Remove this Banner Ad

News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Club doctors must write medical certificates when a player is subbed out, so it needs to be a genuine injury otherwise the doctor risks being charged with fraud and losing his medical license, not worth it.

INB4 doctors wages being exempt from the soft cap
 
I heard that was only for concussion injuries but haven't seen an actual AFL update yet.


They aren't always paid as free kicks since players deliberately get themselves hurt to get them. This is all Joel Selwood's fault.

I thought the head was sacrosanct? Selwood forces a couple of the 20 times he is tackled per game high because of weak tackles. Typical AFL rewarding the weak.
Pay head high contact and the coaches and players will be forced to change how they tackle. Other than ducking your head player with ball in hand should be able to wriggl, drop knees and do anything to avoid being tackled. Tackler cannot tackle high. It’s not rocket science.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Club doctors must write medical certificates when a player is subbed out, so it needs to be a genuine injury otherwise the doctor risks being charged with fraud and losing his medical license, not worth it.
Only saying the player might be out for 12d, but we can't scan the calf so can't tell if there's a tear or not...then during the week, look no tear. He's right to play.

If they come off, they should be out for 12 days.

At 3/4 of the GF, do you really think any player is going to to care about the $1k fine if the coach asks him at 3.4 time 'how's that tight calf going?'
 
You could make it so the player coming off misses 1-2 weeks no matter the result of a concussion test. That could prevent some "tactical subs".
Sounds like a glorified sub rule of you ask me.

I still remembered the sub rule from 2011-2015.

3 players and one sub. The sub comes in anytime the coach wants to use it.

How many times has a coach subbed an uninjured player out only to have another player injured and down to 2 players on the bench?

I am for this rule of 4 players and a sub. But that 5th player in the suns bench only comes in if a player is concussed or injured to a degree he is hospitalized or can not return to the Field
 
I thought the head was sacrosanct? Selwood forces a couple of the 20 times he is tackled per game high because of weak tackles. Typical AFL rewarding the weak.
Pay head high contact and the coaches and players will be forced to change how they tackle. Other than ducking your head player with ball in hand should be able to wriggl, drop knees and do anything to avoid being tackled. Tackler cannot tackle high. It’s not rocket science.
IMO, if the player with the ball causes the tackle to go high, it's play on. Same way if he dives forward when he is tackled, it shouldn't be a push in the back.
 
Sounds like a glorified sub rule of you ask me.

I still remembered the sub rule from 2011-2015.

3 players and one sub. The sub comes in anytime the coach wants to use it.

How many times has a coach subbed an uninjured player out only to have another player injured and down to 2 players on the bench?

I am for this rule of 4 players and a sub. But that 5th player in the suns bench only comes in if a player is concussed or injured to a degree he is hospitalized or can not return to the Field
I'd say if he is subbed out, he has to be out for 12 days regardless whether it's concussion or a dislocated finger.
 
Club doctors must write medical certificates when a player is subbed out, so it needs to be a genuine injury otherwise the doctor risks being charged with fraud and losing his medical license, not worth it.
How do you know the player has told the Dr the absolute truth of the injury...if it went to the tribunal, the Dr and player can say it's confidential and no details can be released.
 
Why not just make it that the sub must be used before the start of the second quarter? Surely we aren't worried about rotations/fatigue from an injury occurring in the last quarter.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Its about protecting the afl from concussion related lawsuits, the coaches only had a small input.

How does it protect them? There's already 4 on the interchange, if a player gets concussed he can be replaced. What happens if multiple players get concussed from the same team?
 
I thought the head was sacrosanct? Selwood forces a couple of the 20 times he is tackled per game high because of weak tackles. Typical AFL rewarding the weak.
Pay head high contact and the coaches and players will be forced to change how they tackle. Other than ducking your head player with ball in hand should be able to wriggl, drop knees and do anything to avoid being tackled. Tackler cannot tackle high. It’s not rocket science.
It's Rocket Surgery, which is even harder!

As long as there is an advantage, players and coaches will exploit it. It's up to the AFL to make sure the rules reflect common sense. A player deliberately making a tackle go high by dropping the knees or lifting the arm up isn't footy, it's exploiting a loop hole in the rule the AFL deliberately make ambiguous so they can change interpretation as they change socks.
 
What if they get subbed becuase of "cramp"
Iz this deemed an injury?and if as people are suggesting they auto should get 12 days wait for "restraint of trade " to get a mention
It doesn't take 12 days to get over a cramp. Drs will have to be more creative than that.

The other part of this is that the player coming on in 11-15 never really had that much of an impact. The lack of conditioning and awareness of the speed of the game meant that they were usually pretty pointless running around anyway.
 
It doesn't take 12 days to get over a cramp. Drs will have to be more creative than that.

The other part of this is that the player coming on in 11-15 never really had that much of an impact. The lack of conditioning and awareness of the speed of the game meant that they were usually pretty pointless running around anyway.
Oh yeah i jumped the gun bit on the cramp.
Thx for that
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Errrr...how many of you have actually read the article?

States pretty clearly that:

"To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days.

Concussed players must already sit out a mandatory 12-day recovery period under new protocols introduced by the AFL for the 2021 season."

Seems pretty unambiguous to me. You get medically subbed out, you don't play for 12 days and you submit a report that proves proof for the sub. No coach is going to risk bringing their club into disrepute/risk losing a player they might need, if it means losing them for 1 or two matches PLUS the remainder of that current game. I think the AFL have actually done pretty well with this one for a change

 
Dr Howlong to certify as medically unfit the 22nd player brought in to the team who spudded up the first half and would have no chance of keeping his spot for the following game. Too easy.

What difference does it make if it's just an emergency replacing him - i.e. someone who was as much of a spud (or more) that they didn't even make it into the original 22? You'd only get one shot at it too, and the media would have a field day if there were any recurrences that didn't result in 'actual' injuries.
 
Errrr...how many of you have actually read the article?

States pretty clearly that:

"To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days.

Concussed players must already sit out a mandatory 12-day recovery period under new protocols introduced by the AFL for the 2021 season."


Seems pretty unambiguous to me. You get medically subbed out, you don't play for 12 days and you submit a report that proves proof for the sub. No coach is going to risk bringing their club into disrepute/risk losing a player they might need, if it means losing them for 1 or two matches PLUS the remainder of that current game. I think the AFL have actually done pretty well with this one for a change

Except only the concussed players need to do the mandatory 12-day recovery period.

A doctor can deem a player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days and that player can recover quicker than the doctor first imagined. It still doesn't change the fact that the doctor believed at that point in time they were unable to play for 12 days.

It stinks, make the 12 day mandatory recovery period across the board for subbed out players.
 
Errrr...how many of you have actually read the article?

States pretty clearly that:

"To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days.

Concussed players must already sit out a mandatory 12-day recovery period under new protocols introduced by the AFL for the 2021 season."


Seems pretty unambiguous to me. You get medically subbed out, you don't play for 12 days and you submit a report that proves proof for the sub. No coach is going to risk bringing their club into disrepute/risk losing a player they might need, if it means losing them for 1 or two matches PLUS the remainder of that current game. I think the AFL have actually done pretty well with this one for a change


The 'young ruckman' rule. Have a main ruck and 2 young ones who play alternate weeks, get subbed out when a team needs more run

Its one way for them to get exposure. Ned Reeves, come on down
 
Except only the concussed players need to do the mandatory 12-day recovery period.

A doctor can deem a player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days and that player can recover quicker than the doctor first imagined. It still doesn't change the fact that the doctor believed at that point in time they were unable to play for 12 days.

It stinks, make the 12 day mandatory recovery period across the board for subbed out players.

That is literally not what it says at all, lol. If the medical sub is used, they're out for 12 days - that's it, lol. Where is the ambiguity in this statement that suggests that?:

"To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days."

************

EDIT:

You said this:

"It stinks, make the 12 day mandatory recovery period across the board for subbed out players."

....

That's literally what they've done, lol. Instead of forming your own conclusion, read the statement from the AFL and the article by AFL reporters. It's all in there and it's pretty clearly stated.
 
That is literally not what it says at all, lol. If the medical sub is used, they're out for 12 days - that's it, lol. Where is the ambiguity in this statement that suggests that?:

"To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days."
We're reading the same thing here mate.

Why do you think they only put the mandatory 12 day recovery against concussion? I promise you that if a player is cleared by the doctor within those 12 days they will be able to play.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top