Last season, an interchange infringement led to a free kick to the opposition and a 50m penalty. 

It has long been considered a harsh penalty for a relatively minor incident. 

AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said the Laws of the Game Committee would consider whether a free and 50m penalty should only be paid when a team has genuinely got extra players interfering with the play. 

"If someone kicks a goal and the players are waiting for the ball to come back into the centre to be restarted and the interchange steward realises two players have gone on and are five and 10 metres past the boundary line, then he should be able to call one back quickly [without incurring a penalty because the game is not affected]," Evans told AFL.com.au. 

The penalty was introduced after the Sydney Swans played for about 35 seconds with 19 men on the ground in a tight game against North Melbourne at Etihad Stadium in round six, 2008. The game ended in a draw after the Swans tied the scores late with a behind. 

The penalty was then loosened slightly in 2012 so clubs would be fined if a player was marginally outside the interchange gates, but the on-field penalty remained for any infringement beyond a couple of metres. 

The penalty has come under fire, with coaches wanting a more common sense approach applied, given how easy it is for the interchange steward to make an error in the heat of a game. 

In round 15, 2013, Geelong was mistakenly penalised for an interchange infringement during a tight game against Hawthorn that resulted in a Hawks goal. 

In that case, two Geelong players seemed to be on to the ground as one left, confusing the interchange steward, but the Cats had five players on the bench at the time so they never had more than 18 players on the ground at once. 

After that game Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson made his feelings clear.

"I'd prefer it [the penalty] wasn't so harsh," Clarkson said.

"It's such a combative game, and there's so much going on, it would be great if they could come up with a [lesser] penalty.

"There needs to be a two-metre buffer or something, in terms of getting on the ground – don't worry about it."

Even when applied correctly, it has been considered a harsh penalty if the transgression had no impact on the game and was corrected quickly. 

With the interchange to be capped in 2014, decisions to come on and off the ground will have an increased importance. 

In another common sense initiative discussed at the summit, the AFL will consider removing the 50m penalty for opponents who run into the protected area and then raise their arms as if they are not meant to be there. 

Evans said the Laws of the Game Committee would consider giving the umpires discretion to only award a 50m penalty if the player raising their arms was impacting on the player in some way or seriously screening. 

"If he is just indicating 'I am trying to get out of here' or if there is no impact on the other player – he is not ready to kick the ball and the player has walked away for instance – then maybe that should not trigger the penalty," Evans said. 

Both rules were a source of frustration for coaches, players and supporters during 2013. 

The summit, attended by coaches, player representatives, club and AFL officials, was considered a successful process, with the information gained fed into Laws of the Game Committee discussions. 

Laws of the Game Committee recommendations need to be approved by the AFL Commission.