SOME people have a view that the speed of the game, which has increased as a result of a spike in the number of interchange rotations, is contributing to more injuries in the AFL. But does that argument really stack up?

I believe that player welfare should be the number one priority for all coaches and administrators across the competition, and some of the rule changes the League has introduced over the past few years (like the head-high contact rule and the changes to the centre circle to reduce PCL injuries in ruckmen) have been wonderful.

But we need to ensure we really stop and think before making any more changes, like a cap on the number of interchanges for example.

Last week the AFL released the findings of the 2009 injury report. I’ve read it cover-to-cover and thought I’d share with you my observations.

In the 2000 season, clubs recorded an average of 37.4 new injuries and 10 years later this number has increased slightly to 37.6, while the number of interchange rotations per game has jumped from 17 to 91 in the same period.

The survey findings actually indicate that the total injury rate has decreased over the last year. To jump to the conclusion that an increase in the number of interchange rotations has contributed to the rising injury rate is drawing a very long bow.

The increase in severity of injuries, which is measured by weeks missed, can easily be attributed to the medicos and fitness staff taking a much more conservative approach to a player’s rehabilitation.

These days an injured player is often given an extra week or two to return to the field and this has led to a brilliant reduction in the number of reoccurring injuries.

The 2009 injury report showed that the number of hamstring injuries per club, per season has increased by half a hamstring (from 6.6 to 7.1) in the last 12 months ... big deal.

If you delve further into the statistics you’ll see that the number of games that players missed through hamstring injuries actually went down (from 25.8 to 22), which was less than the figure recorded in 2000.

There are so many variables when it comes to injury and it’s important we consider them all rather than accepting the first, or most popular, explanation.

One variable is an increased workload over the pre-season.

These days clubs are training significantly harder over the summer than in previous years and we need to look at how many players are missing round-one games because of the length and difficulty of the pre-season program.

It’s also important people understand that the official injury statistics include players who aren’t even playing in the AFL, like those who aren’t selected in their club’s best 22 and are sent to play in the SANFL, the WAFL and the VFL.

Players playing in those competitions may not have the same preparation as they would at AFL level, and they certainly don’t get interchanged like players at the elite level do.

Another factor to consider is the number of players who get injured at training.

These injuries have nothing to do with rotations but they are used in the sample of players that miss games and therefore are included in the interchange debate.

Another variable is the change in the average age of a player on an AFL list because young, inexperienced players tend to get injured as a result of their limited training base.

A few years back there was also a study done in relation to the recurrence of hamstring injuries in indigenous players.

There are more indigenous players in the AFL now than ever before and this could also have impacted on the increase in soft-tissue injuries.

It seems strange to me that the AFL has actively sought to increase the speed of the game by some recent rule changes, and now we’re talking about slowing it down by capping rotations.

The game is in great shape. We’re getting record attendances and a record number of people watching, so you would assume that people enjoy watching a fast game.

We need to find a way of maintaining that fast-paced style of play, while making sure the players' health and welfare isn’t compromised.

We’ve already heard some good ideas, other than capping interchange rotations that might help decrease the speed of the game.

Mark Harvey has suggested that all teams have a seven-day break between games.

This would give the players adequate time to recover, especially the interstate teams that are travelling far and wide.

We also might increase the length of the breaks during games.

Instead of quarter time and three-quarter time going for five minutes, you might make it 10 minutes and that simple change might solve all our problems.

We could also bring in a rule where players have to stay off the ground for four minutes after being interchanged instead of going back on after 30 seconds.

In the English Premier League they water the pitch before a match, so you could slow the game down that way by making the ground a little softer.

The large number of variables in this situation make it difficult to simply say that capping the number of interchange rotations is the answer.