Why was the rule implemented? Behind the word "injuries" the real word is 'Concussion'. The AFL are less concerned about knee injuries and hamstrings as they are concussion.
The game has gotten so congested the AFL is in secret damage control because the game has sped up so quickly; restricting the bench or capping the rotation numbers can only do so much. Yes I know head collisions have been happening since the sport began. But the AFL are worried about it more than ever because of how congested the game is. To add to that medical science today knows more about the issue than they did yesterday.

Behind the word concussion is also litigation. So they are desperate to lower the number of incidents. But to be fair to the motives of the AFL I am sure they are concerned about player safety in that way. I recently saw a vid of a soccer player who died from a heart attack or stroke during a game, I find myself wondering in the time I've been watching AFL (not making ref to junior leagues) how a player hasn't been killed from head collision (glad I haven't seen it).

I think the AFL would be willing to buy an increase in soft tissue injuries if it means less chances of head clashes. Where the game is at at the moment the AFL can not keep up. They are trying to tweak rules here and there, but clubs who are becoming more and more processional are continuing to find ways to get the most out of their players. Like I say having subs, capped benches will only do so much. Whether the zone, pres, box, swarm, horde, throng etc pass away or not the game is going to remain contested unless major changes to rules are made.

Having two subs is like sending the spider to catch the fly. That part may satisfy the clubs who are whining. If they make that change watch them also cap the interchange.

The time may come when they look at rules changes (here at this point I am not saying this is what I would like to see or giving my preferred opinion) that you can only have x number of players in certain parts of the ground at one time.

I'm not for or against. Good sides ie those that make the Gf dont have a lot of injured players and they know how to manage their players from year to year And they also tend to have a lot of good players. We've struggled for TWO years with injuries and thats more than bad lack. Its not a sub thing that is the problem, its how we have managed the players – either on the training track or during a game. In part that might be a style of play that was unsustainable. We lucked out – fortunately we just hit the rewind button.

Yep and I hope the club are aware of the issues and the hiring of Lyon isn't just a way of masking the issue. If he is a better coach so got him fair enough; but he won't succeed if some of the issues that have plagued the club the past 3, 4 yrs are overlooked.

I'm not sure if the rule helped on the injury front, but in the first half of the season the games opened up in the last quarter, and in the second half of the season whole games seemed to have opened up. Might have had more to do with tactical adjustment than the sub rule.

I did think the 'fairness' component is hard to argue. It was nice not having to listen to commentators and coaches complain about teams being 'down in the rotations' relative to the other team so often.

I've never understood the frustration in respect of a player sitting there inactive for part of the game. 'Emergencies' have been doing it forever. Under that logic, isn't it frustrating that you have an emergency sitting there perfectly fit and ready to go but he isn't allowed to play just because he wasn't named?

Hypen, I don't think I got it right. Maybe I just didn't get it wrong. Certainly the doomsday predictions about how the sub would affect the game didn't eventuate.

But even Grant Thomas occassionally gets the odd thing not wrong.

Not a fan of the sub rule and don't believe it has helped stop injuries at all.

What it has done is lead to some widely unbalanced contests late in games as players are forced to cover for others who are injured.

If they were serious they'd make it 21 or 22 players in a side with 2 subs for any injuries/tactics.

I'd prefer 22 on 22 and no subs.

I wasn't sure about the new rule when they brought it in but in the end I liked the sub rule this year.

I think it has contributed to the game being in a better place, I can't say it served it's purpose, as I never really understood the intent.

But I like the fact there is not 36 blokes chasing a pce of leather in one third of the ground.

That's about the position I hold. I am fairly indifferent to the rule; but I think that the game appears to have opened up more is a good thing but it hasn't achieved its stated purpose.

All I see in the sub rule is annoying over officiating.