The AFL is floating several rules changes for next season and has asked for the fans to give their verdict on its website. We at BackPageLead have been through it and here is how we responded.

1: Interchange

The AFL has asked in which of the following ways should interchange be restricted:

a) 3 interchange plus one substitute

b) 2 interchange plus two substitute

c) Cap of 80 interchanges

BPL says: It's interesting to note here that "status quo" was not one of the options, with the AFL clearly concerned that some teams are now recording more than 150 interchanges per game - up from an average of 58 per game in 2007. Clubs won't like being told what to do on this matter, particularly as some - notably Collingwood - feel there is no correlation between the increased speed of the game and more injuries. Despite this, the AFL insists there are concerns among its medicos, and believes teams who lose a player to injury are disadvantaged under the current system because rotations are so high. While we may have backed "status quo", had it been an option, and let clubs sort this out through natural evolution (as they have done with flooding), the best option presented appears a cap of 80, although it's unclear if there will be a quarter-by-quarter restriction. The whole substitute rule is open to too much interpretation, and will no doubt become another "tactic" for coaches to manipulate. For instance, if only an injured player can be replaced during a game, just how serious does this injury have to be? If one team has no injuries, surely it would be at a disadvantage if its opponent called on fresh legs late in a game? If there are only two or three players on the interchange, it may impact at the selection table. For instance, there may be no room for a second ruckman or mobile big man - do we want that? A cap makes sense. After all, the average this season is 116 per game. Cutting this to 80 would mean just nine less rotations per quarter per team, which, really, isn't a lot. It may just mean the Blues, for instance, resting Chris Judd up forward more often rather than taking him off the ground. Surely, it's a good thing for the game to have its superstars on the field for longer.

2) Length of the game

The AFL has asked fans whether they would like to reduce quarters to 29-30 minutes in length, as the overall length of matches has increased from 117.3 mins in 2006 to 122.3 this season.

BPL says: Fair point. Matches are dragging on somewhat, but we like the suggestion of cutting the half-time break from 20 minute to 18 and quarter time and three quarter time from six minutes to five as the best options. Leave the actual lengths of quarters and time-on as they are. After all, do we really want to see less of a Nick Riewoldt or Gary Ablett or Lance Franklin? I would doubt that. Five minutes is still more than enough time for players to have a breather and hear from the coach. With so many coaches now guiding their sides from the boundary, there's already ample time to praise or criticise players.

3) Boundary umpires awarding holding and high contact free kicks at stoppages

The AFL has asked fans if they would be happy for this to happen.

BPL says: Definitely. This worked well in the NAB Cup this year - and would during the regular season. The more the superstar midfielders such as Judd, Gary Ablett and Lenny Hayes aren't illegally restrained and can get their hands on the ball, the better. The AFL has clamped down on holding in recent seasons, but the adjudication is still inconsistent. The Blues were so frustrated with the treatment Judd was getting that they approached umpires boss Jeff Gieschen last month. As long as the boundary umpire has clear vision, this appears a good move.

4) Goal if ball hits post

The AFL has asked if a goal should still be registered if the ball hits a goal post yet still goes through? It also questions whether if the ball hits the point post on the full and or on the roll, should this be deemed a point?

BPL says: No way, or as one footy show would say: "Bad call, AFL". In some ways, this rule would ease the pressure on goal umpires, particularly in lieu of the weekend we just had where three poor calls were made. But this rule change would tear at the fabric of the game. Anyway, do we really want to reward players for poor kicks that hit the goal post? Please AFL, forget this, and move on.

5) Advantage rule

The AFL has asked if the player, not the umpire, should decide whether there is an advantage?

BPL says: This was trialled successfully during the NAB Cup this season and has the support of clubs. We add our endorsement, and hope to see this introduced next season. Umpires aren't always in the best position to determine if a team does have an advantage in playing on from a free kick. Players usually do, as they instinctively are already plotting their next move and where to find space. Umpires can be inconsistent in this ruling and players do get frustrated. If it's left solely in their hands, they will have no one to blame but themselves if playing on proves the wrong move.

6) Free kick for dragging a ball under an opponent

The AFL has asked if a free kick should be awarded against a player who drags the ball under their opponent on the ground?

BPL says: This was trialled during the NAB Cup this season - and we liked it. This has become a sneaky tactic of some players, particularly when two teammates gang up against one opponent. One player can push the ball under an opponent while his teammate obstructs the vision of the umpire, who has little option but to "ping" the player over the ball. This tactic also slows the game, so let's stamp it out.