It feels like there was meant to be a monumental shift in the game when the substitute rule was brought in. It could be said that the substitute was brought in to slow the game down, or reduce the number of interchanges (because this was a problem for... someone).
Many people don't like the idea of a substitute, because if one or two injuries happen (which actually happens regularly) then one team is severely disadvantaged. That is not to say they weren't when the interchange was 4 strong, however it is more pronounced with less players resting.
If the aim of the substitute rule was to slow the game down, it has failed miserably.
As a general rule, the game evolves to become faster, harder, taller and more skillful than years previous. This stems from the competitive nature of getting a spot in the 22 (or 21). As young players strive to take spots of other players, they are forced to be better than those who currently play the game. Over a number of years this slowly progresses the game forward.
We see this in modern recruitment, which is focused on athletes, rather than a player with a footy brain.
If the evolution of the game drives players to be better, so too will a reduction in the rest time a player gets on the bench. Less rest means a player needs to be fitter, with a high endurance. Regardless of player limitations now, in years to come the game will reach a faster, stronger and more intense version of what it is today.
In this light, the substitute has actually compounded the very "problem" it was attempting to solve.
So what does the substitute rule achieve?
1. A headache for the coach, who has to take a risk and gamble the right time to make the substitute
2. A disappointed player pre-match, as they are named as the substitute
3. Another disappointed player who is substituted off the ground during the game
4. Fitter players
5. Upset fantasy football team fans
6. Games that hinge on the fitness of players (rather than ability)
The concept of the concussion rule is evidence that this is the case. If players must remain out of the game for that injury, they should not be down to just 2 rotations on the bench. The AFL have already taken this step, which is contradictory to the purpose of the substitute rule.
We now see a limitation on the number of interchanges during the game (to 120) which again pushes players to a new level of fitness and endurance. While it may slow the game in the short term, it is only a matter of time before the players who have that level of fitness prevail and the game is back to speeds of 2012.
The point here is that the substitute rule is not an effective rule and it serves to only place negative pressure on players and coaches.
Solution: Either get rid of the 4th bench player or reinstate them as a normal interchange player. Just remove the substitute rule.
Update: Could the rule change be resulting in early retirement of the games stars?
