News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[banzai]

Well that is stupid. It should just be 12 days. Then you pay the penalty of a one game off for a first 22 player. Vlas will be back. Bad knock, so he'll be fine in a week.

This is about the first time I hope the AFL change the rule to stop that sort of semi-rorting. Just make it clear cut and off we go. Pity my club has done the testing of this rule, and in the first game of the season.

Surely every club will use it this week, the advantage looked massive. Once one club pulls a sub the other will need to react in a tight game.

 

[HairyO]

Well that is stupid. It should just be 12 days. Then you pay the penalty of a one game off for a first 22 player. Vlas will be back. Bad knock, so he'll be fine in a week.

This is about the first time I hope the AFL change the rule to stop that sort of semi-rorting. Just make it clear cut and off we go. Pity my club has done the testing of this rule, and in the first game of the season.

Any common sense viewing of this new rule would see that the days off restriction should apply for whatever reason the player was subbed.

There's nothing that forces a player to make a concussion check after a head knock, so yeah technically.

Well, the club doctor makes the assessment on whether it is needed. Which is how it should be. But if the player passes the subsequent tests I wonder if the club can get around the 12 day ban by using another injury as the reason for the sub.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Surely every club will use it this week, the advantage looked massive. Once one club pulls a sub the other will need to react in a tight game.

Most likely. So the rule changes for next week.

Obvious flaw in the rule. Exploited right away. Der, so smart AFL. Always 2 steps ahead.

 

[doppleganger]

These are good points. I’m sure the afl will figure out how to cover those examples before they happen.

LoL, you would think you would properly work through a rule and potential implications before introducing it.

In the Bevo interview, he flagged his own medical team at the Dogs weren't even clear on how it would operate and the AFL already announced it.

Why weren't they consulting with clubs about this back in October/November?

Surely every club will use it this week, the advantage looked massive. Once one club pulls a sub the other will need to react in a tight game.

Yep, Tigers getting a fresh player in Ross for Q4 gave them a boost over a sore Vlaustin.

What odds that in tonight's game there are two medical subs in Q3? Sportsbet should open a market on it.

 

[Farang83150]

Surely every club will use it this week, the advantage looked massive. Once one club pulls a sub the other will need to react in a tight game.

Exactly and maybe even more so in the first 1 or 2 rounds, 3rd qtr early 4th get some fresh legs into the midfield

 

[peternorth]

school of thought at the moment on talkback. If a team loses a player and activates the sub, the opposition MUST activate theirs straightaway, otherwise theyll have one extra fit player available.

 

[Farang83150]

school of thought at the moment on talkback. If a team loses a player and activates the sub, the opposition MUST activate theirs straightaway, otherwise theyll have one extra fit player available.

I guess that depends a bit on what qtr , as the 2nd team to pull the trigger, if it's early do you give it 1 or 2 qtrs and then sub, generally your bringing on a player that's not as good as the 1 going off?

 

[faible]

Nah, this does not make any sense. If the player is too injured to continue, then it's only fair they get to sub also. The player should not have to sit out 12 days just because his injury wasn't as bad as the bloke from the other team. If it was bad enough where they could not continue in the game, then that's all it should be judged on.

Makes perfect sense if you remember that a concussed player must sit out for 12 days, and cannot return to the field.

Could Vlaustin have played out the game? Most likely.

Can a concussed player return to the field? No. They also miss the next game.

The rule should have only been for concussions, to make clubs play it much more safely with head injuries.

As is, it's ripe for being manipulated. Like we saw last night.

How do you deem how long an injury will keep a player out?

Remember Mark Le cra being carried off with what looked like a bad groin strain. Looked like a 6 week injury he was in that much pain. Turned out it was a cramp in the groin and played fine the next week.

No subs back then either.

That's the risk. If you don't legitimately believe it's a 12 day injury, don't sub them out. If you do, and it's not, you chose wrong and that player misses the next game.

 

[peternorth]

I guess that depends a bit on what qtr , as the 2nd team to pull the trigger, if it's early do you give it 1 or 2 qtrs and then sub, generally your bringing on a player that's not as good as the 1 going off?

Yep.

the caller was adament both be activated at the same time because of FAIRNESS.

Fairness.

 

[Farang83150]

Yep.

the caller was adament both be activated at the same time because of FAIRNESS.

Fairness.

That doesn't add up, the team 1st using a sub is then penalizing the team that isn't using a sub by removing a better player from their starting 22, sure it's gotta be at the discretion of team 2 as to when they pull the trigger?

 

[PT Bar None]

Based upon what we saw last night, if a club is behind at the start of the final term and they haven't yet activated their sub, they would be negligent in not doing so. Get the bench coach to corky someone if required.

Yep.

the caller was adament both be activated at the same time because of FAIRNESS.

Fairness.

But then you need two subs each. Because the 2nd team doesn't have the opportunity to cover if one of their players gets injured after the 1st team does, and they had to mirror activate their sub for that.

Whole list. On the bench. Everyone is a sub. Even the coaches. And multiball!

 

[justlookingaround]

So can someone explain why the footy world was strongly opposed to the sub rule in 2011 but is now near universally supported in 2021?

 

[peternorth]

Based upon what we saw last night, if a club is behind at the start of the final term and they haven't yet activated their sub, they would be negligent in not doing so. Get the bench coach to corky someone if required.



But then you need two subs each. Because the 2nd team doesn't have the opportunity to cover if one of their players gets injured after the 1st team does, and they had to mirror activate their sub for that.

Whole list. On the bench. Everyone is a sub. Even the coaches. And multiball!

spot on darce

 

[doppleganger]

So can someone explain why the footy world was strongly opposed to the sub rule in 2011 but is now near universally supported in 2021?

In 2011 the coaches and players hated it as it effectively made it 21 plus a sub.

Now some like it as it makes it 22 plus a sub.

Coaches get an extra player to add to rotations now, an extra player gets a match payment.

But ignoring that, all of the problems and unfairness that existed with the original sub will apply.

 

[JM#1]

Makes perfect sense if you remember that a concussed player must sit out for 12 days, and cannot return to the field.

Could Vlaustin have played out the game? Most likely.

Can a concussed player return to the field? No. They also miss the next game.

The rule should have only been for concussions, to make clubs play it much more safely with head injuries.

As is, it's ripe for being manipulated. Like we saw last night.

Yes, my point was more on players who are too injured to continue (not Vlaustin) but will also be ok for the next match. There's no need for them to be out for 12 days just because they were subbed. Let's remember, the concussed player is out for 12 days because they were concussed, not because they were subbed.

 

[Obeanie1]

Makes perfect sense if you remember that a concussed player must sit out for 12 days, and cannot return to the field.

Could Vlaustin have played out the game? Most likely.

Can a concussed player return to the field? No. They also miss the next game.

The rule should have only been for concussions, to make clubs play it much more safely with head injuries.

As is, it's ripe for being manipulated. Like we saw last night.



That's the risk. If you don't legitimately believe it's a 12 day injury, don't sub them out. If you do, and it's not, you chose wrong and that player misses the next game.

So you are happy for the sub so teams can play it safe with head injuries. But not happy that now they can play it safe with a knee injury because they might manipulate the system?

Take last night's game. Blue's subbed out due to a shoulder dislocation at half time. Tigers used theirs in the 3rd due to a corked knee.

Both teams used the sub.

Which one gained an unfair advantage?

Neither did. But in two cases an injured player was taken off for treatment and to avoid further injury.

That is a good result IMO.

 

[justlookingaround]

In 2011 the coaches and players hated it as it effectively made it 21 plus a sub.

Now some like it as it makes it 22 plus a sub.

Coaches get an extra player to add to rotations now, an extra player gets a match payment.

But ignoring that, all of the problems and unfairness that existed with the original sub will apply.

That makes sense, thanks

 

[Jobe Watson]

If the AFL had just kept the rotations at 90 I doubt any of the coaches would've sooked it up and we wouldn't have this dumb rule in the first place. Why did the AFL think it was a good idea to bring in rules that speed the game up while also lowering interchanges with 20 minute quarters? Carlton had 1 rotation to last them the final 5 minutes of the game last night.

 

[Obeanie1]

If the AFL had just kept the rotations at 90 I doubt any of the coaches would've sooked it up and we wouldn't have this dumb rule in the first place. Why did the AFL think it was a good idea to bring in rules that speed the game up while also lowering interchanges with 20 minute quarters? Carlton had 1 rotation to last them the final 5 minutes of the game last night.

They are doing it to fatigue the players so the game opens up.

Haven't you noticed the last 5 minutes of quarters the game opens up? Especially in the 3rd and 4th.

Its because the players get tired and defense drops away. The AFL have been up front with the reasoning for quite some time.

You stuff up your rotations well too bad.

 

[Jobe Watson]

So you are happy for the sub so teams can play it safe with head injuries. But not happy that now they can play it safe with a knee injury because they might manipulate the system?

Take last night's game. Blue's subbed out due to a shoulder dislocation at half time. Tigers used theirs in the 3rd due to a corked knee.

Both teams used the sub.

Which one gained an unfair advantage?

Neither did. But in two cases an injured player was taken off for treatment and to avoid further injury.

That is a good result IMO.

That's not gonna happen every game though. There are going to be plenty of instances where one team gets to play 23 players and the other team has to make do with 22.

Also, what counts as an injury? If a player is having a poor game and then gets a corkie, can it be argued that a sub is justified in that case? The rules state there must be reasonable suspicion that the player will be out for at least 12 days due to the injury, but is that really going to be enforced? Players can recover from injuries quicker than initially expected. This rule has created such a grey area. It's so open to manipulation.

 

[Obeanie1]

That's not gonna happen every game though. There are going to be plenty of instances where one teams gets to play 23 players and the other team has to make do with 22.

Also, what counts as an injury? If a player is having a poor game and then gets a corkie, can it be argued that a sub is justified in that case? The rules state there must be reasonable suspicion that the player will be out for at least 12 days due to the injury, but is that really going to be enforced? Players can recover from injuries quicker than initially expected. This rule has created such a grey area. It's so open to manipulation.

The AFL has come out with stats saying every round 16-18 players get injured and miss the following week. An average of 1.9 players in each match played.

There would be other players injured who would come off if a sub was available.

So if both teams use the sub where is the unfairness?

Both teams use the sub, two players retire hurt and get treatment. Win - win.

The scenario you are putting up is the exception rather than the rule.

Take the GF. If the concussion sub was in then Vastulin would have been replaced and Garry Ablett would have been made to stay on and struggle through hobbled and in pain.

It that fair? No.

So it is do something or do nothing regarding injury subs. And in the case of player welfare I'm more than happy for the AFL to do something.

The over reaction to this issue is really mind blowing IMO.

 

[LongSerong]

If your players gets subbed off then he should have to sit out 12 days. Enough said
Eliminates substitutions from last night's game because no doubt Dimma will want Vlaustin will be primed and ready to go

If a player gets a knock but they think he'll be right for the next week well he can just warm the bench like usual, bad luck. Injuries are a part of the game and add to the randomness of the sport - it's been like this forever and the only sense in substitutions in my opinion is for head knocks.

Side note: it's a proven fact that fatigue is a risk factor for injury. Seems a bit hypocritical for the AFL to be promoting fatigue but then harps on about their awareness and injury prevention

 

[Jobe Watson]

So it is do something or do nothing regarding injury subs. And in the case of player welfare I'm more than happy for the AFL to do something.

So the AFL are limiting rotations to deliberately fatigue the players to open the game up, but also care about player welfare?

The same inequality that existed before the rule change still exists now. If a team loses 2 players and their opposition only loses 1 they'll still be playing a man down. If a team loses 1 player after half time and their opposition loses none, it could be argued they actually get an advantage from that.

This rule seems like an unnecessary fix to a problem the AFL created.

 

[Obeanie1]

So the AFL are limiting rotations to deliberately fatigue the players to open the game up, but also care about player welfare?

This rule seems like an unnecessary fix to a problem the AFL created.

How did the AFL create overly defensive gameplans?

Fatigued players don't bash or crash into each other with the same frequency or forces as fresh players do after using the bench for breaks.

Less rotation = more time on ground = fatigue = less tackles / bumps and a more open game.

This has all been covered.

 

[Back One Out]

I liked the old substitute rule as a mitigation against a team being disadvantaged by a 1st half injury and being down on midfield rotations throughout the game. It was a bloody good rule which went over the heads of many twits who preferred to complain about certain fringe players getting only 20-30 minutes of playing time.

There were plenty of traditionalist nay-sayers who hated the old sub rule, but I was sorry to see it go. I think it's good we have the rule back as a "break glass in case of emergency" device rather than simply a way to gain "extra legs" in the last quarter. In theory anyway...

Of course, the rule will be ripe for exploitation by coaches seeking to gain an unfair advantage. But that doesn't mean the rule itself is bad. It just needs to be properly administered. Leaving it to the integrity of club doctors is not the answer. There will always be pressure put on them to give their club the most favourable outcome.

How about the injured player who is subbed out automatically misses the next match? Make it black and white... No exceptions. Tough t***ies if you're subbed out but passed fit to play 7 days later. There would still be the potential for exploitation and skulduggery, but less so than it its current form.

Teams might be reluctant to substitute one of their star players if it's only a minor injury. But that's cool. That just means they won't automatically use the sub. They may elect to play out the game with just 21 fit players (which is exactly what they did from 2016 to 2020.)