2021 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 1: we can have lots of fun!

[DJ75]

With the first game only 2 days away, they still haven't made up their minds:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/16/afl-concussion-substitute-rule-call

... a lot of stakeholder management to work through. The first game of the season is only 2 days away FFS!

Nothing like changing the very fabric of the game on the fly. Meanwhile, doesn't it fill you with confidence that Hocking is on the case??

 

[Scorpus]

The rule needs to be simple. Any player subbed out with injury, must miss the next week regardless of the injury. It's the only thing that will stop clubs manipulating it.

Absolutely 100% agree

 

[adelaidecrows]

Given the AFL rule about a 12 day lay off for concussion, I suspect we might see a knocked out Port player get subbed out - but only because of his hamstring injury. Hence he gets replaced, but doesn't need to 12 days off.

The rule needs to be simple. Any player subbed out with injury, must miss the next week regardless of the injury. It's the only thing that will stop clubs manipulating it.

The 21 years and under idea is great - until a club tries to bend the rule or to get around it. It won't be long before a club claims that their under 21 year old players aren't physically ready and it would be an injury risk to play them. Get their club doctors to sign off on it and the VFL will happily bend it for a 22 year or older old sub.

I think it should be 10 games or less and a player under 21.

 

[jackster83]

Nothing like changing the very fabric of the game on the fly. Meanwhile, doesn't it fill you with confidence that Hocking is on the case??

Hocking is busy asking Geelong what their preference is.

 

[skam85]

Hocking is busy asking Geelong what their preference is.

There goes the under 21 rule then

 

[Scorpus]

The 21 and under rule is a terrible idea. It means a young developing player is forced to be the "emergency" (now injury sub) and would therefore miss an entire game of reserves football with only a small chance of playing.

The guys you want coming on for a quarter or two and sitting out reserves matches are experienced but not amazing role players

 

[StonesThrow]

Technically, the the rules states if a player is shepherding the ball over the line the field umpire will direct the ball be thrown in.

The rule's been sparingly used though - and to be honest, I haven't seen many teams shepherd the ball over the line.

Shepherding the ball over the line is as bad as deliberate out of bounds.

It's the same as the guy who is purposely pinning the ball to a player on the ground who has been tackled and is trying to release the ball but can't. They should be penalised.

 

[Vader]

Hocking is busy asking Geelong what their preference is.

Most of the articles I've read have quotes from Clarkson and/or Hardwick.

 

[Vader]

The 21 and under rule is a terrible idea. It means a young developing player is forced to be the "emergency" (now injury sub) and would therefore miss an entire game of reserves football with only a small chance of playing.

The guys you want coming on for a quarter or two and sitting out reserves matches are experienced but not amazing role players

The push for 21 and under is coming from the coaches. They view it as a development position, for youngsters who would otherwise still be playing in the state leagues. They pointed to Luke Bruest as a player who got his start wearing the bib. I guess we could point to Jarryd Lyons too, if we were sufficiently masochistic.

 

[Scorpus]

The push for 21 and under is coming from the coaches. They view it as a development position, for youngsters who would otherwise still be playing in the state leagues. They pointed to Luke Bruest as a player who got his start wearing the bib. I guess we could point to Jarryd Lyons too, if we were sufficiently masochistic.

If coaches want to use it that way, they should have the choice. But it shouldn't be mandatory

 

[hey shorty]

It's not a development position if they don't play.

 

[Vader]

If coaches want to use it that way, they should have the choice. But it shouldn't be mandatory

It's mandatory because the AFL is changing the goal posts re: concussion protocols. In the past, the player would come off, do the test, and return to the field (if they passed). Now they're being pulled from the field, and not being allowed to return, regardless of whether or not they pass the concussion test.

The coaches don't want opposition teams stacking the sub, with an experienced player who can come on and deliver a burst of high-level performance in the final quarter, when all of the other players are exhausted. Conversely, they do want it to be a youngster, for the developmental reasons previously stated.

 

[Vader]

It's not a development position if they don't play.

It seems to be assumed that they can be subbed in for the last quarter, if there are no injury substitutions before then.

 

[Scorpus]

It's mandatory because the AFL is changing the goal posts re: concussion protocols. In the past, the player would come off, do the test, and return to the field (if they passed). Now they're being pulled from the field, and not being allowed to return, regardless of whether or not they pass the concussion test.

The coaches don't want opposition teams stacking the sub, with an experienced player who can come on and deliver a burst of high-level performance in the final quarter, when all of the other players are exhausted. Conversely, they do want it to be a youngster, for the developmental reasons previously stated.

The idea for the sub should be that there are consequences for activating it. For example, if you use it, the player subbed off can't play the following week.

If teams want to stack the sub with experience for fresh legs, bring them on in the final quarter and lose a player for the entire next week, be my guest

 

[Vader]

The idea for the sub should be that there are consequences for activating it. For example, if you use it, the player subbed off can't play the following week.

I agree 100%.

If teams want to stack the sub with experience for fresh legs, bring them on in the final quarter and lose a player for the entire next week, be my guest

Teams may very well be willing to take that risk, especially if they're playing a bottom of the ladder team (e.g. Adelaide) the following week. This is exactly what the coaches want to prevent.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I dont agree with it. It would just further dilute the game as players not good enough for best 22 get absorbed into the rotations. With rotations down, i dont think injuries are causing as much of an issue as they were 5 years ago. I would like to see rotations further reduced. The bench should not be impacting games. They should be their purely for injuries and for tactical and form substitutes. The bench in no way shape or form should ever have been used for resting players.

Why would people put bad players in? You don't have to make yourself worse

If Tired Guy is better than Guy 24 then Tired Guy stays in

 

[hey shorty]

It seems to be assumed that they can be subbed in for the last quarter, if there are no injury substitutions before then.

Even then 15 minutes is hardly worth it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I was actually thinking it was our chance to maybe win a game this year, if the other team has less than 18 fit players to take to the field during a game.

Opposition Covid breach is our best chance imho

 

[jackster83]

Would the sub be the guy who would usually sit on his arse as the first emergency? Or would there have to be an additional guy sitting there not playing each week?

 

[Vader]

Even then 15 minutes is hardly worth it.

30 minutes... and it's a lot better than having them spend the entire game picking pine splinters out of their backsides.

 

[Coopers]

Apparently the coaches want to limit the concussion sub to players aged 21 or under. This would effectively rule out using players like DMac as the sub.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...make-call-on-23rd-player-20210315-p57asa.html

I love these kinds of random rules.

Personally I think we should introduce 3 zones where 5 players must be in them at all times, but the captain and two vice captains on field are allowed to roam. They have to wear coloured headbands to help the umpire.

Those 3 players can only sub out for certain other players who wear armbands, but only on Sundays or if the player has a brother or uncle that has previously played 50 games for another club.

Violations of these rules are to be officated by the boundary umpires (to help the field umpires of course) but only 2of the 4 can do this and which two can do it is kept secret until they make a call at which point one of the other remaining two is randomly nominated to have the power.

The penalty is a free kick that cannot go forwards.

 

[GreyCrow]

It's probably a good rule change for us seeing as we seem to lose a player to concussion in the first 10 minutes of every game.

David Mackay likes This

 

[Slippery Pete]

The 21 and under rule is a terrible idea. It means a young developing player is forced to be the "emergency" (now injury sub) and would therefore miss an entire game of reserves football with only a small chance of playing.

This.

It’s a stupid rule whichever way you look at it. What is the actual point of it? So a team with an injured player is not disadvantaged for the rest of the game? Why don’t we bring in a rule for the team behind on the scoreboard to not be disadvantaged too?

It’s part of the game, for ****’s sake.

 

[hey shorty]

30 minutes... and it's a lot better than having them spend the entire game picking pine splinters out of their backsides.

30 minutes if they spend every second on the field in the quarter

 

[Slippery Pete]

The other point is that not all injuries are created equal. Sometimes an injury can be from poor preparation, not being as fit or strong as the next guy, or just rolling the dice on a niggling thing you carry into the game.

Why should there be any reinforcements for that? Those risks are part and parcel of the competitive environment.