News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Suma Magic]

Teams will have to hold over two players now. Jesus Christ Hocking you maniac.

 

[Suma Magic]

And no medical approval needed for a concussion test. Just pick a player for a test early in the third and let the sub go nuts until 3QT.

 

[faible]

Players are still allowed back on after any of those injuries if the coach allows them to. Players are not allowed to return from concussion under these rules. That's the difference

This is the only line of reasoning that makes sense to me. Injuries are part of the game, you shouldn’t get a generic injury sub for bad luck, and players can and will play through injuries if possible.

Houli did a calf in the GF and played through.

Concussion is different, the player is banned from returning to the field regardless of what they want to do, and there’s significant long term implications beyond the usual musculoskeletal injury. So in order to ensure that concussion is taken seriously, allowing a sub for concussion ONLY makes sense.

In turn, the player subbed out MUST miss the minimum 12 days - potentially 2 games - and I’d then consider whether the opposing team can then use their own sub at a time of their choosing, to limit it being used in a tactical way.

 

[afairgo]

Have not read through all posts so apologies if this has been said many times before.... Why wouldn’t the team that does not have a player concussed have to retire a player in compensation. Rather than carry spare players who will generally not play. Just reduce both sides to 21 if a player goes down.

 

[peternorth]

What happens if a team loses TWo players to concussion? It could happen. Surely the afl must introduce two concussion subs each in case it happens.

 

[mr bagcroft]

They will be signing this off 20 minutes into the first quarter on Thursday night.
Bunch of pole smokers.

 

[Sentinel]

When Clarkson was on SEN speaking about the potential for the 23rd man, this was part of his push for it:

“What we’ve got at the present time is more significant concussion protocols than we’ve ever had, and this is a welfare decision it’s got nothing to do with performance, we’re just really concerned for the demands on the players. In this particular year we’re going to extend the games out to full length of time again at the same time as bringing down rotations, the speed of the game is going to quicken I think with the man on the mark rule."

I know it's the AFL rather than coaches who are bringing the rotations down and introducing the man on the mark rule, but if there is such increased concern across the board about the welfare of the players, why are we introducing these changes to the game in the first place?

 

[beema limapep]

Its gunna happen.

 

[beema limapep]

Teams will have to hold over two players now. Jesus Christ Hocking you maniac.

 

[Brezsa]

What happens if a team loses TWo players to concussion? It could happen. Surely the afl must introduce two concussion subs each in case it happens.

What happens if they get 5? Maybe we should scrap the reserves & all the listed players sir in the bench with a yellow vest

 

[peternorth]

What happens if they get 5? Maybe we should scrap the reserves & all the listed players sir in the bench with a yellow vest

But thats what the afl wants, a quicker flowing game. If more unjuries occur that prevents player from coming back on then there will be more subs permitted and added during the year!

should distinguish between rookie and senior listed players via different vest colours too

 

[Saint Shags]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Have a 23rd man.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to a concussion. That player is automatically ruled out for the next 12 days.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to injury. Takes the power out of the clubs hands and limits the chance for possibility of the 23rd being a strategic move.
New rules will have an impact on fatigue which means the possibility of injury occuring.

 

[faible]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Have a 23rd man.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to a concussion. That player is automatically ruled out for the next 12 days.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to injury. Takes the power out of the clubs hands and limits the chance for possibility of the 23rd being a strategic move.
New rules will have an impact on fatigue which means the possibility of injury occuring.

The AFL don't have any independent doctors at the moment, and it would then require them to have an AFL doctor on-site at every match, who may or may not have club allegiances for supporters to look back on and question.

 

[hawkman]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Have a 23rd man.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to a concussion. That player is automatically ruled out for the next 12 days.
AFL Doc has to rule the player out due to injury. Takes the power out of the clubs hands and limits the chance for possibility of the 23rd being a strategic move.
New rules will have an impact on fatigue which means the possibility of injury occuring.

Doesn't even need to be a AFL doctor. Simple rule if a player is subbed out they miss the game the next week

 

[RUNVS]

Doesn't even need to be a AFL doctor. Simple rule if a player is subbed out they miss the game the next week

I would go even further. I would have them have to miss the next 2 weeks.

 

[hawkman]

I would go even further. I would have them have to miss the next 2 weeks.

I would agree but the concussion exclusion is 12 days so they won't make it longer than that

The 12 days rule will be a nice advantage for the big Victorian teams that get many Thursday and Friday night games

 

[Vassp]

I’ve been saying this for all serious injuries, have 2 subs to use as you like , and 3 on the interchange bench.
last years grand final could’ve been ruined if the incidents were any worse during the first few minutes of the game.


edit, one sub first half, one sub second half.

 

[Suma Magic]

If it’s for injuries or for while a concussion test is being done, then it will be be abused.

If it’s just for concussion and the player has to miss 12 days then it’s not the end of the world. It’s still shit though, as clubs will have to hold over 2 players for every game.

 

[40porpoise]

I don’t mind investigating whether this rule is warranted. But seriously, do we have to rush to make a decision when the first match of the season is in 2 days?

This is amateur hour again from the AFL

 

[faible]

I don’t mind investigating whether this rule is warranted. But seriously, do we have to rush to make a decision when the first match of the season is in 2 days?

This is amateur hour again from the AFL

Clubs already have held-over emergencies at every game, it's not as massive a change as it seems.

 

[FRUMPY]

So team one loses a player to a hamstring 10mins in and team 2 loses a player to concussion 10 mins in - only one can be replaced......

****ing typical AFL bullshit rules

 

[Sentinel]

So team one loses a player to a hamstring 10mins in and team 2 loses a player to concussion 10 mins in - only one can be replaced......

******* typical AFL bullshit rules

They're not exactly alike though. The hamstrung player could technically return to the field, whilst a player failing a concussion test is barred from doing so by the rules.

 

[Taylor]

So team one loses a player to a hamstring 10mins in and team 2 loses a player to concussion 10 mins in - only one can be replaced......

******* typical AFL bullshit rules

Unless the player who does a hammy falls to the ground and then holds his head. Who are we to question whether he is faking it? That he knows he isn't playing next week anyway shouldn't factor into whether he would fake a concussion to be replaced on the field.

Especially if he is a key player.

 

[FRUMPY]

They're not exactly alike though. The hamstrung player could technically return to the field, whilst a player failing a concussion test is barred from doing so by the rules.

Doctor rules out player 1 due to severity of injury both both - one can be replaced, the other cant......how does that make sense in any form? Both would have to miss the next 12 days (as others have mentioned) - a normal hamstring is more than 12 days.

Or alternatively if you like, a broken leg and gets carted off to hospital, an ACL - neither are coming back on and cant be replaced....

 

[Sentinel]

Doctor rules out player 1 due to severity of injury both both - one can be replaced, the other cant......how does that make sense in any form? Both would have to miss the next 12 days (as others have mentioned) - a normal hamstring is more than 12 days.

Or alternatively if you like, a broken leg and gets carted off to hospital, an ACL - neither are coming back on and cant be replaced....

Yeah I get that there are obviously players who get injured during games who can't return, it's more the point around there being an actual rule from the AFL re concussion, unlike any other injury. To me that's enough of a distinction.