News 2021 Rule Changes

[Spearman]

yes said the same...but thats not what will be happening. it will be to the AFL's discretion .

SNAFU

 

[Seeds]

its quite funny watching people get upset about new perceived minor injustices even though they replace much bigger injustices currently in place.

we really are biased to fear change.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Far too easy to manipulate, in my view.

Carlton plays Geelong in Round 17 2021 at the 'G. Geelong then flies to Perth to play Freo in Round 18.

As 3QT approaches, the Blues are a goal in front as time ticks down. Joel Selwood (who was going to be 'managed' from Geelong's trip to Perth, in any case) goes down with a 'calf niggle'. He retreats to the bench and Francis Evans is activated as the injury sub in time for the last quarter.

Evans than motors through the last against some tired defenders, kicking two goals of his own and setting up Hawkins for another. Cats win by a couple of goals and keep their top four aspirations alive.

I don't see that this is an unlikely scenario at all. And it's exactly how coaches would use an injury sub rule (even with the mandatory 'week off') to eke out an advantage against an opponent.

Given they way they're talking about planning to 'manage' players through the coming season, Geelong would potentially be able to employ this tactic at least half a dozen times in 2021. And I can't see how the AFL could do anything to prevent it, despite it clearly being against the spirit of the game.

And what about the players who are looking likely to be under severe MRP scrutiny after an untoward bump or strike during a match? If the club takes the odds to them getting suspended, has them feign an injury, and pulls them off for some fresh legs with a quarter or so left, how do you prevent that? I believe there are multiple scenarios where clubs could have a field day screwing around with such a rule, and I don't see that the AFL should be offering them yet another way to seek to control and manufacture favourable outcomes for themselves by a 'loose' adherence to the prospective laws around an injury sub.

I understand many people are completely comfortable with the idea of an injury sub. I just think it's so open to rorting that the integrity of the game would be easily eroded further under such a system. Although I'd also be the first to admit there isn't a lot of that left when it comes to the AFL.

Yeah I think it's an automatic 12 day lay off if you're subbed out and they were saying that only the club doctors can trigger it. Can't see it being that easy to rort if correct

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Who really cares about a new rule that doesn't affect this game in the slightest.

Start a new thread and argue about it there please.

 

[you pick one]

Yeah I think it's an automatic 12 day lay off if you're subbed out and they were saying that only the club doctors can trigger it. Can't see it being that easy to rort if correct

Not a rort but lets say Dangerfield gets a heavy knock to the ribs and is off coughing up blood being assessed by the doctor he reports to Scott he's pretty ****ed we may not get him back on to day, to early to tell for next week do you want me to sigh the certificate to activate the sub?I this case it will be Scott that makes that decision.Concussion yep doctors call.

 

[goyoucatters]

What happens to match payments?

You still get paid if you miss the following game.
What is the outcome if you are subbed off in a prelim?

You will still get a medallion.

My question was around match payments (and senior appearance numbers) for players who never get on the field as the injury sub. Both of these matters will become farcical if players are consistently selected as the (ultimately) unused injury sub for their team.

 

[Down at K Park]

What happens to match payments?

You still get paid if you miss the following game.
What is the outcome if you are subbed off in a prelim?

You will still get a medallion.

Well they have said that even unactivated subs get a game added to their tally, and would also win a premiership medallion even if not used in the gf. So i would assume they would get a match payment. But probably not if they miss the next week.

 

[goyoucatters]

its quite funny watching people get upset about new perceived minor injustices even though they replace much bigger injustices currently in place.

we really are biased to fear change.

You can call suffering injuries 'injustice' if you like. I would have thought it's simply part and parcel of a contact sport played at high intensity. Up till now, suffering injuries and working your way through it has simply been part of the game.

The prospect of injustice is what we're actually facing now, where teams will work to manipulate the arrangements when players clearly aren't seriously injured to win themselves an advantage in the game. For me, that's what you can objectively call 'injustice'.

 

[goyoucatters]

Yeah I think it's an automatic 12 day lay off if you're subbed out and they were saying that only the club doctors can trigger it. Can't see it being that easy to rort if correct

The examples I quoted above are clear opportunities for club doctors to sign off on a niggle where the player involved was slated to miss the next game in any case. Doctors simply could not be held accountable for signing off a supposed injury when the player was blithely sitting out the next game (for what used to be called 'management'), anyway.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Not a rort but lets say Dangerfield gets a heavy knock to the ribs and is off coughing up blood being assessed by the doctor he reports to Scott he's pretty f’ed we may not get him back on to day, to early to tell for next week do you want me to sigh the certificate to activate the sub?I this case it will be Scott that makes that decision.Concussion yep doctors call.

The whole point of the rule is to give the doctors the independence and freedom to make the choice without pressure so if the doctor even talks to the coach it's a waste of time. If the afl is even half way serious the doctors won't even talk to the coach other than to inform them after

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The examples I quoted above are clear opportunities for club doctors to sign off on a niggle where the player involved was slated to miss the next game in any case. Doctors simply could not be held accountable for signing off a supposed injury when the player was blithely sitting out the next game (for what used to be called 'management'), anyway.

Yeah I mean the doctor says it's going to get worse if you play so miss a week and bring some one on. Hardly seems a rort

 

[you pick one]

The whole point of the rule is to give the doctors the independence and freedom to make the choice without pressure so if the doctor even talks to the coach it's a waste of time. If the afl is even half way serious the doctors won't even talk to the coach other than to inform them after

Mute point anyway now with injured players subbed not being part of the mandatory 12 day lay off.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Mute point anyway now with injured players subbed not being part of the mandatory 12 day lay off.

They didn't force them into a 12 day? Maybe there's something rortable there but probably not a game changer I'd think

 

[catempire]

Apart from the timing of the rule change announcement (FFS, would any other sport on earth announce a rule change the day before the season starts) I can’t see the big deal. Doctors decide it. If they put their careers on the line for the sake of a footy game, then whack them. All good.

 

[Tony Barber]

Mute point anyway now with injured players subbed not being part of the mandatory 12 day lay off.

*moot

 

[Vdubs]

I’m with you, it’s a super odd rule. The best example would be the GF last year. In the same passage Vlaustin gets KOd, out for the game, Ablett does his shoulder out for the game. Under the proposed rule, Richmond could replace him with a concussion sub, yet Geelong wouldn’t be able to replace Ablett.
AFL keeps saying concussion safety is of the most importance, but in this particular instance, that is ridiculous. A substitute does nothing to address the head injury occurring in the first place. Regardless of the sub, a player still gets concussed.
I think logic will prevail and there will be a an injury/concussion sub for this season.

There should be 1 concussion sub, `1 serious injury sub, but it has been decided.

 

[Vdubs]

*moot

He doesn’t want to talk about it

 

[goyoucatters]

Yeah I mean the doctor says it's going to get worse if you play so miss a week and bring some one on. Hardly seems a rort

My concern isn't really for an actual mild injury that 'could' get worse. Although that is a manipulation of the rule as well. As explained earlier, it's where players feign injury (knowing that they were already looking at a rest or week off for the next game) in order to get a fresh player into the fray.

And as for the idea that doctors won't risk their careers to sign off on questionable sub rulings, I just can't imagine how you could ever prove that they have acted improperly.

'He told me he couldn't run in a straight line without pain.'
'He's had some injury concerns in that region before so we just wanted to be ultra-cautious.'

If the players is not looking to 'game the system' (as some appear to understand it) by getting back within the 12 days, I imagine pretty much everyone (including the AFL) will just wave the decisions through. I'm simply pointing out that there are clear situations where incurring the 12-day penalty wouldn't deter clubs from still manipulating the system. Particularly when you factor in clubs having prearranged plans to 'manage' players through a season, and that simply magnifying a supposed niggle could be used to maximise team output in the game prior to the prearranged rest.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

My concern isn't really for an actual mild injury that 'could' get worse. Although that is a manipulation of the rule as well. As explained earlier, it's where players feign injury (knowing that they were already looking at a rest or week off for the next game) in order to get a fresh player into the fray.

And as for the idea that doctors won't risk their careers to sign off on questionable sub rulings, I just can't imagine how you could ever prove that they have acted improperly.

'He told me he couldn't run in a straight line without pain.'
'He's had some injury concerns in that region before so we just wanted to be ultra-cautious.'

If the players is not looking to 'game the system' (as some appear to understand it) by getting back within the 12 days, I imagine pretty much everyone (including the AFL) will just wave the decisions through. I'm simply pointing out that there are clear situations where incurring the 12-day penalty wouldn't deter clubs from still manipulating the system. Particularly when you factor in clubs having prearranged plans to 'manage' players through a season, and that simply magnifying a supposed niggle could be used to maximise team output in the game prior to the prearranged rest.

Having thought about it, you're right. They probably should have just made it either concussion only or gone the other way and made it an any reason sub.

 

[goyoucatters]

Having thought about it, you're right. They probably should have just made it either concussion only or gone the other way and made it an any reason sub.

Concussion sub only was definitely my preference. That is a necessary change, in keeping with all the latest research and insight into the danger of head knocks resulting in serious issues for players down the track.

As for the matter of an injury sub, the game's been played with the prospect of injuries affecting an outcome on any given day for a very long time. Why that should be changed now (when it's clearly rather open to manipulation by the coaches and clubs) is not clear to me at all.

Another example of the AFL wanting to talk about integrity, where in reality the practice and policies they set up make it staggeringly easy for clubs to demonstrate anything but the very value they're supposedly 'protecting'.

 

[goyoucatters]

Bevo pointing out just a few of the issues with the new sub rule...

'A whole series of headaches for everyone': Bevo slams new sub rule

Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has taken aim at the AFL over the introduction of the medical substitute just over 24 hours before the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

Beveridge said there were a range of issues that would develop from the medical substitute, including "turmoil" in the playing ranks and another challenge for under-resourced clubs after the more than $3 million cutback in the soft cap.

"Not only do the decisions need to be made on the day, but then the doctors will have to substantiate whether or not a player can play the next week if there was an injury through administrative process that wasn't there before," he said.

"And if we use our 23rd on Friday night as an example, if that player doesn't get called upon, he for his welfare won't be able to do a training session that night.

"So we'll need to staff a training session on Saturday morning for that player, and with the soft cap cuts and everyone doing more than they ever have before, and then in the meetings of who [the substitute] may be, imagine the turmoil within the playing ranks as to who is that sub and does he miss out now on two or three opportunities to be in the team because he hasn't played?

"There were so many considerations and I could keep going. From my point of view, it's disappointing a decision has been hasty and this is the course they went when there's so many other options that wouldn't have created the layers and headaches that this is going to create."

'A whole series of headaches for everyone': Bevo slams new sub rule

Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has taken aim at the AFL over the introduction of the medical substitute just over 24 hours before the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

They really aren't exaggerating when they tell us that Clarko runs the AFL, are they?

 

[goyoucatters]

And just a small preview of the nonsense that will now ensue based on the hasty adoption of this new rule, and its ridiculous implications for match payments and 'games played' numbers...

Still no decision from star free agent, all eyes on father-son Pie

AFL.com.au reporters Callum Twomey, Mitch Cleary and Riley Beveridge cover all the latest trade news

www.afl.com.au

HOW TO PAY THE SUBS?

Clubs will not have to include the match payment for a medical substitute within their salary cap after the AFL rushed in the rule just a day before the season begun.

But they will still have to pay the players their money outside of the total player payments model. It means some could consider using players who are on basic contracts – such as a flat $300,000 annual income – as their medical sub rather than players who are on match payments to avoid having to pay the extra money.

Under the collective bargaining agreement, first and second-year players and rookies receive match payments of around $4000-5000 a game. Across the competition and season it could cost the clubs a total of around $2.5 million.

Any incentives triggered by the medical substitute won't be included within the club's salary cap.

However clubs are mindful that players may reach their triggers for a new contract through being the medical substitute, with many around the competition having games played triggers built into their deals that sees them automatically tick over for another year at their respective clubs.

Still no decision from star free agent, all eyes on father-son Pie

AFL.com.au reporters Callum Twomey, Mitch Cleary and Riley Beveridge cover all the latest trade news

www.afl.com.au

 

[Turkey Tom]

Been the sub is going to suck for these guys. Yes they get paid but they aren't playing football.

I assume the sub can play VFL if the AFL game is scheduled prior to it that weekend?

 

[goyoucatters]

Been the sub is going to suck for these guys. Yes they get paid but they aren't playing football.

I assume the sub can play VFL if the AFL game is scheduled prior to it that weekend?

Yes. Clubs will no doubt be looking to work with this scenario wherever possible to ensure players have some continuity in match conditioning despite having to don the vest.

 

[dazbroncos]

only the aFL could shoehorn a major change to the game 48 hours before the season starts.

Dear ****ing god.
I get it a player safety issue and have no issue with the content of it.

The application and execution is kindergarden level however.

Please shw me how the issue of player safety is any more dire now than it was 3 months ago when they could have introduced this.

its not even amateur hour

Go Catters