Remove this Banner Ad

News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

This will allow non starting players to be injected into the game whenever a coach thinks a match-up isn't working or if fatigue is setting in.
 
If its not concussion, there needs to be a real penalty if a club abuses the rule or mandatory 2 weeks off. Also if they a caught abusing the rule. game forfeit. No ifs, no buts.

Or no subs injury subs after half time. Concussion ok, injury. No. Stop you just subbing out guys who are a bit tired.

Jack Reiwoldt last night on 360 said straight up the clubs would abuse the rule and there needed to be safeguards.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

This will allow non starting players to be injected into the game whenever a coach thinks a match-up isn't working or if fatigue is setting in.
If its not concussion, there needs to be a real penalty if a club abuses the rule or mandatory 2 weeks off. Also if they a caught abusing the rule. game forfeit. No ifs, no buts.

Or no subs injury subs after half time. Concussion ok, injury. No. Stop you just subbing out guys who are a bit tired.

Jack Reiwoldt last night on 360 said straight up the clubs would abuse the rule and there needed to be safeguards.


I think clubs should have spotters like the NFL. When they spot an incident, they evaluate the incident. There should as you suggested be big penalties for people exploiting the rule. I think one way of combatting this is to not allow any communication between the coaching staff and the medical expert. The decision needs to be free from the coaches.
 
No it doesn't. For concussion, it will require missing a game or 2. But with any other injury, the player will be able to play the next week. It will be exploited rampantly.
It is also trying to exploit effectively rotating more players through the interchange bench so they can maintain congestion as much as possible.
 
Subbed players should be forced to miss two games if subbed off, to prevent misuse and abuse.
That's not necessarily fair on the injured player who might legitimately be injured but recover after week. I reckon it will still be abused in any event. Must win games where a team might roll the dice in the second half of a game, Willie Riolli's first game back following suspension..
 
Subbed players should be forced to miss two games if subbed off, to prevent misuse and abuse.
Subbed players should have been used via the players already on the interchange bench. That was the whole point of interchange bench in first place to have players to replace injured players out of the game. Coaches have abused it and now wanting to make a mockery of the whole reason it was brought into the game in the first place. It is meant to be 18 v 18 players. Not 23 v 23
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

Club doctors must provide the AFL with a medical certificate on the first working day after the match as evidence the substituted player sustained the injury.

Any club found to be breaking the medical substitute rule can be sanctioned "for conduct unbecoming, or prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the AFL, or to bring the game of football into disrepute".


The whole thing hinges on what they classify as 'breaking the substitute rule' and what the punishment is.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Bit of a joke....do we also have a substitute for (a) hamstrings, (b) serious knee injuries, (c) shoulders etc? Why treat concussion differently?

the thing that irks me about a "23rd" man is the fact that, 'injuries' was the reason we went from 19th man to 20th man as reserves which was then used again to justify turning the 2 reserves into interchange, and then that wasnt enough, because the coaches then argued that if there was an injury one team would be disadvantaged so we went to 3 on the bench to resolve that, but then the coaches argued that if there was an injury that would affect rotations and one team would be disadvantaged so we went to 4 on the bench so that we could allow for injuries etc, and now with 4 on the bench we say we need a 23rd man because if theres an injury that might disadvantage one side..... and you know as night follows day, the next argument will be to allow the sub on even if there isnt an injury (because it can liven up games), and then it will just become 5 on the bench... and then coaches will argue 'what if there's an injury?" and ask for an extra sub.

Its the same justification every single time; and yet for over 100 years we coped very nicely with 2 on the bench and 20-30 interchanges at most (usually less). But somehow, no, thats impossible now. Why is it impossible all of a sudden? Didnt players get tired 30 years ago? Didnt players get injured 30 years ago? I dont care about the lateness of the decision, I care (ie resent) the AFL falling yet again for the Coaches disingenuously pushing for rule changes that simply are not necessary and will damage the way the game is played.
 
Club doctors must write medical certificates when a player is subbed out, so it needs to be a genuine injury otherwise the doctor risks being charged with fraud and losing his medical license, not worth it.
 
Hawks 2012-15 played two rucks and swapped one out for a runner if there were no injuries. yet another reason you can dis our greatness

FWIW i'd play 5 on the bench, but two of them take a shower and dress at half time
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top