SYDNEY coach Paul Roos has blamed an about-face by North Melbourne for the size of the fine imposed on his club for briefly fielding an extra player late in their 64-64 draw last weekend.

While Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley had said his club did not have an issue with the incident, club chairman James Brayshaw yesterday said North were waiting for the AFL to explain why they had not been given all four competition points.

Roos pointed out that the $50,000 fine - $25,000 suspended - incurred by the Swans was a dramatic increase on the $7500 levied on the Western Bulldogs in 2006 and Hawthorn during the pre-season for the same offence.

Asked if he believed the Kangaroos' attitude had affected the size of the fine, Roos said: "I think it has. We concede you shouldn't have 19 men on the field, but it's probably a little bit strange that the precedent was set at $7500. I don't think you can be critical of the AFL in their way of handling, but $7500 and $50,000 is a reasonably significant jump in the fines."

Roos also admitted his surprise at the change in attitude from the Kangaroos, after Laidley had said on Monday the club thought it was a simple error of judgment by the Swans that had "no influence" on the result, and they didn't "have any blue with it".

"It looks like Dean probably hasn't spoken to James, because there's a little bit of a mixed message coming out of there," Roos said. "We worked it out to be 18 seconds [that Jesse White was the 19th man on the field], the loose man was down the back end of the ground and nowhere near the contest, but obviously James had a different position from where he was sitting and clearly saw it differently.

"I don't know their motives but it is a little bit strange how the way they handled things after the game has changed significantly."

Roos said the AFL had to look at making changes to the policing of the interchange bench because of the changing pace of the game.

"We expected a please-explain and went through it and worked out what happened, so I don't have a problem with the process, but this is the third time this has happened. Who is in charge of the interchange? Is it the club's responsibility? Probably some discussion needs to take place.

"We've done the wrong thing, but, with the amount of interchanges there are now, I think it's time to make sure there are some changes and things don't happen like this again."

Roos suggested the introduction of more than one interchange steward, and argued that extra men on the field had probably gone unnoticed many times before.

"I would be staggered to think it hasn't happened 10, 12, 14 times [before] and maybe a lot of these times, blokes have run and gone, 'Gee, hang on, I'm not supposed to be here', and gone five, 10 or 15 metres and ran back off.

"I feel for the interchange guy. It would be impossible for him to be able to pick up everything and even know when there is 19 on for five extra seconds. There's even times I reckon there is 16 or 17 guys on the field, but certainly it's a bigger issue now.

"I don't think one person can really [manage] it. I'm sure it was put in place five or 10 years ago, when maybe the interchanges were 30 or 25, and now you're up around 80-85 per team."

Roos's suggestions seemed to strike a chord with the AFL, which yesterday said it would now move to change the rules. Under current rules, the only person who can take action is the opposition captain. But he can only call for a head count - an antiquated, impractical rule.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said: "The mechanism that exists and has existed, which we now believe to be outmoded and we will be changing, is for a captain to call a count. We will be changing these rules to make sure that this situation cannot evolve in the future, or if it does, that further on-field sanctions can apply in addition to what can apply at the moment."

Anderson was speaking on the same day the league announced several minor alterations to its draft and trade rules. But, of the reform agenda, he said there was no guarantee the AFL would eventually introduce free agency. "It won't be resolved at least until after this year's draft," he said.

with AAP