Rules The Sub Rule - Time to make it Black and White

[silverscope]

So last night it seems Richmond used their sub for "cramp" or "groin injury" who knows. It actually doesn't matter and didn't change the outcome of the game.

My gripe is the fact that the rule was introduced to cover concussion and players going off because of that and then the players being subbed out could then not play for a given amount of days usually missing the next match. Then it's somehow morphed into actual injuries and now it's whatever you want and players can play the next week without worry. Same thing happened when Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

played Freo in the wet earlier in the year and was subbed out for "finger injury" and Henry came on and bagged 4 and Cox played the next week no worries.

The rule is too grey.

You want to keep it in that's fine. But stop pretending it's for injuries and just give clubs the ability to use it however the hell they like. Every game clubs get one sub to use whenever it suits, injury or not.

 

[WilloTree]

It actually doesn't matter and didn't change the outcome of the game

You are probably right, but Rioli's chase-down tackle is a bad look. If Miller is right to go next week we'll know it was a cheat.

I can't see the point in the medical sub if it's just a way to get a fast player with fresh legs on the field for the final quarter.

Richmond last night just taking the piss?

 

[Quivorir]

Would prefer it if the subbed out player had to miss the week after too. That would mostly stop the bullshit subs that happen.

 

[hcd199]

The logic behind introducing the medical sub was always spurious, which is probably why it was introduced without notice days out from the start of last season. But we've also already had a sub rule without such limitations before, in the not-too-distant past; it was daft then and no less daft now, the sub being the 23rd rather than the 22nd player doesn't change anything in that regard. If it's only for injuries, then the boundaries of what is and isn't sufficiently injured are always going to be fuzzy - and if it's not only for injuries, then why bother having a sub in the first place?

Either way, the standard interchange bench is more than fit for purpose without having an additional player 'playing' the game but only able to participate when someone else is out for good (medically or tactically).

 

[kickazz]

Geelong having a 1 game ruck as sub, then needing to sub Stanley at half time? What luck!


Just go back to the old sub rule.

 

[footyfan1978]

Just get rid of it.
It was a farce how it was brought in from the start.
You already have four on the bench to cover injuries.
Absolute joke it was ever allowed in to begin with.

 

[Spearman]

Geelong having a 1 game ruck as sub, then needing to sub Stanley at half time? What luck!


Just go back to the old sub rule.

TBH I think they knew Stanley had a sore knee and were anticipating subbing him sometime up to halftime.

 

[kickazz]

TBH I think they knew Stanley had a sore knee and were anticipating subbing him sometime up to halftime.

Yeah I guess that is legitimate

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Concussion = Automatically miss next week. So a pretty simple solution = Subbed off, miss next week.

There doesn't even really need any further monitoring than that.

 

[hcd199]

The reason we don't already compel non-selection of the subbed-out player for the next game is precisely because it's not a desirable outcome to have fit players forcibly excluded from next week's side on what are basically administrative grounds. In-the-moment medical prognoses are legitimately subject to change, so a rule that requires you to stick by that original verdict isn't fit for purpose. And that's without getting into the inequitable situations a mandatory ban on playing next week creates, like where one team has a bye next up (so can sub freely) but the other doesn't.

It would be the worst of all worlds to end up with a version of the sub rule that's neither strictly for injuries nor freely available. Clear-cut rules may give more certainty, but that's worth little if the outcomes it results in aren't any good.

 

[juss]

There's multiple very easy solutions.

1. Get rid of it completely, and go back to injuries being part of the game and just dealing with them.

2. Make the sub for concussion only and the concussed player then automatically misses next week.

3. Let the sub be used for any reason at any time, then it is purely on the team discretion.

4. Once one team activates the sub, the other team can do so from any point onwards.

5. Once half/3 quarter time hits, any team can activate their sub for any reason.

All of those remove the grey area and make it non exploitable.

 

[WilloTree]

There's multiple very easy solutions.

1. Get rid of it completely, and go back to injuries being part of the game and just dealing with them.

2. Make the sub for concussion only and the concussed player then automatically misses next week.

3. Let the sub be used for any reason at any time, then it is purely on the team discretion.

4. Once one team activates the sub, the other team can do so from any point onwards.

5. Once half/3 quarter time hits, any team can activate their sub for any reason.

All of those remove the grey area and make it non exploitable.

6. Use it as intended and don't cheat.

 

[juss]

6. Use it as intended and don't cheat.

Simplify. Take out the guess work. Players recover, injuries are misdiagnosed. You can make things so much easier without losing anything from the rule.

 

[kickazz]

6. Use it as intended and don't cheat.

Good idea. Let's also simplify other aspects of the game like holding the man by introducing the honesty system

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Shannon Neale's nearly averaging more goals than he is hitouts in the VFL and from the statements after the game, Stanley's probably expected to miss at least three games now. And Stanley was arguably Geelong's most influential player in the first half. And Port Adelaide predictably started charging when their makeshift (but AFL hardened) rucks went up against a part-time second gamer in the ruck for Geelong in the third quarter.

I admit I did raise an eyebrow at the choice of Neale as a medical sub, but I figured it was more that if he had to come on, they'd plonk him in the forward line and adjust the roles of guys like Cameron and Blicavs, as welll as Stanley as required to balance the team. If it was always in the plans to sub Stanley out, I'm quite confident they would have gone with Ratugolea or even Ceglar (despite the latter being underdone) as the medisub and Geelong still probably would have controlled the hitouts after Stanley went down with a recognised AFL ruck against Finlayson and Dixon.

I'm in favour of it being a tool that can be used for whatever circumstances the team wants to, or for an independent doctor/physio to examine the player before being subbed. I'm not in favour of an automatic/enforced week off after being subbed, I think that would just result in teams trying to nurse injured superstars through a game when they should be subbed.

 

[WilloTree]

Good idea. Let's also simplify other aspects of the game like holding the man by introducing the honesty system

hahaha, we currently have the honesty system for medi subs. There's just no reason not to abuse it.

I'd suggest we don't throw out a perfectly good idea because of one glaring weakness.

How about:

If you use the medi sub as intended and don't cheat - play on
If you cheat (as Richmond has) - forfeit the game.

Reckon that would stop it?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You are probably right, but Rioli's chase-down tackle is a bad look. If Miller is right to go next week we'll know it was a cheat.

I can't see the point in the medical sub if it's just a way to get a fast player with fresh legs on the field for the final quarter.

Richmond last night just taking the piss?

That did have the appearance of a strategic sub. Easily dealt with. As has been suggested, as soon as one team activates then the other is entitled to activate any time from then on.

As the stakes are rising and things are getting tighter there do seem to be more circa 3/4 time activations for players who are not obviously injured.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

How about extending the bench and leaving it at that?

 

[WilloTree]

That did have the appearance of a strategic sub. Easily dealt with. As has been suggested, as soon as one team activates then the other is entitled to activate any time from then on.

As the stakes are rising and things are getting tighter there do seem to be more circa 3/4 time activations for players who are not obviously injured.

I don't mind the idea. I'd be leaning toward the stipulation that if you are subbed out you miss a week. Coaches won't cheat if they know they will be a man down next week, and if it's an actual injury there's no harm done.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don't mind the idea. I'd be leaning toward the stipulation that if you are subbed out you miss a week. Coaches won't cheat if they know they will be a man down next week, and if it's an actual injury there's no harm done.

The AFL seem to be so reactive with stuff like this. Why leave obvious loopholes? Of course coaches will try to exploit it when they feel they need to or can get away with it.

We all saw the Richmond v Cats game when Prestia was ko’d and Richmond had a free and the umpire made play go on despite it being clear to all that Prestia was non compos and it took 3 minutes to shift him from the ground through which time Richmond played a man down and the umps steadfastly refused to stop the game. And the AFL said the umps had done the right thing, Richmond needed to call for a stretcher to get the game stopped. Wind forward to Blues v GWS yesterday…Walsh turns his ankle slightly, a free kick is awarded cannot recall to which team. Ump orders play stopped and an armed guard for Walsh to take his rotation while the replacement takes up his position blood rule style. Walsh is back on the ground starring 5 minutes later. So if that is the way it is going to be now any team can exploit it by getting a player to feign injury. any time there is a ball up or free kick or stop play.

It is unbelievably incongruous. When they introduce rules they should think through every way the rule can be exploited and then make sure there is a clear cost to anyone seeking to unfairly exploit it. Or at least ensure the opponent is not put at a disadvantage. It seriously is not that difficult.

 

[Purple Suit]

I don't mind the idea. I'd be leaning toward the stipulation that if you are subbed out you miss a week. Coaches won't cheat if they know they will be a man down next week, and if it's an actual injury there's no harm done.

I don’t like that as good players are subbed out with hamstring “awareness” all the time as a precaution and can play the following week atm. They keep playing and something might pop.

I’d much prefer to leave it as is but once someone is subbed, the other team can tactically sub too from that point on if they choose.

The teams with dubious subs are rolling the dice on coping an injury later.

 

[kaiserchief13]

It was my understanding it's an injury sub, not just concussion sub. Anyhow agree simplest solution is forcing subbed player to miss the following week, including finals/grand final

 

[Thetrader15]

The reason we don't already compel non-selection of the subbed-out player for the next game is precisely because it's not a desirable outcome to have fit players forcibly excluded from next week's side on what are basically administrative grounds. In-the-moment medical prognoses are legitimately subject to change, so a rule that requires you to stick by that original verdict isn't fit for purpose. And that's without getting into the inequitable situations a mandatory ban on playing next week creates, like where one team has a bye next up (so can sub freely) but the other doesn't.

It would be the worst of all worlds to end up with a version of the sub rule that's neither strictly for injuries nor freely available. Clear-cut rules may give more certainty, but that's worth little if the outcomes it results in aren't any good.

Good points raised.

Option 1 - no sub (my preference)
Option 2 - Concussion sub only
Option 3 - Mandatory week off, it's then up to clubs to decide how much value they put on the in-the-moment prognosis. You don't have to sub them off if you think it's only cramp.

 

[Thetrader15]

How about extending the bench and leaving it at that?

That's why the bench went to 4.

Extend it and then the clubs will complain that a player is injured and they only have 4 on the bench while the other team has 5.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Good points raised.

Option 1 - no sub (my preference)
Option 2 - Concussion sub only
Option 3 - Mandatory week off, it's then up to clubs to decide how much value they put on the in-the-moment prognosis. You don't have to sub them off if you think it's only cramp.

I think they needed to do SOMETHING (to protect the league from future crippling legal liabilities), so Option 1 is probably not an option.

Option 2 is what they SHOULD have gone with

Option 3 doesn't work in the biggest game of the year. Crazy to have a loop-hole that is viable in the Grand Final.