Since when do the coaches decide the rules of the game ?. The AFL is there as an independent body exactly for this.
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player
- Thread starter Holden Hillbilly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Since when do the coaches decide the rules of the game ?. The AFL is there as an independent body exactly for this.
The solution is very simple.
You sub off a player and use the sub the injured player doesn't play next week.
If a coach wants to gain an advantage well they pay a price and lose that player for next week.
- Mar 19, 2020
- 23,151
- 56,315
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you bring logic and common sense to a AFL rule
That just isnt the traditions of our game im afraid
They won’t play. The afl hasnt banned it but they may as well have. No doctor would risk his reputation for such minor benefit to themselves.That's not true at all.
New rule reveal: AFL brings in 'medical sub' ahead of R1
AFL gives green light to an expanded bench that will include a medical substitutewww.afl.com.au
im 99 percent sure they won’t play.
where there might be some wriggle room is in the 9-12 day period. But so what? A player has already missed one game at that point which is more then enough to stop the sub rule being exploited by non injured players
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
That’s effectively what they have already done.
When a change is made why do supporters always sook about some minor perceived weakness of the change rather then focus on the massive improvement generated by the change?
if having a sub on for the last qtr is a massive advantage due to fresh legs for just 1 qtr (even though that sub isn’t good enough to be in the starting 22) then surely the disadvantage of losing a good player in the first qtr and replacing them with no one provides 4 fold the advantage to the other team in comparison. The other team has effectectively an extra fresh legs for 3 qtrs, not just 1.
how do you not see this? Is it that all big footy posters are idiots? Or is it that all people suffer from a negative change bias where they are happy to keep major injustices of the current system but can’t stand minor new injustices. Even if those minor new injustices get rid of the major existing injustices.
you are not idiots. You are all just suffering from negative change bias. Try to think rationally.
if having a sub on for the last qtr is a massive advantage due to fresh legs for just 1 qtr (even though that sub isn’t good enough to be in the starting 22) then surely the disadvantage of losing a good player in the first qtr and replacing them with no one provides 4 fold the advantage to the other team in comparison. The other team has effectectively an extra fresh legs for 3 qtrs, not just 1.
how do you not see this? Is it that all big footy posters are idiots? Or is it that all people suffer from a negative change bias where they are happy to keep major injustices of the current system but can’t stand minor new injustices. Even if those minor new injustices get rid of the major existing injustices.
you are not idiots. You are all just suffering from negative change bias. Try to think rationally.
No surprise it was Nick Vlastuin from Richmond
kinda a square up to last years gf where were man down a minute in. Actually we proved we could come back with one leas man.. no rule needed...
Bluelegs
Content Enthusiast
I will be absolutely shocked if Vlastuin misses next week due to a corkie.
It is relevant if you only want players to be injury subbed if the injury is serious.
people are complaining about abuse of the system by non injured players with the 12 day injury guide in place. If there was no 12 day guide the complaints would be even worse cos in that case they would actually be justified unlike now.
the goal isnt to have players with other injuries miss 12 days. It’s to miss a game so the system isnt abused by non injured players resting. if they said 7 days then it’s easier for doctors to manipulate so they don’t miss a week. They can’t do that with it being 12 days. It’s too obvious. This new rule is genius.
He won’t play round 2.
I love how "it's about player welfare" but if you use your sub, then someone gets concussed, well that's tough t***ies. Not about welfare then is it? This rule should be scrapped at the end of the weekend. When's the last time a team finished a game with 17 players? What matters is the 18 on the field, not the 22 total. You have 4 interchange players, use them.
He will miss cos he was replaced by a sub.
What a stupid post. benches Dont matter now? Are you serious? I would say you were stuck in the 1960s but even in the 1960s before interchanges they still had subs because of concerns of unfairness created by injuries.
I think we know Steve Hockings BF alias...
But the whole point of the sub is to not leave the team down a man on the bench. Regardless of whether the injury is a 3 day injury or a 3 month injury, the team is still down a man on the day.
The change was sold as a player welfare improvement....if a player was concussed they were already out of the game in previous situation, how has player welfare improved?
This is the entire reason why coaches pushed for it, it is nothing to do with player welfare.
There is no difference to the sub that was trialled in 2011, remember that...3 interchange and a sub to make it fair in case of injury so both teams could keep rotating.
This is no different, coaches will sook and complain if they actually get an injury as it will again mean they don't get that boost of fresh legs for Q4 if they have to make the injury sub in Q1, whilst the Tigers can sub out a bloke with a cork late Q3.
Nobody liked the sub in 2011-16, primairly because it didn't aid fairness, because coaches didn't leave it their as an injury sub...they wanted to tactically deploy an extra fresh set of legs in Q3....so if you actually copped an injury you were at a disadvantage still.
And it does nothing for player welfare.
Lol...the audacity to call others idiots, yet you're to stupid to see the blatantly obvious advantages. (Even after you may have realised your dumb comment that any injured player has to serve 12 days)
Last edited:
Exactly and it's always has been and should remain a game of attrition.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Did you quote the wrong post?
replacing an injured player does not make it any less a game of attrition.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 41,849
- 48,512
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hardwick said he should be ok to play.
1 week in and the rule was abused. Who'd a thunk it.
It needs to be auto 12 days/1 game minimum.
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
My understanding is that the rule is 12 days. So Vlas is out next game. If that's not right and he plays then it's a total lurk.
If they were being cautious because they reckoned he could hurt himself with that knock then ... I'm not sure the rule is working properly. But then if he is hurt enough that a really good player has to take a week off then maybe it is working properly. interesting situation.
If the Tigers took Vlas off knowing he was out next week then they must have thought that the injury was enough to potentially cause serious damage if he kept playing. It's all about the end of the season for the Tigers after all. Not sure if that is manipulating the rule, or on the edge of the intent.
If they were being cautious because they reckoned he could hurt himself with that knock then ... I'm not sure the rule is working properly. But then if he is hurt enough that a really good player has to take a week off then maybe it is working properly. interesting situation.
If the Tigers took Vlas off knowing he was out next week then they must have thought that the injury was enough to potentially cause serious damage if he kept playing. It's all about the end of the season for the Tigers after all. Not sure if that is manipulating the rule, or on the edge of the intent.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 41,849
- 48,512
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The Concussion sub is 12 days. The injury sub is "The team doctor has to believe it is an injury... yadda yadda".
So if Vlaustin recovers earlier he is free to play.
I wonder if we can use this with Burgoyne. Get 3 full quarters out of him then "Well, he is rather old. Old people take longer to recover."
