It's not often we feel the need to jump to Adrian Anderson's defence but many of the AFL rule change proposals he's thrown up for discussion deserve more than the inevitable knee-jerk criticisms they've attracted. They deserve serious consideration. 

I'm not talking about awarding goals to shots that bounce inwards off goalposts - I'd file that idea in the bin pretty quick smart - it's more the AFL's review of the game's direction, and future, that should be given support. And in particular, the cap on interchange bench rotations.

Because AFL fans, in case you hadn't noticed, the game that you attend, watch, read about and love has been transformed and turned upside-down in the past 10 years. Even if you dig out a tape of a 2005 match, you'll find yourself looking twice at the date written on the DVD cover just to convince yourself that the game really is only five years old. 

As to 30 years ago, and this observation's been made many times before, but that stop-start, turgid fare - served up in tight pants - is almost unrecognisable from the 2010 spectacle. 

So if you like to think of yourself as a traditionalist - that's to say a supporter of the status quo - sorry, but you've missed the boat. The game is changing every season, and evolving at such a pace that the notion of an AFL status quo is almost redundant. The fundamental spectacle that drew us to follow AFL in the first place has now morphed into something quite different. 

And few sports that I can think of have undergone such a massive transformation in such a short space of time. 

That's why the AFL have stepped in with these rule change proposals. The sport they are custodians of is spinning out of control to such an extent that no-one can predict with any certainty how the game will look like in 2015. 

It is incumbent on the game's administration to retain control over their code, so it is entirely right that Anderson and co, say: ‘Hold on, boys, let's catch our breath here for a minute and see where we're heading'. 

As Anderson pointed out on Wednesday, interchange numbers per club have doubled - doubled - from an average of 58 per game in 2007, to 116 per game in 2010. In 2003, clubs were interchanging players at a rate of 22 per match, less than 20 per cent of current totals. 

Can anyone tell me a sport - anywhere - that has tolerated that sort of fundamental change in seven years? 

The effect of this unfettered substituting of players has been startling. The speed of the game late in the last quarter is just as hectic now as the opening minutes of the first quarter; the pace relentless from go to whoa. 

This means, logically, there will be more high-speed collisions. The AFL Medical Commissioners have urged the league to review the interchange rules, saying uncontrolled use of the bench ‘‘would further increase the speed of the game, and pose an increased risk of serious injury''. 

Then there is the matter of the nature of the game itself. Once upon a time, stamina - the ability to run hard through the pain of exhaustion - was as much a part of the game as running fast or jumping high or kicking long. Not any more. 

Collingwood's Dane Swan is perhaps the premier on-baller in the league yet he is also the most ‘benched', coming off the ground 178 times in his 19 matches this season. This allows him to run like the clappers - sprinting in bursts up and down the ground for eight or 10 minutes - before coming off for a rest. That pattern continues in high rotation for the entire match. 

If you'd suggested seven years ago that Ben Cousins, Shane Crawford or Michael Voss be benched for 20% of each game, you'd have been laughed out of the coach's box.  

So we now have a high-speed, high-intensity contest which is threatening to produce more serious injuries but also shorten players' careers because of the relentless demands placed on their bodies.  

And don't be seduced into listening to AFL coaches on this issue: they are simply not to be trusted as impartial observers. When Mick Malthouse, Rodney Eade and Brad Scott jump up and down about the ‘ridiculous' idea of capping interchange numbers, you can safely assume their comments are driven by major self-interest. 

Those three, and one or two others, reckon they can work the high-rotation bench changes to their advantage. That they can manipulate the interchange better than some of their counterparts and win close games as a result. Malthouse and Collingwood have reached 150 rotations in some games, while Eade and the Western Bulldogs lead the comp with an average of 130. 

So we're to ignore the expert medical advice and forget about the longevity of players' careers - everything is to be sacrificed on the altar of game-day success. Is that it?

The Sunday Age ran a revealing feature recently in which it polled five players about the idea of a cap on interchange numbers. One of them, Brisbane's Jed Adcock, revealed himself not to be just a deep thinker about the game, but also endearingly honest. 

‘'It is more of a power, burst game now,'' Adcock said. ‘'There are more of those type of games, and you get more injuries. It's now very much five minutes, you go off, and then five minutes back on. You're spent when you come off. Now, the game is so powerful. Three years ago, five years ago, you were lucky to get on before half-time when you started on the bench. You give everything, then you go off.''

Asked if the increasing speed of the game would reduce the length of his career, Adcock said: ‘'For sure. I think you have already seen that this year (with player retirements). You are lucky to get players over 30 these days. Five years ago, there were more who were 32 to 34 years of age. It's pretty much an accomplishment to get 200 games now.''

As a result, he said he'd support an interchange cap. ‘'I think it's a goer. The injuries are up, longevity is shorter now than three years ago. It [cap] would make it a fairer game. When you have two injuries and only two left on the bench, and you can't interchange as much, that makes it unfair ... They [AFL] have been throwing around 80 to 100 [capped interchanges]. I would be [in favour] of something around that mark.''

His remarks about were supported by fellow players, North Melbourne's Andrew Swallow and St Kilda's Jason Blake.

Now, I don't know whether the cap should be set at 80 or 90 or 100. Let's settle on a limit, though, and try it. If it manifestly doesn't work, well try another one. It's time this helter-skelter perpetual motion on the ground, and the sidelines, was reined in.