gieschen and Anderson decide what ‘error’ means and you can bet your life it’s not a definition you’ll recognise. Ostriches!

It’ll come as no surprise to regular readers that a fourth cock-up has followed the first three. AussieRulesBlog has already identified the stunningly obvious inadequacies of Adrian Anderson’s goal line video decision assistance trial.

In the Port – Carlton leg of the Adelaide round of pre-season round one, a Port player lunges to touch a ball heading towards the goal line. The goal umpire is well-positioned. Port players remonstrate with the umpire when he signals a goal. No video referral is made, inexplicably when the decision is so close.

Subsequent replays shown on the broadcast are from game camera angles — which is the root of the problem — but suggest there’s a good case that the goal umpire got the decision wrong.

Later in the day, after a disagreement between a goal umpire and a boundary umpire over whether a ball had struck the behind post, the field umpire made a video referral and it was quickly determined that the ball had struck the post — not the decision the goal umpire first signalled.

What’s most curious about these two incidents is that the later one wasn’t a goal-line decision. A camera aligned with the goal line — which is the only way that goal line decisions, the stated target of this trial, could be properly judged — wouldn’t have provided any useful information. Only a game camera — and some luck with angles — could provide appropriate video assistance.

The first incident needed a goal-line camera, but there aren’t any.

This has been a monumental cock-up. Heads should roll. We can only hope that Vlad tears Adrian a new one on Monday morning.

Less than a tenth of one percent of goal umpiring decisions are errors according to Anderson. If the past two weekends are any indication, that figure is massively understated. Perhaps Anderson has done the game a favour by highlighting just how poor goal line decisions are when there’s no organised scrutiny of them.

Our final observation from the first night of the second weekend of AFL pre-season relates to our observation from the Hawks-Roos-Tigers game last week on the implementation of the experimental no-touch rule for boundary ruck contests.

Live (at the stadium), it was very clear that there was significant improvement in the spectacle and effectiveness of boundary ruck work with the no-touch rule.

Watching tonight’s Swans-Saints-Cats game (live on TV), AussieRulesBlog hardly noticed any boundary ruck contests and the camera didn’t do us any favours to see the ruckmen prior to the ball being thrown in.

If you haven’t seen a game live, try to do so during this pre-season so you can see this rule in action.

It’s a keeper!

Well, it's official. Adrian Anderson's goal line video decision assist trial has descended past farce and it's only the second week of the pre-season.

During the Saints-Swans-Cats triple-header tonight, the video replay was called into play twice. What became abundantly clear on the second occasion is that there are no goal line cameras. This for goal line decisions and there're no goal line cameras! Monty Python didn't dare write scripts as ridiculous as this situation.

For those without payTV, this second video referral concerned an attempt by Brendan Goddard to touch a ball otherwise going through for a goal. The goal umpire was perfectly positioned, astride the goal line. His vision was unobstructed. The goal umpire indicated, unofficially, a goal. It's not clear from the TV coverage who decided to refer to the video official, The game commentary suggested that Goddard may have encouraged the field umpire to refer it — players are not entitled to challenge decisions under the rules published.

Regardless of who initiated the decision, it was quickly obvious that only game camera footage was available. That is, the camera views were at a substantial angle to the goal line!! At a significant angle!!! For making goal line adjudications!!!!! The video referral was, unsurprisingly in the circumstances, “inconclusive”. What an understatement.

We jokingly called for Adrian Anderson's resignation after video cock-up #1. We're not joking any longer. Video cock-up #3 is nothing short of incompetent.

Video cock-up #2 was a field umpire's decision to review a decision the goal umpire was, again, perfectly placed to judge and had got right. The ball had flown over a contest, was possibly touched by a Saint (McEvoy we think), and fell onto the foot of young Swan Cunningham, from where it crossed the goal line.

The goal umpire clearly saw that the ball touched the Swans player's foot and crossed the goal line without being touched by a Saint. It was a goal and the goal umpire was certain. Nevertheless, the field umpire, whose view was markedly inferior to the goal umpire's on any analysis, elected to refer the decision.

We have two problems with this. It wasn't a "goal line" decision. The goal umpire clearly indicated his firm conviction that it was a goal and his view was unobstructed.

Video cock-ups #2 and #3 may have delivered the correct decisions, eventually, but it wasn't the technology that was decisive.

This video referral trial can only be regarded as laughable.

Barcodes ruckman Darren Jolley’s blast at the AFL’s mooted ‘two and two’ interchange, being trialled in this year’s pre-season, as “stupid” and “ridiculous” is itself pretty stupid and ridiculous.

While AussieRulesBlog acknowledges that the game was different, lets remember that prior to 1978 and the introduction of interchange players were expected to be able to play 120 minutes of football — in more-or-less continuous 30-minute chunks. The game’s rhythm was dictated by the players’ fitness level.

Over time, as coaches have sought more and more advantage from interchanges, we reached a point where a player like Dane Swan is interchanged continually throughout the course of the game, often only for 30 seconds or so. In turn, the modern game’s rhythm has attuned to continual interchange and the consequent higher performance levels.

Jolley’s comments, and the concerns voiced last pre-season by Bombers captain Jobe Watson, seem to be based on the assumption that the game will remain the same in every other respect other than interchanges. Commonsense dictates that an adjustment like restricting interchanges will, in turn, require consequent changes in the rhythm of the game, players’ fitness and endurance and game strategies. The game will evolve to cope with changed circumstances.

More to the point, rarely does the game evolve so quickly that the acme of overall performance is delivered the year after a change is implemented. It requires coaches and strategists searching for advantage and trying new ideas to unearth the most effective responses — the responses that stand up over time against the pressure of opponents’ strategies.

There are probably as many people suggesting the current frenetic pace of the game begets more injuries as there are those suggesting a two-and-two bench will generate more injuries due to greater fatigue. We won’t know how it will play out until we get to the future.

AussieRulesBlog seriously needed a live footy ‘fix’, so along with 28,000 others we rolled along to Docklands last night. We were also keen to see the AFL’s new experimental ruck rule in action for the first time.

As befits the first halfway-decent competitive hitout of the year, the footy was, mostly, pretty uninspiring. The experimental rule for boundary ruck contests was, in contrast, simply fantastic!

On a couple of occasions ruckmen forgot and touched before the ball was launched, but instant free kicks served their purpose.

The AFL can keep their video technology in a box at the back of their shed, but, as far as we’re concerned, they can implement this boundary ruck contest rule for the home and away season right now! Three ‘games’ last night should have everybody convinced this is a winner.

And isn’t it great to have footy back!

The Hun reports today that an off-field umpire’s department official, with access to video replay, will be hooked into the umpire’s audio system to assist in adjudicating “goal line” decisions during the 2012 pre-season competition. A 40-second window will be available for any video assessment which would be prior to the goal umpire signalling a decision. This means, and we think the AFL have taken a PR view of this, no decisions will be overturned as a result of video referral. Whatever we think of the general concept, and AussieRulesBlog thinks it’s a mangy dog, the final part is a PR masterstroke.

Let’s hope that we don’t have a repeat of last year’s nonsense of video replays being used to try to determine whether a hand has touched a kicked ball fifteen metres out from goal. Goal line decisions only please, if we must go through this nonsense.

The story in the Hun drags up the 2011 Sharrod Wellingham Grand Final goal that apparently deflected off a goal post and the 2009 Tom Hawkins GF poster. Are these “goal line” decisions? Will the “goal line” cameras be sited such that they can be used to adjudicate decisions like the two mentioned? If the arrangement is similar to 2011, the cameras are attached to the goal post about 2.5 metres above ground level to assist in those “did he touch it before it went over the line” decisions. Pretty typical, in our view, of the journalist responsible for this report to bring in red herrings and create expectations that probably can’t be met, because it’s all about the “controversy”.

The truth is, the technology and this application of it has holes you could drive a B-double through. When we’re hardly being deluged with incorrect decisions in every game — remember that errors are running at something less than one tenth of one percent of all scoring decisions across an entire season — all of this additional cost and infrastructure will achieve . . . precisely bugger-all. It’s the standard response dictated by the AFL Management Handbook — use the biggest sledgehammer you can find to crack a tiny grain of sand.

The announcement of experimental rules for the 2012 pre-season games carries no surprises. We were alerted to these changes weeks ago, but it’s interesting to see the final implementation.

AussieRulesBlog has made no secret of our enthusiasm for any change that removes ugly wrestling from ruck contests. The explanatory notes make for some intriguing consideration.

Ruckmen will not be permitted to make contact with their opponent prior to bounces and throw-ins, with umpires ensuring the players do not make contact with each other until the ball leaves the umpire’s hand. The trial is designed to encourage ruckmen to contest the ball, rather than focus on nullifying their opponent, as well as making ruck contests easier to adjudicate.

We’re not entirely sure that the last point has been achieved by adding another rule for umpires to adjudicate! It will be fascinating to see how ruckmen manage this new process.

Centre bounces have generally been genuine contests since the dividing line between ruckmen was introduced. Athletic ruckmen have had the opportunity to leap high above the more lumbering types and the umpires have, in our judgement, generally done a good job in restricting the lumberers from taking the leapers’ run away from them. The second centre circle has reduced the advantage that more athletic ruckmen might otherwise have had.

So, for this trial, at ball ups around the ground, ruckmen will not be able to touch each other until the ball has left the umpire’s hands. Frankly, we’re not sure that there’ll be much difference discernable. The ruckmen will stand quite close to each other and, as soon as the ball hits the turf, will come together in a wrestle for the five or six seconds it takes for the ball to fall back down to them. What change have we made? Not bloody much!

And we can’t wait to see how precise and precious the umpires are going to be about what constitutes a touch.

For boundary throw ins, the situation is much the same. As the ball is arcing through the air for five or six seconds, the ruckmen will be wrestling for position and advantage as they move to the fall of the ball. Again, not much bloody difference!

We can’t fault the intent of these experiments, but they don’t go nearly far enough.

AFL Operations Manager Adrian Anderson is reported in The Age to have spoken about proposals for experimental rules for the 2012 pre-season competition.

Among the possibilities are 12 points for a torpedo goal from outside the fifty-metre arc, which we regard as populist nonsense, despite the obvious difficulties in defining whether a torpedo that’s not quite right is a torpedo or not.

Other possibilities are:

■ Boundary and goal umpires allowed to pay obvious free kicks for holding and high contact. [Let’s define obvious, shall we?]

■ Ruckmen not permitted to make contact for boundary throw-ins and around-the-ground bounces.

■ Free kicks not paid for last touch over the boundary but for last kick, handball or when a player walked the ball over the line. [Still a turkey of an idea.]

AussieRulesBlog is glad to see a mention of ruck contests in the range of issues to be addressed. The description provided can only be regarded as a quick shorthand because a literal implementation of “no contact” for boundary and around-the-ground ruck contests is simply not practical.

For what it’s worth, AussieRulesBlog would like to see anything that looks like a hold or a shepherd with the arms in a ruck contest penalised. We’re really over the ruck wrestling. Fair enough if players want to engage in a test of strength, but holding or shepherding is just plain ugly. We recognise that limiting contact to the body advantages athletic, high-leaping players such as Nic Naitanui and Paddy Ryder quite strongly, however they are similarly disadvantaged in the current wrestling matches that pass for ruck contests.

Let’s have an end to umpires shouting, “Both holding!”

In the same story, there are more hints that some sort of video decision assist will be implemented, sooner rather than later. We’ve already indicated our disquiet. The story notes that only seven scoring decision errors were recorded by the AFL in 2011. Seven! How many goals, behinds, out-of-bounds and goal-line marks and scrambles were adjudicated through the season, and there were seven errors. We’re pretty sure most fans would prefer to see fewer errors of interpretation of rules in the field of play, or, at the very least, consistent interpretations across the season, rather than this manic determination to find a solution to a non-problem.

If 2011 has been notable for anything, it has been the slow-motion car crash that is the revised Advantage law. Continuing our Focus on Rules series, AussieRulesBlog looks at the Advantage rule.

Once again, we’ve found new respect for the on-field officials after reading these laws carefully. We hope you’ll gain a new appreciation for the difficulties of their task and the complexities of the laws they are exercising during games.

Here is the Law as it has appeared over the past four years. The (colour) key is:

Black: from 2008 (earliest electronic Laws of Football we could locate).

Red: Inserted 2009.

Blue: Added 2011.

Strikethrough: removed 2011.

The crucial changes, fairly obviously, are those made to Law 17.3. It’s worth noting that the change has removed the umpire’s discretion to call the ball back if advantage doesn’t eventuate — a provision that was available until the 2011 change.

AussieRulesBlog has noted on a number of occasions that “advantage” is quite unsuited to Australian Rules football. Our umpires are schooled, right from the beginning, to blow the whistle when they see an infringement. Players are schooled, right from the beginning, to stop on hearing the whistle. So fundamental has the notion to stop on the whistle been that umpires have been instructed, prior to 2011, to award fifty-metre penalties — based on the “time wasting” provision — against players continuing on with their actions after the whistle.

Into this long-standing tenet of the game, the AFL introduces player-initiated advantage. Players may now play on — as it were — after the whistle, provided they are sure their team is receiving the free kick. In a paradox, if the player continuing on with play gets it wrong, the fifty-metre “time wasting” penalty is still available to the umpire. For the most part, umpires have dealt with this paradox with admirable commonsense.

It’s also worth noting that explanations from The Giesch about controversial advantage decisions have prominently featured the notion that play must be continuous for player-initiated advantage to apply. It’s abundantly clear, reading the new Law 17.3 above, that this is not codified in the Law and is simply a matter of interpretation. The Giesch has been snowing us — again! Any number of advantage situations, especially inside forward 50s, have featured clearly stopped play with one opportunist taking a punt — clearly, to our mind, outside of the spirit of the game even if in sync with the Law as written.

We must note that in other football codes, referees hold the whistle in an advantage situation to see if the advantage plays out. If it doesn’t, the whistle is blown and play returns to the site of the penalty/foul.

The new law 17.3 is a dog and no-one will be surprised if it is euthanased at the conclusion of the season. AussieRulesBlog would go further and remove advantage from our game completely. The vagaries are too large and the penalties too harsh against the other team. Please Adrian and Rules Committee, put this abomination of a law out of our misery!

Well, AussieRulesBlog is wrong again!

Back in January, we predicted that interchange rates would increase with the reduction to three interchange seats for 2011. That is, we thought the total number of interchanges would be down, but the number of interchanges per interchange seat would be up.

How could we have got it so wrong?

In fact, Essendon and four other teams managed more interchange rotations in round one of 2011 than their 2010 interchange rotation average. In the Bombers’ case, their 134 interchanges eclipsed even their highest number of interchanges for any 2010 game: 122.

The AFL’s own announcement of the change to the composition of the bench cited a desire to curb the increasing interchange numbers. Well, it’s been an outstanding success at that, don’t you think, Adrian? No less than five teams beat their 2010 average with one fewer interchange player available in round one of 2011.

Kevin Bartlett’s Rules of the Game committee was offered three alternatives:

• three interchange players and one subtitute
• two interchange players and two substitutes
• four interchange players, with a cap of 80 interchanges per game

Now we freely concede that a team losing a player to injury is less disadvantaged through the 3:1 rule than they would have been under an unrestricted 4-man interchange. But we can’t see how that disadvantage is not also countered by the cap option, which mandates a reduction in interchange rotations.

Clearly the Committee erred in its recommendation of option one by favouring the fairness criterion over the rest. The numbers from round one prove the error. Unless the Bombers suffer a sudden rash of injuries attributable to high interchange rates — such as multiple bum splinters from jumping on and off ‘the pine’ — it’s pretty obvious that the twelve coaches who didn’t maximise their rotations in round one are going to be following the Bombers’ and the Barcodes’ leads, and then the rule will be seen to be a total crock.

We heard Brad Scott on AFL Insider on FoxSports suggest that the AFL leave the game alone for two or three years and just see how it evolves to deal with this current set of rules before making changes with unforeseen consequences. Hear hear, Brad!

Tonight those of us with Foxtel have been able to watch the first example of the AFL’s new round-robin format tonight.

It’s hard to get a decent form line when the squads are so ‘experimental’, but the AFL chose to experiment with one small piece of insanity in this first round of the pre-season competition — a free kick against the last player to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds. This rule is a turkey. End of story. May it never be seen again after this round of the competition.

The extra two quarters made the night on the couch seem interminable.

Overall, AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure about this new format, although we don’t have any alternative to propose.

We welcome comments from other fans who had the chance to watch the game.