News 2021 Rule Changes

[cats_09]

A place to discuss the various rules changes that have been implemented for this upcoming season,

Also moving the discussion around the new medical sub out of the match preview thread and into here so as to not derail chat around our upcoming match versus Adelaide

 

[Seeds]

Totally agree. Tuohy for me as the potential concussion sub.
I'd personally like to see Evans in the starting 22. From the 2 games in pre-season, I think he's been our best small forward. Give him a chance early, like they did with Miers 2 seasons ago.

Can the concussion sub be used for players who do their knee or break a leg?

 

[goyoucatters]

Can the concussion sub be used for players who do their knee or break a leg?

Unless the player is concussed in the same incident, surely not.

 

[calder_daddy]

Unless the player is concussed in the same incident, surely not.

I’m going all in on it being a injured player sub.
I do hope it can only be made before half time though

 

[Down at K Park]

I’m going all in on it being a injured player sub.
I do hope it can only be made before half time though

Should only be for serious injuries. Or you'll get guys being benched, and they will say hamstring tightness or something extremely minor, cause they wanted to bring in someone fresh.

 

[Seeds]

No.

That seems unfair. Why is a head injury worse then a broken leg or acl.

 

[Vdubs]

That seems unfair. Why is a head injury worse then a broken leg or acl.

It is not necessarily worse.
A concussion sub may be withdrawn if a player with possible concussion is tested and found to be ok. The sub allows for appropriate assessment, which can take time. That would be the only reason I could suggest.
Can't see a broken leg coming back on.
Would you like an ACL sub? A hammy sub? A ruptured achilles sub? A broken leg sub? Where does it stop? ALL those injuries are NOT coming back on, and MOST times, either is a concussion.

 

[Lana]

The next strategy is tactical concussion tests so you can bring in a fresh player

 

[Seeds]

It is not necessarily worse.
A concussion sub may be withdrawn if a player with possible concussion is tested and found to be ok. The sub allows for appropriate assessment, which can take time. That would be the only reason I could suggest.
Can't see a broken leg coming back on.
Would you like an ACL sub? A hammy sub? A ruptured achilles sub? A broken leg sub? Where does it stop? ALL those injuries are NOT coming back on, and MOST times, either is a concussion.

A sub for all of them would be good. It makes no sense to have a sub for one injury circumstance and not for others.

imagine a scenario where a player dives head first and his head collides with another players leg. Both go off on a stretcher. One for a suspected broken leg and the other for concussion. The concussed players team gets a replacement while the other team does not. It’s absurd.

 

[Vdubs]

A sub for all of them would be good. It makes no sense to have a sub for one injury circumstance and not for others.

imagine a scenario where a player dives head first and his head collides with another players leg. Both go off on a stretcher. One for a suspected broken leg and the other for concussion. The concussed players team gets a replacement while the other team does not. It’s absurd.

It is, and that happens, but how many subs would you allow?

 

[cat_shack]

That seems unfair. Why is a head injury worse then a broken leg or acl.

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.

 

[calder_daddy]

Should only be for serious injuries. Or you'll get guys being benched, and they will say hamstring tightness or something extremely minor, cause they wanted to bring in someone fresh.

That’s why I believe even for concussion it should be only before half time.
Otherwise you getting a bloke at 3/4 saying her got a corky and bringing on a fresh midfielder who will run over everyone else.
Only way it can work IMO

 

[Catman]

Should only be for serious injuries. Or you'll get guys being benched, and they will say hamstring tightness or something extremely minor, cause they wanted to bring in someone fresh.

Has to be. Clubs will rort it to the hilt if it isn't.

 

[you pick one]

It is not necessarily worse.
A concussion sub may be withdrawn if a player with possible concussion is tested and found to be ok. The sub allows for appropriate assessment, which can take time. That would be the only reason I could suggest.
Can't see a broken leg coming back on.
Would you like an ACL sub? A hammy sub? A ruptured achilles sub? A broken leg sub? Where does it stop? ALL those injuries are NOT coming back on, and MOST times, either is a concussion.

Surely the sub can't be allowed on until the club confirms the concussion.

 

[you pick one]

Has to be. Clubs will rort it to the hilt if it isn't.

Any player replaced by the sub should be ineligible for 12 days, fixes that.

 

[GeelongFTW]

Any player replaced by the sub should be ineligible for 12 days, fixes that.

they already are pretty sure.

 

[goyoucatters]

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.

As I understand it, this is definitely not intended to be anything like an injury sub, though. Serious injuries happen to players regularly in games. And this will continue to happen (and not see replacement players become available), despite the potential adoption of a rule around concussion subs.

The AFL is not trying to even up the available numbers when clubs suffer a serious injury to one of their players during a game. All they are looking to do is to ensure that no club puts potentially concussed players at risk by continuing to send them out onto the field of play after their head knock, because said club fears being one player down for their rotations. Taking away the disadvantage for clubs in removing a possibly concussed player from the game (because this rule would see a fresh player being made available to them, following proper diagnosis) means that teams will be far more ready to remove 'doubtful' players from games, thereby lessening the risk of concussed players remaining on the field. The AFL fears both the publicity and the litigation that could/will flow from not exercising a duty of care over every potential case of concussion, and this is surely the key motivation for them in taking this rule forward.

So removing the disincentive for clubs to be incredibly cautious about sending players back on after a head knock is what this prospective change is all about. It has nothing to do with replacing a player who goes down with injury not involving potential concussion symptoms, and I think the AFL will be very careful to ensure that it is truly and properly only a rule for concussion subs. The AFL is very unlikely to be sued by a player who suffers three or four ACL injuries; instead they understand they are incredibly likely to eventually be sued by players in the future who point to medical conditions resulting from inadequate attention being given to their brain's health during their time playing the game.

In the end, the clue is in the name. The plan is for a 'concussion sub', not an 'injury sub'.

 

[you pick one]

they already are pretty sure.

Concussion yes but if it's extended to injury it also needs to apply.

 

[Vdubs]

Surely the sub can't be allowed on until the club confirms the concussion.

I understood as soon as a player has been subbed off with concussion, but the new rules may be different.
What you say makes sense.

 

[cats_09]

Any player replaced by the sub should be ineligible for 12 days, fixes that.

I agree with this - if they decide to go the option of an injury sub rather than just a concussion sub, it should be that the subbed out player is automatically out for at least the next match if not the next 2 matches

 

[you pick one]

I agree with this - if they decide to go the option of an injury sub rather than just a concussion sub, it should be that the subbed out player is automatically out for at least the next match if not the next 2 matches

Yeah the club should still have the option though of taking off an injured player and not using the sub allowing the player to play the following game.

 

[Shadow89]

The next strategy is tactical concussion tests so you can bring in a fresh player

Is it worth losing that player for 12 days though? Minute you give 'em that test and rule them out, that's close to two weeks out of the side

 

[you pick one]

Is it worth losing that player for 12 days though? Minute you give 'em that test and rule them out, that's close to two weeks out of the side

GF?

 

[Shadow89]

GF?

Yeah that was the only circumstance I could think of where it would be warranted, and to be honest, both sides would do it anyway - so it would cancel itself out

 

[Spearman]

Can the concussion sub be used for players who do their knee or break a leg?

I'm sure the AFL has clearly defined the rule and the parameters under which the substitution can be made and written it lightly in pencil.