Much as we’ve got a great game, it might be time to put a cap on interchanges.

It would keep our game unique, keep it as our game. The original move to the interchange bench, instead of having 19th and 20th men who were merely substitutes, has been a roaring success.

A third player was added to account for injury, then a fourth but I don’t think anyone envisaged the rotation revolution that came with it.

In my view it has fundamentally changed the game, diminishing some of the original aspects of the code. It could also be contributing to some of the high-impact injuries we are seeing, such as the Jordan Lewis/Jarrod Harbrow collision on Sunday.

Calls for even more interchange players by some coaches is short-sighted in my view.

They argue that extra players are needed to substitute for injured players. I thought we already had an extra two. Where will it all stop? With offensive and defensive teams that swap on and off in the transition?

Sounds like another game to me?

Remember the 21st and 22nd men were introduced for just that purpose.

It is time to put on the brakes not slam the foot on the accelerator.

I for one, enjoy seeing players getting weary (which still happens late in quarters).

The most skilful players continue to reveal their class under duress and some of the most interesting passages of play happen when the game opens up a bit.

Also there is no correlation between sides being down a man and losing, as is often espoused by some.

It is about which players go down, of what quality and when.

If a side is good enough to win, they’ll find a way. St Kilda didn’t suddenly turn up their toes when Nick Riewoldt went off last week and they were playing a top four contender in Collingwood.

If interchanges were limited, the classic match-ups may also be more of a feature.

At present if a player win a couple of contests then the change is made by all but the most patient coach.

Another issue I noticed in the Fremantle v Geelong match was players ‘sneaking’ on to the ground just in time to collect an unsuspecting opponent who had the ball and was making the play on the wing.

Not in the spirit of football for mine.

So the question is how do we do cut the rate of rotations.

There are plenty of choices.

Interchanges only at the five, 10, 15, 20-minute mark etc of a quarter would work.

Also cutting the amount of changes to any number, say 15 a quarter could be an option.

Another way would be for interchanges to only be allowed after a goal was scored, as mooted by Dennis Cometti.

It would make coaches think twice about removing a star player from the field, fearful of a lengthy, goalless patch of play.

And it would involve spectators even more in our great game.

David Reed is an award-winning journalist who worked as a sports writer for major newspapers on both sides of the country and voted on the 2005 Norm Smith Medal. David will write extensively for geelongcats.com.au this season. The views in this story are those of the author and not necessarily those of the club.