Cap on rotations necessary to ease congestion despite AFL coach threats THERE is no debate in football that doesn't push the boundaries of common sense and the talk at the minute is about rotations. Extreme views flow from everywhere. A former great who now works as a commentator suggests it should go back to the old system, in which the only players on the bench were substitutes. Once you're off, you're off. Coaches have suggested players are about to keel over if the devils who are the law makers bring in a cap that is too strict to how much a bench can be uses. Here's what Melbourne's Mark Neeld had to say after one of the Demons' practice matches. In terms of welfare of players, I didn't like the look of it. Let's just take a step back right there. We're not really talking about young men dying on the playing fields of Renmark, are we, where they have played thousands of games of football for a century or so before anybody had heard of rotations, let along a cap of them? Neeld has been impressive since he took over the struggling Melbourne, passionate and tireless in his approach, but to suggest the league is putting players' welfare in jeopardy by not letting them have a rest is pushing the line. How would you be if you played an individual sport? Marathon runners don't get to have a substitute so that they can have a spell; they have to conserve and use best the energy they have. Similarly, there has been shadow boxing from some of those in charge of the game, who suggest a limit to rotations ought to be introduced because of the threat of injuries. The annual AFL injury report, conducted by some of the most credentialled doctors in the game, said there was no link between a team's injuries and rotations. There was some suggestion that if team A rotated a lot, team B might run a higher risk of copping injuries. We're now splitting hairs. Coaches simply hate restrictions, the law makers on the Rules of the Game Committee are trying to make sure the game is as aesthetically pleasing as it can be. That is all this debate is about. The law makers are trying to step in before the coaches turn the game ugly because they seek a winning edge, and aren't fond of the congestion around the ball that can partly be attributed to players being able to follow the ball around all corners of the ground because they are fresh. Football has changed because it became professional, allowing players to be full-time athletes. Before that, with two or three nightly training sessions followed by a few cans and a dart, players stuck to positions because there really was no option. Way back when, covering the length and breadth of the field was really no option other than for the onballers, and even they had to have a rest in a pocket. So it changed, and rule makers became concerned about the spectacle. At various times they've sought to speed it up, at others slow it down. Decisions could never be said to have been sinister -- we are not talking by about a group of men sitting in a room plotting to sabotage the game -- but at times they made have been hasty because the game has a knack of sorting itself out. The AFL has already been strong in saying there will be a cap next year. It is now a matter of finding the right one. The coaches will lobby for the maximum, which appears to be about 160 or so. The AFL wants to make sure they are a step ahead of the coaches so that it can best preserve the spectacle of the game. That's what this debate is about. The look of the game, and at which time the AFL's lawmakers should step in. But there is neither a conspiracy nor sabotage on at play.