After reading that article, I wanted to see what other people had to say. I am struggling to find any coach in favour of an interchange cap. Players are also voicing their concerns and I am sure that, as the year goes on, the criticism will only get worse. I read another article that almost made me fall off the couch. It was from Kevin Bartlett and he was quoted as saying: ''There was 54,500 interchanges last season and that, in turn, had produced a game which was increasingly blighted by 'congestion and rolling mauls'. He also said it was ''nonsense that players would get too tired under a restricted interchange arrangement and that sports scientists and boffins had spooked the players''. ''The interchanges have hijacked the game,'' he said. Kevin, you are and always will be a legend of our game, but you finished in 1983 - two years after I was born. Perhaps your comments are not relevant to today's game. I'm sure football played today is a whole lot quicker and more demanding than it was 30 years ago, when recovery consisted of cracking a beer, not sitting in an ice bath and then going home to bed.

Kevin is one of nine members on the AFL's Laws of the Game committee. After reading Kevin's comments, I was interested to see who on the committee had finished playing in the past five years. There are only two recently retired players (Joel Bowden and Luke Power) and one current player (West Coast's Beau Waters). Gillon McLachlan has never played at the highest level; Leigh Matthews, another legend, finished in 1985; Rowan Sawers was an umpire and never played; and Michael Sexton finished in 2000. So, only three of nine have a grasp of the demands of the modern game. You would think the three are easily out-voted. More than half of the rules committee have not played for many years, or have never played at all. They are making the rules that aren't relevant or sustainable for today's game, which is our living. There's a reason why we need to rotate as much as we do. It's because you have instructed the umpires to throw the ball up quicker; you've shortened the time allowed when kicking for goal; and kicking-in after a minor score.

You want the ball in constant motion, so, naturally, the play gets faster. What's going to look better: Teams being able to rotate as many times as they want so the superstars who the fans come to see can play the game at a higher intensity for longer? Or players being so tired they just chip it around and flood the back line? Pre-season gets harder and harder every year because players are adapting to the speed of the game. With all of that extra pressure, something has to give. By capping rotations you are inviting a higher risk of injury. You will have the superstars being rested more. Players will become so tired they will sit behind the ball and not take the game on. It will also shorten careers because they will simply not be able to keep up with the demands. I feel that Andrew has stopped listening to us. At no stage has he or any of the rules committee come to my club (Collingwood) and asked our opinion on this rule, or any other rule.

If you want to improve our game, you should be consulting with the clubs, coaches and players. We are the experts, but feel you don't want to consider our opinion. I know Andrew has an understanding of what it's like to play, he played 103 games for North Melbourne, but please don't say it's ''already in place, there's no going back''. If you have the power to introduce it, you have the power to take it away. Isn't it time the Laws of the Game committee is made up of people who understand what the modern game is like to play?