what would Australian rules football be like - if there were no interchange

[Judge Roughneck]

??

[tigs2011]

All the other teams would be soooo bloody exhausted they'd kick it as poo as us and not be able to run either. I'm all for it.

[Judge Roughneck]

Good players would rest forward, not on the bench

You would see a return of the full forward, rover, forward pocket etc.

Jobs Watson would arrange sit down protests

[Judge Roughneck]

 the VFL/AFL, the number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line:

Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played with 17 on the field (19 prior to 1899) if a player was injured.
1930 – the introduction of a single substitute
1946 – the introduction of a second substitute
1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges
1994 – the introduction of a third interchange

[(•))(©™]

stuff IC off and they'll bring in time out

[RollsRoyce]

In the 70s there was no interchange, just a 19th man. When he was activated, the player who left the field to make way for him couldn't return. The game was more free flowing and high scoring then, with one on one battles all across the ground, and great duels between chf/chb's and ff/fb's. It was far more exciting and unique than the constant rolling rugby scrum of negation and denial of time and space to execute skills such as we were "priveleged' to witness on Friday night. I know that these opinions I've expressed will cue comments of "f-off back to the good old days grandpa", but I don't care. I stand by them, and reply in advance that you don't know what you're missing. The modern game and the present day team masquerading as the once-mighty Tigers leave me cold inside. 

[Diocletian]

The games & the season would become a war of attrition, as any sport worth a poo that claims to be full-body contact should be.

[dwaino]

Cool, an argument on something subjective. Red is better than blue and if you don't agree then you're a numpty. 

[Judge Roughneck]

The games & the season would become a war of attrition, as any sport worth a poo that claims to be full-body contact should be.

Would it not be more a war of attrition if there was 2-3-4 less players ?

Logic would indicate yes

[tony_montana]

Even 2 interchange with a cap of 10 per qtr would do the trick. You'd see the return of running machines like Harvey becoming prominent. Loved the 90's when players like Harvey, Campbo and Bradley used to just run their opponents ragged

[The Big Richo]

I'd be happy to see the 4 interchange made subs.

[Muscles]

I cannot think of one good reason to have interchange players.  It was a much better spectacle when it was 18 v 18 with two substitutes. 

Every now and again a team finished a game with 17 players on the field, or they had a injured player propped up in the goal square.  The AFL wouldn't get away with that these days due to workplace health and safety, so three subs would probably be the minimum.

It would be a much better game if we got rid of the rolling mauls.  No interchange would help achieve that.

[dwaino]

Aerial ping pong 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhzUPxRMyPQ

[Smokey]

Personally, I enjoyed watching and playing it much more without interchange.  Play was more positional, coaches were more tactical regarding player v player or player in position, players were more position-specific, and the game was easier to play/umpire from a rules perspective because you had far fewer rolling mauls or 'stacks on the mill' plays where the umpire is usually hard-pressed to find the real culprit in any wrongdoing.  You had more marking contests, more rivalry contests between certain players built from years of playing against each other and at the end of the game you had more times when plain old guts and courage got you a win because you could dig just that bit deeper than your opponent who was equally as physically stuffed as you.  I liked the idea of TBR's with 4 reserves (subs).

[Diocletian]

The games & the season would become a war of attrition, as any sport worth a poo that claims to be full-body contact should be.

Would it not be more a war of attrition if there was 2-3-4 less players ?

Logic would indicate yes

Well, logic's not something I normally associate with you but yes that's what I was saying, not sure how you could assume I wasn't from that post but then again perhaps I should refer to the first part of this sentence.