Bring back the sub, but only for injuries

rogiebear93

Premiership Player
May 17, 2017
4,258
7,779
AFL Club
Hawthorn
With the Hawks having suffered more than their fair share of losses from unfortunate mid game injuries, it seems as though there'd be a benefit to all clubs to have an injury substitute on standby if a player goes down.

I understand that there are ways that this could be gamed, withdrawing an under-performing player or altering team balance on the fly - perhaps the rule could be that the subbed out player must miss the following game.

It seems like it would not unduly benefit any club more than the others, particularly considering the massive volume of injuries this year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DamoESP

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 2, 2008
6,166
2,921
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs, Dallas Stars
With the Hawks having suffered more than their fair share of losses from unfortunate mid game injuries, it seems as though there'd be a benefit to all clubs to have an injury substitute on standby if a player goes down.
No thanks.
 

longsuffreosupp

Premiership Player
Jul 10, 2002
4,096
1,760
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
No. We tried it. We all watched it. It sucked.

Injuries happen. 1 Injury is not the deciding factor in a game.
But 2 injuries are a good chance it will be.

I agree it will be exploited

I'd propose that the 'injured' player would have to miss a month of AFL, so it would only be used for serious injuries.
 

woopedazz

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2010
4,924
3,651
AFL Club
Adelaide
Only if the subbed out player is strapped down and legs tied to a cinderblock while Kathy Bates smashes them Misery-style with a sledgehammer to ensure they really are injured.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
58
43
AFL Club
Collingwood
But 2 injuries are a good chance it will be.

I agree it will be exploited

I'd propose that the 'injured' player would have to miss a month of AFL, so it would only be used for serious injuries.
So you prevent a person plying his trade by what reason? that will stand up to a court of law that reduces his rights?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

armpit

Club Legend
Aug 8, 2013
2,980
1,248
AFL Club
Fremantle
Well I for one am sick of seeing teams win games because the other team has 1 or 2 men down. Particularly if it's because of injury incurred from the other team, slam tackles, shoving players into the fence and the like, so I advocate evening things up and sending the offending player off.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
58
43
AFL Club
Collingwood
By the rules. Just like someone who gets suspended cant ply his trade. Plus they would still be able to play in the magoos.
????? Did you read my post, or ....? A suspension suggests that the person has committed an action that warrants his rights being reduced. Seconds doesn’t carry the same match payments and opportunities as playing in the Firsts.
 

Purple Suit

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 30, 2011
8,212
13,785
Freo
AFL Club
Fremantle
It would be exploited by the coaches. Even if there injuries were real, the sub might be a gun coming back from injury that could play 50% game time and all of a sudden the injury has given the other team an advantage. Even fresh legs might be enough to help them win. Every one wants a fair game but it could go the other way and I haven't seen the AFL implement anything with much success so they would definitely balls it up.

If it was to combat thug acts then you'd be better off with a red card system but that's got knobs on it too.
 

longsuffreosupp

Premiership Player
Jul 10, 2002
4,096
1,760
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
????? Did you read my post, or ....? A suspension suggests that the person has committed an action that warrants his rights being reduced. Seconds doesn’t carry the same match payments and opportunities as playing in the Firsts.
Only 22 players can play in the firsts. Does player 23 file a claim because they think they should be in the 22's? I haven't seen a top 10 player of any team file a lawsuit about his rights to play in the firsts when he's been dropped. I haven't seen a player come back from injury who was in the magoos for longer than normal file a lawsuit.

If you made it (say) a month, then it would initially be up to the coach if he wanted to do it.

From our game on the weekend, you may or may not have pulled the trigger on injury on Hogan, but once Hill tweaked the hammy, then you know it'll be around the month mark to come back, so you'd go for the injury replacement.
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
46,333
35,287
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
If it happened for injuries only, we'd all be amazed by how many players made miraculous recoveries in time to play the next round. Nope, we buried this one in the back yard, and that's where it should stay.
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
8,828
14,063
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The sub worked great but they got rid it because of supercoach and because coaches didn't want to think.
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
May 8, 2007
8,454
9,170
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Well I for one am sick of seeing teams win games because the other team has 1 or 2 men down. Particularly if it's because of injury incurred from the other team, slam tackles, shoving players into the fence and the like, so I advocate evening things up and sending the offending player off.
Just get rid of interchange first. That's where all the issues are.
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
May 8, 2007
8,454
9,170
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Well and good but my issue is teams having to play men down, while the clear cause is running around finding a bit more space.

Well, here's the problem. In the good ol' days, 2 subs were allowed. You played 18 fit guys on the field at one time. If one of them got injured, you replaced them with a fit sub. If it happened again, you used your second sub. It took 3 injuries before you were impacted. (You could take a risk and take off a fit player for a sub - Ted Hopkins in the 1970 GF - but that's a risk you can choose).

Now with interchange, you need 22 fit players due to rotations, rests, staggered time on field etc. It only takes ONE player to be injured before you are affected.

The primary reason for subs was to remove the impact of injuries on a team. Interchange (the way we use it now) has removed that.

Of course, if you are worried about injuries, you can choose to hold back 2 interchange players as subs, and just run team rotations with only 20 players - that means slightly more Time on Ground etc. Your choice.

Interchange has been the biggest driver on how the game has developed into the flooding, rolling scrum we see today.
 
Top Bottom