"What I would say is that season has been terrific at the start," AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said in an interview on Fox Footy's On The Couch on Monday night.

"We had what seemed to be fast-moving ball play, and maybe the prior opportunity rule helped with that and an attacking mindset from the coaches," he said.

"Over the last six weeks, it has dried up a bit and maybe that's about the weather, the mismatch of teams, the softening of umpiring and a more congested style of play."

It is a valid point too easily forgotten among all the complaining about the game over the past two months – that is, that we weren't complaining at all four months ago.

It also raises another point glossed over in the debate so far – the length of the season.

Is football less attractive to watch now than it was back in April and May, or are we just tired of seeing the same thing over and over?

Were we so hungry for footy after starving over summer that everything tasted like chocolate back then, but now, it's just boiled lollies?

In an interview on Channel Nine's Footy Classified on Monday night, league chief executive Gillon McLachlan outlined four key areas for change that Evans and his team are evaluating.

Here's what his for-and-against might look like.

1. Harder stance on current rules.

The two rules that would have the biggest impact on ball flow, if officiated hardline, are "holding the ball/prior opportunity" and "deliberate out of bounds".

a) Holding the ball: 
Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley has called for the prior opportunity rule to be eliminated, a change that would have a twofold effect. Firstly, it would make the holding the ball rule easier to umpire.

Secondly and more importantly, it would rid the game of many ball-up stoppages because (presumably) instead of an umpire calling for a ball-up, a free kick would be whistled against the player who is tackled and unable to free the ball – thus making play continuous.

The issue with such a strict interpretation is how to reconcile it with one of the "guiding principles for the laws of the game" as outlined in the AFL's charter. That principle being: "to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball his primary objective".

b) Deliberate out of bounds:
In this case, the goal would be to force the ball back into the corridor where, generally speaking, more exciting play is formed.

To do this, teams that force the ball over the boundary line would be penalised for creating a stoppage that interrupts the flow of the game.

But where would the AFL draw the line in terms of a penalty? Evans says the league has three options.

One is to take a harsher stance than the one currently on what is deemed as "deliberate".

Two is to make it "black and white" where the last possession – whether it be a handball, kick, or a player carrying the ball over the line – incurs a free kick against.

And three is that but harsher, where the last touch – whatever it may be – incurs the free kick.

2. Incentivise scoring.

If you want to create more attacking football, McLachlan says you could potentially reward teams that score (for example) more than 100 points with an extra premiership point.

Many experts have lamented the low scoring trend over the past few years and the fact that less than 70 goals has won the Coleman Medal the past three seasons. Right now, West Coast's Josh Kennedy leads the award with 58 and five games to go.

More attacking football would probably lead to more high marks and, in so doing, bring back the "superstars of our game", say some leading commentators.

The rebuttal from Evans is this.

"It's hard to convince coaches to just kick the ball to a contested mark situation. They want to retain possession," he said.

"There are still superstars out there. You only have to look at a Nat Fyfe or a Cyril Rioli or a Dustin Martin.

"Would we like a little bit more scoring? Yes, we would, but a game can be compelling even if it's 70 to 75."

That is true, sometimes, but would the premium on possession be so high if it was stopping teams from scoring large numbers and thus preventing them from gaining an extra premiership point that could be used to reach finals?

The real problem is what a win is then worth, coupled with the uneven fixture. For instance, how would a group of Richmond supporters feel if they finished ninth and Collingwood snuck into eighth spot because they played the bottom team twice and scored more than 100 points both times?

3. The interchange.

McLachlan as good as confirmed that the substitute rule will be gone next year, but those who think that change will be accompanied by a severe reduction in the rotation cap, from 120 to say 60 or 80, might be left disappointed.

"You would make a big move if you knew what you were going to get," Evans said.

"My style would be with that, if we were to move it, we wouldn't move it in one massive chunk."

We all know the theory. Players use the interchange to refresh and that allows them to run up and down the ground to defend, from stoppage to stoppage and congest the ground.

Cut down the rotations, limit the players' capacity to cover the ground and you will force coaches to bring back "positional play".

But Evans has a few reservations - one being the negative impact lowering rotations might have on the rate of certain injuries - and another being a concern raised by Buckley that teams might be more likely to "sit players behind the ball", which could contribute to low scoring.

"I'm not as convinced that [lowering the interchange] will be the absolute panacea," Evans said.

"You can't say that, if you lowered the interchange, that coaches will automatically rest their forwards in the forward line."

Interestingly, Evans said he was open – albeit in the future - to the concept of only allowing interchanges after goals.

"I actually quite like the idea of what that might do to tactics," he said.

4. Zones.

Brownlow medallist Gerard Healy is one analyst who believes the AFL has a "structural problem that needs a structural fix".

In order to spread the game out, Evans said the AFL could go to "16-a-side or starting positions at stoppages or zones".

But that doesn't look like it will happen any time soon. If ever.

"To me, to go to those extreme measures, it should be the last roll of the dice," Evans said.

"Some of those things don't exactly sound like football, and we are trying to protect the unique characteristics of our game – one of those being that we have very few restrictions on where players can go."

What do you think of the proposed solutions? Do you think there is a problem at all? Or do you have another fix for the game? Let us know in the comments below.