The 23rd man

[Presti35]

4 and a sub is fine.

But imagine this in 2010 or even 1990. We'd have a few more premiership players. Or even in 2011, we could have subbed off Reid.

[dalyc]

I hate the sub. It means there’s a player sitting on the sideline neither playing in the firsts or seconds for a week (depending on injuries and when the game is played).

I’d prefer 5 on the bench and that’s it. Never to be changed again.

[Born to Pie]

Agree totally

[robevpau1]

5 on the bench offers the most flexibility with all players allowed to return to the field of play if able to do so.

[Charlie Oneeye]

Put 5. Even more.


The speed of the game is very influenced by recruiting and training, not so much by bench size or rotation restrictions anymore.

And if other clubs don't have the depth to compete, let's not aspire to the lowest denominator.

Great to have options on the bench.
Start fast and put the talls on at the end. Opens up all sorts of interesting scenarios.

The game will evolve to its highest standard.

As it is now, the process is corrupted. We need to get rid of the sub, not make it even more convoluted.

[think positive]

yep

5 straight will do!

[Skids]

yep

5 straight will do!

Agree totally. 5 interchange, if there's an injury or 2, 3 easily suffices for a match. The red jacket is ridiculous.

[BazBoy]

In some shape or form with regulations applied they have had 5 on the bench

So free up regulations and just have a rotating bench of five

[Culprit]

If it goes to 5 on the bench, rotation numbers have to increase.

[Boot]

If it goes to 5 on the bench, rotation numbers have to increase.

Not necessarily, I don't expect that they will increase the number of rotations allowed, but what it does do is limit the impact of game ending injuries. If there was a couple of injuries with the current set up a team can be handicapped by only having 3 instead of 4 players to rotate. The extra player available reduces the impact of getting 2 or 3 injuries during a game. I think this is a good thing for the AFL to introduce. It should allow for playing an extra tall in the mix as well, but will be fascinating to see how clubs utilize the extra flexibility.

[BazBoy]

With five on the bench it gives the opportunity to use certain players a little fresher with less time when on the field

Have some fresher than normal for close finish games

[barrackers]

After an early adjustment we ran out games well in ‘22. On face value we can run harder for longer with an extra interchange player, however there’s also the chance other sides will try and increase their late game running capacity against us by keeping a bloke fresh (minimal early game time) or by playing an extra mid.

[think positive]

yep

5 straight will do!

Agree totally. 5 interchange, if there's an injury or 2, 3 easily suffices for a match. The red jacket is ridiculous.

yep, the likes of the bullflogs cheated with it anyway!

[swoop42]

Surely the easiest solution would be that as soon as one team activates a substitute the other team can do so whether or not any player of theirs is injured.

This would stop any team being able to gain the system and use it as a tactical advantage.

Moving to a 5 man interchange would eventually only lead to the same reasons the medical substitute was first implemented and we'll have a situation whereby one side gets an injury early in the game and be a man down. Get 2 injuries and they'll be 2 men down instead of just 1 like the current system allows.

It's a stupid idea.

[swoop42]

I hate the sub. It means there’s a player sitting on the sideline neither playing in the firsts or seconds for a week (depending on injuries and when the game is played).

I’d prefer 5 on the bench and that’s it. Never to be changed again.

When it was 21 + 1 sub I hated it because it was effectively robbing us fans of seeing a player taking to the field at any given point each match.

With 22 + 1 however I see it as an added bonus and a good way of easing our young players in to senior level football or someone returning from a long lay off.