The AFL is reportedly unlikely to change the current substitution structure ahead of the 2024 season as the league weighs up a number of proposed amendments for next year which cover the MRO and Tribunal systems, finals rankings and team selection.
According to AFL.com.au, the AFL tabled a nine-page document to clubs on Thursday with a list of proposed amendments ahead of the new season, while the league is 'welcoming feedback' on the current substitution structure.
The league moved from a 'medical' sub to a 'tactical' sub last year while keeping four further players on the bench, with clubs permitted to make their sub change at any point in the match.
Clubs weren't required to name their sub until an hour out from the opening bounce of their respective matches, causing some concern when key players who were set to be named as the substitute were listed as 'omitted' from last week's side.
Essendon coach and former AFL football boss Brad Scott said the league had previously tabled an option to clubs to have five players on the bench, however the resounding response was in favour of four and a sub.
"The lawyers would hate that because they've got to rewrite the entire rule book, because the rule book is written around 22 players. So they've got to change a lot of things (to allow the change)," Scott said in April.
"But at the end of the day, it's doable... to change it. I think it's just logical because having to name Trent Cotchin as omitted, when he's not, it just doesn't feel right.
"It just creates unnecessary angst right across the board. I think the fans also would like to know who's in our 23, rather than this guessing game."
While calls for a five-player interchange are growing, the league isn't expecting to make the change for the 2024 season, however is seeking feedback from clubs on the current system.
The AFL is also said to be looking at how to avoid confusion related to naming of the sub at team selection.
Also part of the league's document is a proposed change to a player's duty of care when attempting to smother the ball. The potential amendment comes in the wake of Collingwood defender Brayden Maynard's well-documented Tribunal hearing in September for his collision on Melbourne's Angus Brayshaw.
The change would have the MRO guidelines view any high contact on an opponent that is graded as 'low' impact be graded as 'careless' conduct at a minimum if the player has not taken "reasonable steps" to avoid the high contact.
The AFL may also seek that players "must take all reasonable steps to avoid making contact with their opponent's head and/or minimise the force of any high contact" when attempting a smother.
The league is also said to be assessing the impact of run-down tackles within its rough conduct guidelines.
According toย AFL.com.au,ย the league is also looking to cover the following as part of its latest proposed amendments:
- The AFL has received feedback from umpires that they would prefer the option to "refer" incidents to the MRO rather than "report" players to ease pressure on real-time decisions. The League has proposed that umpires can do both.
- ย Removing the requirement that the potential to cause injury must be "serious" under the striking charge.
- A clarification on the ranking of clubs during finals series to determine the 'home' and 'away' clubs for the AFL and AFLW Grand Finals.
- Prohibiting club officials from whistling or making other such noises to communicate from the interchange that interrupt broadcast audio.
Decisions or amendments on the proposed changes aren't likely to come until loser to Round 1.
