News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[dont bowl there]

There is no rule you can make that a team that gets an injury is not at a disadvantage.

Except this one. If a team gets an injury late in the third they get to bring on a fresh player where as the team that doesn't has to play as is.

 

[Taylor]

The number of older players who are subbed out with calf awareness or hamstring awareness will be huge

 

[quotemokc]

It’s part of footy folklore to look back with pride at times your team copped injuries during the game but still found a way to win. Only have to look at the tigers in last year’s grand final losing vlaustin and then having houli injured as well but still managing to get up. Or if the cats won they would have done it with Ablett injured. Attrition is a part of the game and this just tears away at that.

Yep, like that time we had Winderlich and Dempsey both do their ACL in the first half but we still managed to hang on for a draw.

 

[saintal]

Did April Fools day come early?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Well that's a different argument, but u can't deny its better than nothing as far as proving the afl is taking steps to protect against concussion.

I need someone to explain this to me.

How does this help against concussion in any way?

I just don't understand.

Dudes will still get concussed. They're at no less risk whilst on the ground at all.

How does this help at all??

 

[dean33]

I need someone to explain this to me.

How does this help against concussion in any way?

I just don't understand.

Dudes will still get concussed. They're at no less risk whilst on the ground at all.

How does this help at all??

It doesn’t help one iota, it was just used to try and get this rule through and it worked.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I disagree mate, players have been dropping low, wriggling around, lifting their arms for as long as I can remember which is the 70’s. The tackler still could not touch them high.
As the game has evolved the tackling got better but more reckless and in the last 8 year’s the AFL decided it’s the bloke with the balls fault? Other than ducking his head the fault is always the tackler and it should be penalised. The players will very quickly change the way they tackle if the correct free is paid when it should be.
Why can’t Selwood lift his arm for all tackles? because some tackles are strong and won’t allow him to. For me this is just rewarding the weak tackler and penalising the ball player.
Anyway we won’t agree and it is what it is. Auskick

You're contradicting yourself.

If you duck your head you don't get a free kick - because you initiated the head high contact.

If a guy tackles you around the arms, and you raise your arms and lower your knees intentionally - it's you that is turning a legal and fair attempt at a tackle into head high contact. Same as ducking - it's you that is initiating the head high contact.

 

[ep2018]

Imagine the poor unused sub who wins a premiership medal

The same as how Leon Davis must have felt winning one in 2010 despite not playing in the replay.

It would still feel good but there would be a lingering hollowness to it as well.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Except this one. If a team gets an injury late in the third they get to bring on a fresh player where as the team that doesn't has to play as is.

Or, if you pull the wrong reign at the selection table and go tall, or say 2 ruckmen for example - only to find half way through the 2nd quarter you're being killed on the ground and run off your feet, so you sub off an 'injured' ruckman and bring on a fresh, quick little bloke.

 

[doppleganger]

Or, if you pull the wrong reign at the selection table and go tall, or say 2 ruckmen for example - only to find half way through the 2nd quarter you're being killed on the ground and run off your feet, so you sub off an 'injured' ruckman and bring on a fresh, quick little bloke.

Yep, way too much grey area and again the medical sub will be a tactical implementation, no different to the sub they trialled back in 2011.

The exact same argument applied then, the sub is meant to aid 'fairness' in case of injury as it meant teams would always have 3 rotations.

Of course coaches then started trying to use the sub to inject a fresh player, and thus it became 'unfair if they copped an injury as the other team could bring on a fresh player.

So now clubs are incentivised to have a player experience some hamstring awareness in the 3Q to bring on the fresh 'medical sub'.

Go back to 18 v 18, get rid of rotating altogether, and have 4 medical subs on the bench.

That is actually about player safety and fairness

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You're contradicting yourself.

If you duck your head you don't get a free kick - because you initiated the head high contact.

If a guy tackles you around the arms, and you raise your arms and lower your knees intentionally - it's you that is turning a legal and fair attempt at a tackle into head high contact. Same as ducking - it's you that is initiating the head high contact.

I said in an earlier post Ducking your head is the only way it does not get paid.
A player not strong enough to hold their tackle is at fault not the player who can force it high.
Just mind boggling people think head high contact is now acceptable and the player with the ball is at fault.
And attempts are what we give ribbons to kids for.
Anyway that is what the rules are in this new sport.

 

[Power Raid]

I disagree mate, players have been dropping low, wriggling around, lifting their arms for as long as I can remember which is the 70’s. The tackler still could not touch them high.
As the game has evolved the tackling got better but more reckless and in the last 8 year’s the AFL decided it’s the bloke with the balls fault? Other than ducking his head the fault is always the tackler and it should be penalised. The players will very quickly change the way they tackle if the correct free is paid when it should be.
Why can’t Selwood lift his arm for all tackles? because some tackles are strong and won’t allow him to. For me this is just rewarding the weak tackler and penalising the ball player.
Anyway we won’t agree and it is what it is. Auskick

I hear you but it is a dangerous action resulting in head knocks

this has to be stamped out of the game for a variety of reasons including concussion and long term brain damage

so for legal and OH&S reasons, players must be protected from themselves

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I hear you but it is a dangerous action resulting in head knocks

this has to be stamped out of the game for a variety of reasons including concussion and long term brain damage

so for legal and OH&S reasons, players must be protected from themselves

So we accept then that there is no onus on the tackler. As long as he tries.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm not convinced this will be as big a deal as some of the reaction suggests.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I'm not convinced this will be as big a deal as some of the reaction suggests.

It rarely is anything the AFL change, which comes back to why change it?

 

[HPKS]

Over time it’ll get exploited as per usual. Why the concern about concussion when having a sub makes no difference for the person that was concussed unless they’re leaving that person on which is a whole different ball game IMO.

Ive said it that many times. Don’t listen to the coaches. It’s them that creates the congested mess we have right now. Everything they ask for is to manipulate the game defensively every year.

As for penalties it’s easy. If you cheat you don’t lose point or draft picks you lose the game that you cheated in. You cheat in a grand final and you lose the premiership.

 

[HPKS]

Yep, way too much grey area and again the medical sub will be a tactical implementation, no different to the sub they trialled back in 2011.

The exact same argument applied then, the sub is meant to aid 'fairness' in case of injury as it meant teams would always have 3 rotations.

Of course coaches then started trying to use the sub to inject a fresh player, and thus it became 'unfair if they copped an injury as the other team could bring on a fresh player.

So now clubs are incentivised to have a player experience some hamstring awareness in the 3Q to bring on the fresh 'medical sub'.

Go back to 18 v 18, get rid of rotating altogether, and have 4 medical subs on the bench.

That is actually about player safety and fairness

Fully agree. I couldn’t care less if we had a bench of 6 or 9 or 12 players but if you come off, whether due to firm or injury, your off for good.

We’ve listened to the coaches way to much.

 

[footyfan1978]

Go back to 18 v 18, get rid of rotating altogether, and have 4 medical subs on the bench.

That is actually about player safety and fairness

I do not think we need to go to that extreme where players on the bench are purely subs.
I think if we made it a ruling that players can only go from the onfield to the bench once a game freely and if they go a second time they cannot come back on we remove the extreme level of rotations that were never meant to be part of an 18 v 18 game on field.
If a player comes off for concussion check for 20 minutes that not be counted as his tactical interchange. Same for any serious injury of that nature.
The interchange steward is the one that makes a decision of an interchange be not counted as the one free tactical change a player can do each game if he deems it a serious injury check for the player by club doctors and physio.
So in essence it would stop this mass rotations to just put the freshest 18 players on at any point to keep congestion grid lock in their defence. You only get one rotation at most for any player. Effectively bringing it back 22 players times 1 interchange and once you have 4 players go off once more you upto 26 tactical interchanges at most. Serious injury enforced interchanges not counted by interchange steward. The coaches can freely make changes during quarter and half time breaks that do not count. I think that is the fairest outcome to balance the whole thing out to how it should be to have bench mainly be about actual injury changes and a few positional tactical changes and mass rotations that were never meant to be there, not be a big issue anymore.

 

[HPKS]

I do not think we need to go to that extreme where players on the bench are purely subs.
I think if we made it a ruling that players can only go from the onfield to the bench once a game freely and if they go a second time they cannot come back on we remove the extreme level of rotations that were never meant to be part of an 18 v 18 game on field.
If a player comes off for concussion check for 20 minutes that not be counted as his tactical interchange. Same for any serious injury of that nature.
The interchange steward is the one that makes a decision of an interchange be not counted as the one free tactical change a player can do each game if he deems it a serious injury check for the player by club doctors and physio.
So in essence it would stop this mass rotations to just put the freshest 18 players on at any point to keep congestion grid lock in their defence. You only get one rotation at most for any player. Effectively bringing it back 22 players times 1 interchange and once you have 4 players go off once more you upto 26 tactical interchanges at most. Serious injury enforced interchanges not counted by interchange steward. The coaches can freely make changes during quarter and half time breaks that do not count. I think that is the fairest outcome to balance the whole thing out to how it should be to have bench mainly be about actual injury changes and a few positional tactical changes and mass rotations that were never meant to be there, not be a big issue anymore.

The coaches must piss themselves laughing and say to each other “they actually believe the horseshyte we just told em” “how easy was that”.

 

[Power Raid]

So we accept then that there is no onus on the tackler. As long as he tries.

that is irrelevant when an employer is facing law suits and families of footy players dealing with brain damaged (memory loss, aggression, depression, suicide and changes in personality).

 

[footyfan1978]

The coaches must piss themselves laughing and say to each other “they actually believe the horseshyte we just told em” “how easy was that”.

They do, but some of them so far up their arse whilst they are a coach , that they probably would laugh ten years later when out of the coaching caper and think how stupid the admin were for the sport at the time to allow the narrow minded coaching mind at the time have so much influence on the sport rules themselves. The more I hear and see shit like this go down the more I think the sport really ****ed up big time when it did not have an independent body have total control of the sport rules and the people running the commercial aspects have nothing to do with it. So many of these rule changes now are not made for the good of the game but for things to do with workplace and financial reasons. When the leading competition that becomes a business entity first and foremost runs the sport and decides on the rules it is not a good place for the purity of a sport to stay true to why it was created for in the first place.

 

[doppleganger]

I do not think we need to go to that extreme where players on the bench are purely subs.
I think if we made it a ruling that players can only go from the onfield to the bench once a game freely and if they go a second time they cannot come back on we remove the extreme level of rotations that were never meant to be part of an 18 v 18 game on field.
If a player comes off for concussion check for 20 minutes that not be counted as his tactical interchange. Same for any serious injury of that nature.
The interchange steward is the one that makes a decision of an interchange be not counted as the one free tactical change a player can do each game if he deems it a serious injury check for the player by club doctors and physio.
So in essence it would stop this mass rotations to just put the freshest 18 players on at any point to keep congestion grid lock in their defence. You only get one rotation at most for any player. Effectively bringing it back 22 players times 1 interchange and once you have 4 players go off once more you upto 26 tactical interchanges at most. Serious injury enforced interchanges not counted by interchange steward. The coaches can freely make changes during quarter and half time breaks that do not count. I think that is the fairest outcome to balance the whole thing out to how it should be to have bench mainly be about actual injury changes and a few positional tactical changes and mass rotations that were never meant to be there, not be a big issue anymore.

Keep it simple.

The game doesn’t need mass rotations.

Interchange as a concept only came in 1978, prior to that they were replacements.

The famous Ted Hopkins in 1970 was a replacement, not an interchange!!

It was Sheedy in the 90s that pushed expansion of interchange from 2 up to 4...to cover injuries and give them more flexibility have an extra tall etc.

Then through the 2000s, coaches gradually changed their approach...why play 18 v 18 and have guys being tired with 4 fresh blokes just waiting. Lets use all 22, monitor rotations to ensure they can implement full ground presses instead of having any positional play.

And now here we are where coaches now want additional subs to ensure they can keep 22 v 22!!

The game was better in the 90s when mass interchange wasn’t part of the game.

Make it 18 v 18, and a have bench of replacements...purely for injury.

You pick your 18, and then have to develop game plan and strategy based on no rotations at all....rovers rest in forward pocket, wingman stay on the wing etc.

The AFL should stop letting coaches have a say in decisions. Make the rules, the best coaches then develop plans to exploit whatever rules they have to work with.

 

[footyfan1978]

Keep it simple.

The game doesn’t need mass rotations.

Interchange as a concept only came in 1978, prior to that they were replacements.

I think it is simple. One interchange a game for any player is all if it not for serious injury.
If you try to take a player off a second time and it not for serious injury he stays off for good.
That right there stops the coaches exploiting the bench for things it was not meant for. There cannot be mass rotations if you not give the luxury to exploit the bench for things it was not intended for.
It was not meant for rotations but before mass rotations was un-intended consequence of extending it to four there was never an issue with interchange that were no subs only. So I do not believe you need to strictly make them all four subs. I mean, you do not even need 4 subs and that would be a waste as then you got 3 or 4 players every round that virtually had no football at all on your list.

 

[Scotland]

Keep it simple.

The game doesn’t need mass rotations.

Interchange as a concept only came in 1978, prior to that they were replacements.

At the end of the day footy is an 18 a side game, and anything above has changed multiple times already. In my time watching it's been 20, 21 then 22 man squads with capped rotations coming in recently. For a while we even had the sub rule that just meant the 23rd and 24th players split their available share of game time.

I reckon a hybrid of soccer/rugby rules could work. 18 on the field to start the game, 6 on the bench. Teams have squads of 22 + 3 emergencies anyway. You can have 12 substitutions, and if someone gets knocked out and goes off for a concussion test you get a free move. You aren't obligated to use all 24 players, and anyone that subs off can sub back on if that's what you want to do. With soccer you normally have 3 substitutions and 5 or 6 on the bench. A spare goalkeeper usually just sits there doing the crossword waiting for an injury or a red card. In both games you see things change after about an hour as you bring on new players. Soccer subs are very tactical, rugby subs are usually fatigue driven. If you are the back up scrum half you don't expect to play 50% game time.

For example, we might start with Jarrod Brander, Josh Rotham and 4 mids/utilities on the bench. Key position players regularly play 90-100% of game time, so spares are rarely picked on the 4 man bench now. Twice last year Josh Kennedy got injured early. That happens, we sub in Brander. Ditto Rotham for one of the key backs. Or if you might make a switch because someone just isn't getting a kick on the day. But it would be common that a spare tall ends up sitting out the whole game and moves to be used elsewhere.

I look at something like the 2018 GF which was very close and these were the emergencies:

EMG Oscar Allen, Jackson Nelson, Brayden Ainsworth, Brendon Ah Chee
EMG Jarryd Blair, Ben Reid, Callum Brown, Flynn Appleby

It was a pretty even game across the board but we were on top with contested marking and marks inside 50. I don't remember anyone getting injured but I could see a scenario where someone goes off and Ben Reid comes in for a quarter or half and provides another marking target or tall defender. We would be limited in matching that until one of our players is injured. Ditto if we decide we are getting the ball inside 50 a lot so may as well bring on Allen as another target to deal with Collingwood have to move a forward into defence or put an undersized player on him. Can't say I am a fan of the 23rd player system. I would rather the subs/team selection were purely tactical.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I said in an earlier post Ducking your head is the only way it does not get paid.
A player not strong enough to hold their tackle is at fault not the player who can force it high.
Just mind boggling people think head high contact is now acceptable and the player with the ball is at fault.
And attempts are what we give ribbons to kids for.
Anyway that is what the rules are in this new sport.

It's not just not being able to hold the tackle though, it's the lowering of the knees and leaning into the tackler that causes head high contact.

A simple shrugging of a tackle is different. If a player shrugs your tackle, you have to let go before you make head high contact. Same as if your tackle slips low, you need to let go before it becomes a trip.

The issue here though is when a player initiates head high contact. Traditionally you shrug tackles to break free. No one wanted to cop one in the head - if that happened it was an unfortunate result for everyone. Now, the shrugging is designed solely to initiate head high contact and get a free kick.

If we care so much about the head (which is complete bullshit by the way) then why do we reward the player initiating the head high contact?