(Les Zigomanis is a Melbourne-based freelance writer/editor, and chief editor of the bi-annual fiction anthology [untitled].)

In the AFL, new rules are usually introduced to address issues which need remedying. That's the logic. For example, years ago players kept diving on the ball to lock up play, so it was decided that was an act which should be penalised.  Sydney briefly played one game against North Melbourne with 19 players on the field, so the AFL decided that interchanging needed to be monitored.  And so on.

The Substitition Rule doesn't address any issue.  It's an arbitrary attempt to reshape an aesthetic of the game (mass interchange rotations) which the AFL find unattractive.  There are no benefits to its existence, and whatever contributions it has made to the evolution of the modern game are arguable.

For example, here are some of the fallacies associated with the sub rule: 

It's promoted long kicking

So here's the logic: a team has one less player on the bench.  Because of this, their players are more taxed.  To compensate (for the loss of run, rotations, etc.), they kick the ball longer (and to contests). Excuse me. I'm pretty sure the players have to run just as much; if they're kicking longer they're actually exerting more energy; and if they're kicking to contests, then they're creating more congestion, which is going to be more physically impactful.

The truth is that if teams are kicking longer, it's because it's seen as a way to combat The Press. Collingwood employed The Press to a flag in 2010, and in 2011 - and as often occurs with premiers - many teams have emulated them.

Kicking over The Press - therefore kicking long and direct - has been determined as the best method of beating the incessant pressure and tackling. 

It keeps the playing field level

Team A loses a player in the first five minutes of the game. They activate their sub. This means that Team A and Team B are still restricted to three on the interchange.  Both teams are still on equal footing.

Yes. They are.

For a little while.

Let's not forget that Team B still has their sub, so at some point they're still going to have a fresh player to activate, which actually still gives them an advantage. 

The sub has introduced a tactical element to the game

Commentators and media lauded that activating the sub introduced a new dynamic into the game, and could polarise a side.  For example, a team might remove a tall forward, and bring on their sub, who is a small forward. They have changed the shape of their team, going from tall and lumbering to small and fast.

Before the sub, there was another facility which also allowed a team to change the dynamic of their team.  It was called ... the interchange bench.  What's more, the interchange bench actually allowed the coach to change this move back.

The sub doesn't offer an additional tactical element. 

The sub has curtailed soft tissue injuries

Clubs are conducting their own studies into the fitness and well-being of their players, but a glance weekly at the injury lists shows there's been no real improvement in injuries across the League.  Arguably, injury lists have increased, with several clubs reeling from injuries, and many reporting that players are complaining of ‘soreness'. 

Games are closer

Why should they be?

This is a table I drew up of the first one hundred games for the last three seasons.  Note, I excluded Gold Coast's matches from the 2011 tallies. 

Margin   2009   2010   2011

Drawn      -          1          3
0-6          10          9        13
7-12         9         15         7
13-19      17          9        10
20-39      29         30       30
40-59      23         22       19
60-99      12         12       17
100+        -           2         1 

In 2011, there were sixteen games decided by under a goal (including draws), as opposed to just ten from 2010 and 2009.  But in 2010, there were twenty-five games decided by under two goals, to twenty-three in 2011.  The differences are negligible.

What became evident as I compiled my table were that the closer games in 2011 were happening more often earlier in the season.  So, it would seem that as bodies tired and wore, the constancy of closer games lessened.

In any case, there's no logic as to why one less on the bench should enforce closer games. 

Conclusion?

Take footage of any sport and compare it at twenty year intervals, and you'll see it gets faster and harder.

It has taken AFL over a hundred fifty years to evolve to the breakneck pace it enjoys today.  Moreover, resources have determined that evolution, meaning that the game's developed to it speeds contingent upon twenty-four players sharing the workload.  Now, twenty-three players have to share that same workload, which means each player has to do more.  Accumulatively over a year, this means more wear and tear.  More wear and tear would increase the risk of injury, not decrease it.

The counter-argument might be that employing twenty-three players will force teams to slow down, which is bizarre, because it's asking the game to devolve.  Would you really expect players to not run as fast, to not run as hard, to not attack a contest as ferociously, et al, in interests of preservation and compensating for the loss of that player?  How do you ask players to deny instinct?

The game has not become a more attractive spectacle because of the sub.  Watching players cramp, their skills deteriorate due to exhaustion, barely able to run out matches, is hardly a selling point.  If they were horses and we were running them to death in races, every animal cruelty society would condemn us for the practice.  As it is, I don't understand how it's not an OH&S issue.  Instead, though, we try to champion it - or the AFL try to champion it.

And for what reason?

Has it really curbed player rotation?  No. The clubs who rotate are rotating as much as ever.  And they don't appear hamstrung at all to the lack of that additional player.

So, really, it's a rule without a cause.