Sean Walsh is a BPL citizen journalist.

I don't propose to go back to the no substitutes days but do believe that restricting the ability of coaches to interchange players returns our game to the one-on-one battles that were its roots. Aussie Rules football is at its best as a spectacle when it is a series of even contests.

The zonal marking introduced over the last 15-20 years has damaged the game I love and this substitute rule (although under the cover of injury reduction) is an attempt to rectify that. Will it work? I don't know. Is it worth the effort? Definitely.

The way some coaches have reacted is like a two year old who loses their favourite toy. Tantrums followed by tears and then more tantrums. The funny thing is that the most sense made in relation to this rule change was made by the one coach Josh Dascal says had most reason to complain. Voss' response to an invitation to criticise the rule was to say that it's a new rule and coaches are still adapting to it, it has teething problems but will be sorted out.

Claye Beams was substituted because he was no longer fit. He had suffered either a very good "corky" or worse. He was no longer an effective participant for the Brisbane side so was substituted. This substitute rule may just prolong some players careers because it will cause coaches to be cured of the temptation to place some unfit players back into the fray.

The only changes I would like to see is the bench reduced to two and am open to the number of substitutes going up (even as high as 3 or 4). I don't want to see injured players playing our game. I do want to see a game where perseverance, stamina, skill and effort are rewarded.

How would players like Leigh Matthews, Paul Couch, and Robert Harvey fare in today's game. Some may still make it to AFL level but their influence would be severely curtailed by a severe lack of pace. What they did have was the ability to keep running at the same pace all day. They would influence games by getting to contest after contest after contest and by the later parts of a quarter would have burnt any tagger off. The rabbits although out of the gate quickly could eventually be caught by the tortoise. That is now rarely the case. We are diminishing the number and types of athlete who can play our game if we don't change. Recruiting has begun to place speed ahead of stamina. I believe there is a place for both and it is possible the new rule will even the balance. Some say the rule is the deathknell for the ruckmen. Looking at the early stats, that is untrue. The players that appear to have the greatest increase in time on the ground over the weekend was ruckmen. The decisive play in the Brisbane game relied on the tallest ruckman in the league taking a pack mark in the dying stages.

The concussion rule also seeks to save players from themselves. Few players want to show any sign weakness or let their team down. Sometimes to their own detriment. "What is concussed?" is a fair question and I'm sure procedures on that issue will be tightened up if too many more incidents of the Mitch Clark variety occur.

I am no doctor but from experience don't necessarily believe every time a player gets up a bit groggy that that is a concussion. To my knowledge concussion is more severe than that. The evidence so far gathered especially from sports such as the NFL indicates multiple concussions are a serious long-term health issue for players. How could a league in good conscience not take notice of such research? If news reports today are correct it seems the NRL is thinking of introducing a similar rule to the AFL. If further research indicates we have been jumping at shadows, so be it, the rule will be wound back. Until that time the risk of later dementia has to be the greater priority.

I am a Brisbane fan and could not have been prouder with the effort of the team on Saturday night. Did the sub rule hurt us? Possibly. What hurt us more was absolutely terrible luck with injuries to some of our most important players. Three of our five tall players were off the ground injured for a period of the last quarter. Two of those with severe injury. Under no set of rules is that going to be anything but a mortal blow in a close game. I will also say that two crucial umpiring decisions went against us in the last four minutes. One was clearly wrong, the second was at least debatable.

The sky will not fall in as a result of the sub rule. Let's all take a deep breath and wait for some actual evidence before jumping to conclusions.