Essendon’s Michael Hurley was the winner of the Round 18 NAB AFL Rising Star nomination for following an impressive individual performance in the Bombers’ 33-point win over the Saints last Friday night.
 
Hurley joins Jake Melksham as the second Essendon player to be nominated for the award this year. Melksham was nominated for the award after a strong performance against the Saints in Round 8.

Nominees for this year’s prize so far include: Chris Yarran (Carlton), Daniel Hannebery (Sydney), Ryan Bastinac (North Melbourne), Nic Naitanui (West Coast), Jack Trengrove (Melbourne), Todd Banfield (Brisbane Lions), Tom Scully (Melbourne), Jake Melksham (Essendon), Nathan Fyfe (Fremantle), Dustin Martin (Richmond), Jordan Gysberts (Melbourne), Ben Ried (Collingwood), Tom Rockliff (Brisbane), Ben Stratton (Hawthorn), Jack Redden (Brisbane), Phil Davis (Adelaide), Jarrad Grant (Bulldogs) and Michael Hurley (Essendon).

In this week’s poll we pose the question: 'Who will win the 2010 NAB AFL Rising Star Award?'

Click here to vote in this week’s poll.

In last week’s poll we asked: 'Should the AFL put a cap on interchange rotations in 2011?' The results produced a resounding ‘no’ from fans with 77.36% of voters saying that the AFL should not cap interchange rotations, 19.5% said ‘yes’ and ‘3.14%’ said maybe.

Here is what some fans had to say last week:

Joseph Attard from Taylors Hill says: Putting caps on interchange rotations is a dull and ineffective idea. Doing that would give the coach no comfort in the box, as he's going to be wondering how many more rotations he should make rather than which rotations he should make. It's a silly idea and shouldn't even be considered.

Neil Poyner from Wirrulla S.A. says: I think it nonsense to state that rotations are the cause of more injuries. I believe that when the body is forced to continue without the rotational breaks, that is when the injuries occur. Leave the rules alone please.

Bob Davies from Essendon says: Definitely not. This is a conspiracy to shut down Knightas coaching style and prevent us winning premierships.
 

Bennett Donelly from Loch Sport says: The use of the interchange bench during the course of a match is a strategic skill set that demonstrates how switched on the entire coaching and interchange staff are. I liken it to a formula one pit stop. Properly used, it can provide a team with a good advantage over the opposition, but poor execution can be very costly. While the demand on players and the pace of the game is steadily getting quicker, the interchange bench is a huge part of that strategy. The only thing I would like to see changed is the penalty 'against' interchange infringements. A certain goal awarded against a side is too costly a penalty. I have seen games decided by this ridiculous rule and it needs to be looked at. Perhaps a free kick from the centre bounce after the next goal?.

Brendan Farrugia from Albany Creek, QLD says: I fear that plugging interchange levels would put a cap on the evolution of this great game. The intensity that players pride themselves on would become a thing of the past, and we wouldn't be privileged in seeing gut runners like Dane Swan.

Kieran from Kew says: This is utterly ridiculous - there has been nowhere near enough time for a rigorous or meaningful investigation of injury causality since the jump in interchange rates. Wait 5 years, continue to take data, and then get an independent panel to make recommendations, if any. All I see here is knee-jerk politics in reaction to hysterical journalism.

Andrew Bearpark from VIC says: Enough with the changes, the game should be left alone. We will be playing an entirely different game in 10 years if it doesn't stop. Interchange caps especially, as there are so many variables which Brad Scott (North Melbourne Coach) has recently put forward.

Wal from Hawthorn says: Yes there should be a cap. Australian Rules was, for many years played 18 on 18 with one replacement. The lower the cap, the harder it will be for teams to flood as players simply cannot work that hard for that long. The best players will remain on the ground for longer and 'rest' in pockets and at full forward, and I think it will bring about a return to more 1 on 1 football. I think a cap of 4 (possibly 8) interchanges per quarter (1 or 2 per player on the bench). If you need to make any more due to an injury, then that player should not be able to come back on the ground for the remainder of the match
 

James Brown from Berwick says: No way. Who cares how many interchanges you make? For every interchange, there is dead time where one player isn't putting in, the run to the boundary line. Then the player coming on has to run and get into position before he can become effective. So the more interchanges you make, the more time the other team has a spare player on the field. What is wrong with tactical interchanges? Why can't you try and use it to advantage?

Jaden Frigo from Victoria says: No way. Interchanges should be unlimited - this will help the speed of the game. If a cap is put on it should be higher for games at the Gabba and Darwin etc.