News 2021 Rule Changes

[Seeds]

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

Two. It’s very rare to have 3 injuries.

 

[Seeds]

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.

Easy way to fix that. If the player is subbed off he can’t play next week.

 

[Vdubs]

Two. It’s very rare to have 3 injuries.

Agree.
It’s settled.
1 concussion sub.
1 serious injury sub

 

[FredLeDeux]

Agree.
It’s settled.
1 concussion sub.
1 serious injury sub

For our first concussion sub, I nominate Marnus Labuschagne

 

[JohnZ]

Two. It’s very rare to have 3 injuries.

How many subs back in the day before the unlimited interchange? Was 2 wasn't it? So now we're gonna have free interchange (but now limited) plus the 2 injury subs the VFL used to have.

Maybe we should remove the interchange and just have subs on the bench.

 

[you pick one]

My thought for today on the concussion rule,as a player you would hate to mis a final especially a GF to a lower end concussion I believe I have had concussion once or twice never tested but been knocked out on a few occasions playing footy and car crashes mostly weekends and never had to missed a days work.
Now I'm happy for the mandatory one match disqualification in the home and away but should there be some power given to the player and club doctors regarding missing more than the one game or a final or GF.
Maybe the option to present before a board of doctors for a clearance to play.

 

[you pick one]

Unfortunately the move to cover the all injuries probably means we will now see players subbed out before a full investigation happens... the closer it gets towards the end of a game, the more likely that someone will need to be subbed out, most players will be carrying something.

I maintain... anyone subbed out should not be allowed to play the following week... or all we have done, is reintroduced a sub that we had 5 or 6 years ago..and all the players winged about so much that it was tossed out.

How long will it be before , players who are playing for a club with no injuries start to complain about no game. Will we see the return to using it tactically. Taking off certain types more than others .....injured ruckmen?

The whole dame thing looks open to abuse,will we see the final proposal today and implementation Thursday?.

 

[Seeds]

Unfortunately the move to cover the all injuries probably means we will now see players subbed out before a full investigation happens... the closer it gets towards the end of a game, the more likely that someone will need to be subbed out, most players will be carrying something.

I maintain... anyone subbed out should not be allowed to play the following week... or all we have done, is reintroduced a sub that we had 5 or 6 years ago..and all the players winged about so much that it was tossed out.

How long will it be before , players who are playing for a club with no injuries start to complain about no game. Will we see the return to using it tactically. Taking off certain types more than others .....injured ruckmen?

As I said you avoid all this by declaring that any player subbed out misses the next match. Effectively it means that it will only be applied to injuries as serious as concussions.

 

[goyoucatters]

And the coaches continue to just about run the game. Teague now out and about talking about an injury sub rather than a concussion sub for 2021...

UPDATE: Carlton keys to take on Tigers, mystery over Martin's availability

Harry McKay and Levi Casboult, are expected to play against Richmond but there is a cloud over Jack Martin

www.afl.com.au

Carlton expects the substitute, should it be included for the upcoming season, to apply for any injured player as opposed to just those who have suffered concussion during a game.

"They've added the sub to make it fairer for a team if you lose a player," Teague said.

"Why limit it just to concussion? If someone is injured and out, to give the other team a chance, then you add a player.

"I think it will be an injury sub, that's my feel for it. That's what the coaches originally wanted, I think the media jumped on the concussion side of things. I think an injury sub makes it fair for everyone."

UPDATE: Carlton keys to take on Tigers, mystery over Martin's availability

Harry McKay and Levi Casboult, are expected to play against Richmond but there is a cloud over Jack Martin

www.afl.com.au

Seems like the AFL will wave the wider concept through to protect themselves against ongoing concerns about how they're managing concussion. The very fact they're publishing these comments on their own website suggests it's already a done deal.

 

[Seeds]

The whole dame thing looks open to abuse,will we see the final proposal today and implementation Thursday?.

It’s not abuse if both teams can do it. even if it’s used for non injured players it’s still advantageous to a team who has a player who is injured compared to a system with no sub.

 

[Seeds]

And the coaches continue to just about run the game. Teague now out and about talking about an injury sub rather than a concussion sub for 2021...

UPDATE: Carlton keys to take on Tigers, mystery over Martin's availability

Harry McKay and Levi Casboult, are expected to play against Richmond but there is a cloud over Jack Martin

www.afl.com.au

UPDATE: Carlton keys to take on Tigers, mystery over Martin's availability

Harry McKay and Levi Casboult, are expected to play against Richmond but there is a cloud over Jack Martin

www.afl.com.au

Seems like the AFL will wave the wider concept through to protect themselves against ongoing concerns about how they're managing concussion. The very fact they're publishing these comments on their own website suggests it's already a done deal.

It should be an injury sub. Why they hell would you be against it.

 

[goyoucatters]

It should be an injury sub. Why they hell would you be against it.

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.

 

[cats_09]

Clubs may try to manipulate this, but with the player subbed out unavailable to play over the next 12 days, that's not necessarily just 1 match missed but potentially 2

To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days.

Concussed players must already sit out a mandatory 12-day recovery period under new protocols introduced by the AFL for the 2021 season...

...Clubs will name a 'normal' squad of 22 players and four emergencies the evening before the game, but they won't have to name the 23rd 'medical substitute' player until final teams are confirmed an hour before the first bounce.

The new rule will only apply at AFL senior level – not in any state league or elite junior competitions.

New rule reveal: AFL brings in 'medical sub' ahead of R1

AFL gives green light to an expanded bench that will include a medical substitute

www.afl.com.au

 

[Seeds]

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.

And what would be wrong with that scenario? Carlton could do it to negating it’s advantage.

even If it happens regularly it still makes it fairer to teams who lose an injured player in the first qtr. at the moment those teams are down a man for 3 qtrs. Clubs therefore don’t want to be down a man that long so sometimes keep a player on even though he should really go off.

 

[Seeds]

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

Sounds like it’s exactly what is happening. good Move by afl. now no one can complain about it being abused.

 

[goyoucatters]

And what would be wrong with that scenario? Carlton could do it to negating it’s advantage.

even If it happens regularly it still makes it fairer to teams who lose an injured player in the first qtr. at the moment those teams are down a man for 3 qtrs. Clubs therefore don’t want to be down a man that long so sometimes keep a player on even though he should really go off.

It's all simply a question of priorities. By your own testimony here, your preference prioritises making the change and then living with the consequence that teams will manipulate the rule. My view is that the change is not quite so 'necessary' and will just introduce another means by which coaches and clubs seek to skirt around the rules in an attempt to engineer anything but a level playing field.

Injuries have always been a part of the game. Sometimes your team gets through unscathed, sometimes the boot is on the other foot. I've never had a great problem in accepting that. In the end, we simply disagree about the need to change what has been the reality of competitive sport for as long as I can remember, giving due regard to our apparently shared admission that teams will seek to act deceitfully around this rule to win any small advantage they can.

 

[Seeds]

At the time of the injury...this looks like a 12 day injury....but gee after 5 days...your recovery has been amazing....


I will wait and see how many players, apart from head injuries, are not played for 12 days.

Even if they only miss a match and come back after 10 days it’s not exactly abusing the system. Hard to see any club bringing them back the next week and risk being regarded as bringing the game into disrepute. That’s some pretty heavy language from the afl right there.


what I don’t like is this line: If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally.

that is going to ruin player stat analysis.

 

[Seeds]

It's all simply a question of priorities. By your own testimony here, your preference prioritises making the change and then living with the consequence that teams will manipulate the rule. My view is that the change is not quite so 'necessary' and will just introduce another means by which coaches and clubs seek to skirt around the rules in an attempt to engineer anything but a level playing field.

Injuries have always been a part of the game. Sometimes your team gets through unscathed, sometimes the boot is on the other foot. I've never had a great problem in accepting that. In the end, we simply disagree about the need to change what has been the reality of competitive sport for as long as I can remember, giving due regard to our apparently shared admission that teams will seek to act deceitfully around this rule to win any small advantage they can.

It’s all redundant now. can only take off players if they look like being out of action for 12 days. Not going to be any players rested cos they are tired.

 

[goyoucatters]

It’s all redundant now. can only take off players if they look like being out of action for 12 days. Not going to be any players rested cos they are tired.

The two specific examples I quoted above weren't just about the player being tired. They were mostly about in-game adjustment to suit the unfolding contest, in the light of being comfortable that the subbed player wasn't 'required' for the following game. I see them as real examples of how coaches can still change their available personnel for a game to win a tactical and fitness advantage, even after the ball has been bounced.

That doesn't strike me as either fair or good for the game.

 

[Seeds]

It will be miss-used. I am almost certain of it..the mindset of this was based on the coaches winging about losing a player from the 22... game results..where as it should be about player health.

Did you not read the article? They must be seen as missing 12 days with a medical report provided. Any breach of this report will be given heavy penalties. Doctors won’t want to be caught out lying on medical reports.

if a player misses one game. I.e. 5-8 days then It’s not misused regardless of whether a player comes back in 9-11 days. Missing a week is a massive penalty for bringping on fresh legs with a qtr to go. No one would do it.

and given the medical report requirement of 12 day injuries there is no way a doctor would abuse it by bringing a player back in 5 days. 10 days yes but not 5 days. It’s too obvious. it will not happen. This is the beauty of saying its 12 days rather than 1 week. The real penalty is one game. Which is fine. More than that is too much anyway.

 

[goyoucatters]

what I don’t like is this line: If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally.

that is going to ruin player stat analysis.

That is insane. Also, what happens to player remuneration for match payments under this system?

Utter debacle.

 

[cat_shack]

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'.

Hate to say I told you so, but I’ll indulge, I told you so.

 

[goyoucatters]

Hate to say I told you so, but I’ll indulge, I told you so.

Can see you're really hating it...

I made the mistake (again) of underestimating the power of the coaches to effect the changes they'd like to see in the game.

Well played, in any case.

 

[Tony Barber]

That is insane. Also, what happens to player remuneration for match payments under this system?

Utter debacle.

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.

 

[Spearman]

And what would be wrong with that scenario? Carlton could do it to negating it’s advantage.

even If it happens regularly it still makes it fairer to teams who lose an injured player in the first qtr. at the moment those teams are down a man for 3 qtrs. Clubs therefore don’t want to be down a man that long so sometimes keep a player on even though he should really go off.

because that's gawdam old-time REAL footy! bygawd!


isn't it