Mega Thread General MFC Discussion Part III

[Proper Gander]

It's a ******* horrible idea, it's coaches who want extra subs leaning on the AFL using concussion to guilt them.

If coaches want subs, get rid of the ******* bench and just have 4 subs. Use them whenever you want for anything.

fu** might even force coaches to leave players forward to rest them and stop them having 18 midfielders. Crazy.

Everyone across the world of professional sport has learned lots about concussion in the past 10 years. The scenes where a player KO’d in the early part of a game gets sent on again late are no longer a feature - thankfully.

And yes. Have injury subs. Or don’t. I’m fine with whatever the uniform rule is. But don’t introduce a specific sub just for one type of injury. Firstly it may be manipulated. Though much more likely it will lead to unimagined complaints and tedious BF threads about one team getting a sub, but the other not when he got 25 fractures and all.

 

[Topkent]

Everyone across the world of professional sport has learned lots about concussion in the past 10 years. The scenes where a player KO’d in the early part of a game gets sent on again late are no longer a feature - thankfully.

And yes. Have injury subs. Or don’t. I’m fine with whatever the uniform rule is. But don’t introduce a specific sub just for one type of injury. Firstly it may be manipulated. Though much more likely it will lead to unimagined complaints and tedious BF threads about one team getting a sub, but the other not when he got 25 fractures and all.

It makes no sense that if you land on the ground and break both your legs you can't be replaced, but a bloke who gets a slight elbow that feels groggy is automatically replaced.

The only fair way is if one team uses a concussion sub the other team gets a free sub to use for any purpose, but then you'd need an extra 4 subs just in case. So why not just get rid of the bench.

 

[Proper Gander]

It makes no sense that if you land on the ground and break both your legs you can't be replaced, but a bloke who gets a slight elbow that feels groggy is automatically replaced.

The only fair way is if one team uses a concussion sub the other team gets a free sub to use for any purpose, but then you'd need an extra 4 subs just in case. So why not just get rid of the bench.

I reckon the problem is basically - your bench are the subs. By all means rotate the bench with the guys onfield, but the four in number are there for you to replace up to four per match who go down (rare).

Coaches have been using interchange for so long as strategic advantage in fresh legs, matchups with opposition or whatever that they consider the bench a kind of unassailable strategic right.

If the AFL do bend to coaches wishes for a sub rule beyond the 4 guys already on the bench, then apply it to all injuries that finish the game for a player on that day, not just concussion

 

[Blackas87]

I suspect it’s got something to do with how easy it would be to manipulate if it extended to injury, given you could just take a player off claiming tightness or something, while a concussion comes with the new protocols so you’d be unlikely to use it otherwise.

No doubt there will be a couple of games that will lead to outrage when a Collingwood or Richmond player gets an injury early and they play with 3 on the pine tho

You could also manipulate the concussion rule. Sub a player out saying he got a head knock, give him a concussion test, he passes, he plays next week

 

[Ando727]

Concussion sub is dumb. I can only assume it is to get clubs to thoroughly check out potential concussion incidents? It’s still a bit daft. Firstly it implies that clubs don’t look after their players sufficiently without new rules to encourage it. Secondly, it implies that clubs don’t look after their players sufficiently... I could go on

One of the laughable reasons given was that Medical doctors were being placed in a difficult position: imagine that, having to make a medical call as a doctor - which apparently is hard because your club will likely lean on him and influence his decisions. I mean, what is that suggesting about the medical professionals employed across the AFL if they need to be protected from having to make corrupt medical diagnoses?

 

[Proper Gander]

One of the laughable reasons given was that Medical doctors were being placed in a difficult position: imagine that, having to make a medical call as a doctor - which apparently is hard because your club will likely lean on him and influence his decisions. I mean, what is that suggesting about the medical professionals employed across the AFL if they need to be protected from having to make corrupt medical diagnoses?

I think you said what I was trying to say much better than me.

I think rules like this imply clubs are crap in terms of the health and welfare of their players, and that their doctors are too weak to make the right medical call. It seems like overkill on the Doctors front - they are subject to pretty strict rules and enforcement as it is.

I honestly think this is AFL hopping on an issue incredibly late in the day, and giving themselves a pat on the back for an announcement that they reckon is very “now”.

 

[Russian Demon]

I think you said what I was trying to say much better than me.

I think rules like this imply clubs are crap in terms of the health and welfare of their players, and that their doctors are too weak to make the right medical call. It seems like overkill on the Doctors front - they are subject to pretty strict rules and enforcement as it is.

I honestly think this is AFL hopping on an issue incredibly late in the day, and giving themselves a pat on the back for an announcement that they reckon is very “now”.

At the end of the day the club doctors are paid to keep the players healthy. Their job security isn't helped by doing the right thing.

Only way you can fix the problem of misaligned incentives is to make the afl pay for the doc of each club.

 

[markm106]

Not sure if I agree with a concussion only sub. I guess AFL haven’t got confidence they clubs will pull concussed players off. I think if they want it then bring in a medical sub. However needs to be monitored somehow. Can’t just have a player come off and then be totally fine the next week. Although let’s face it that can actually happen with a tight hammy or something.

 

[Topkent]

Imagine a scenario where team A has 2 players do hammys in the first quarter and then has a bloke break his collarbone in the 3rd. They play the second half with 19 men.
Team B has no issues at all but then right on half time their worst player on the ground gets a slight head knock, gets substituted out and they've essentially played the game with 23 men.

That's ****ed.

 

[Bluelegs]

The new potential concussion rule is pretty ******* stupid

Imagine two players collide in a contest. One breaks a collarbone so his team is now a man short. The other one gets ko'ed and has concussion, so his team get to replace him

How is that fair?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

If they do make it an injury sub Garry Lyon made a good suggestion. Any player that is subbed off will be forced not to play for at least 12 days; same as the concussion rule. Good way to stop coaches from just using the sub as a way to manage fatigue.

But honestly there shouldn't be a sub at all.

 

[markm106]

If they do make it an injury sub Garry Lyon made a good suggestion. Any player that is subbed off will be forced not to play for at least 12 days; same as the concussion rule. Good way to stop coaches from just using the sub as a way to manage fatigue.

But honestly there shouldn't be a sub at all.

I like that suggestion. It’ll make coaches think twice before subbing a player out. But I’m sure there’ll be backlash as they could’ve done with fresh legs but didn’t want to rule a player out the next week.

 

[Bluelegs]

I like that suggestion. It’ll make coaches think twice before subbing a player out. But I’m sure there’ll be backlash as they could’ve done with fresh legs but didn’t want to rule a player out the next week.

Injury sub is just so vague. If a coach can sub a player off for a corkie, 'general soreness' or 'hamstring awareness' to get some fresh legs on in the last quarter it will be a farce.

Then again the coach might decide their worst player is going to be dropped for the next week anyway, or plan a rest week for a player and just bite the bullet.

All around a stupid, poorly thought out rule. Why are we listening to what the coaches think the rules should be?

 

[TheCount]

You could also manipulate the concussion rule. Sub a player out saying he got a head knock, give him a concussion test, he passes, he plays next week

Well no, because it wouldn't work that way. From the half a paragraph I've read, the sub could come on while the player gets a concussion test, and would stay on if the player is declared to have a concussion, at which point that player is out for 12 days.

If they open it up to injured players, the same consequences would need to apply.

 

[Grimesy87]

I honestly love how there was a poll on Fox footy or one of the Twitter pages late last year, and it asked about the worst rule bought in.

It was like 60% in favour of the sub rule being the worst rule bought in.

Yet only a few months after that, here we are debating the introduction of the sub rule yet again, this time under the guise of "concussion sub".

There is already a rule on concussion tests, where a player can't come back on once he fails the test. What difference is a concussion vs a knee or hammy. It's just more indecision and more jumping at shadows from the AFL. The best thing Gil could do is boot his boot up Hockings arse, and bring someone in with half an idea.

 

[Russian Demon]

Ticketek waiting time....... anyone else trying to book tix?

Anyone know if Trident is Premium band 1 or 2?

 

[Blackas87]

Ticketek waiting time....... anyone else trying to book tix?

Anyone know if Trident is Premium band 1 or 2?

Yeah waiting. Trident is band 1

 

[Russian Demon]

Yeah waiting. Trident is band 1

I got seats on Level 2 for a change, I'm usually up on 2A.

Shorter walk to the bar

 

[00Stinger]

well this ticketing is a ****ing shit show

Log on at 12.55 and get on the site at 1.02, the club tell me to select zone 4 so I can get into the Hassett and Ryder rooms.

At 1.02 that wasn't even an option

I still got level 2 seats in the Ponsford stand but that is ****ed for me. I can't take the kids in the Hassett or Ryder rooms for them to have a space to move around. Now I need to either find a baby sitter or not go as I can't get a 5 & 2 year old to stay in the one seat for more than 10 mins

 

[Blackas87]

I got seats on Level 2 for a change, I'm usually up on 2A.

Shorter walk to the bar

I’m usually in the Olympic stand level 2 but got the southern stand level 2 this game.

 

[Russian Demon]

The ticketing system is pretty terrible

 

[Proper Gander]

The ticketing system is pretty terrible

Ticketek are dumb.

Club members with a home game membership are told in the email to reserve tickets redeeming a $0 ticket, then you go to the link and it asks you to choose between adult upgrade for 40 something dollars or $0 for junior child only age 1-5

I found it all super confusing

 

[Tulip]

The new potential concussion rule is pretty ******* stupid

Imagine two players collide in a contest. One breaks a collarbone so his team is now a man short. The other one gets ko'ed and has concussion, so his team get to replace him

How is that fair?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Its not fair at all, but you need to look at it through the lens that a storm is coming. It'll happen in America first, and will naturally move here. We are still in the infancy stage of understanding CTE, but what they do know is very scary. I don't think it'll end contact sport or anything, but it'll probably see a reduction, at least a short-term one, of kids playing footy with contact rules. The AFL won't be able to afford the lawsuit if it comes, and they're getting in ahead of the curve in whatever way they can to mitigate the risk now that the seriousness is known.

Another way to look at it, along the lines of your example, is that CTE is a bit bigger than footy. You can heal a broken collarbone, you can heal a broken leg. All you can't really heal is a broken spine, which we knew already hence the entrenched laws about high contact and push in the back etc., and CTE.

 

[Proper Gander]

Its not fair at all, but you need to look at it through the lens that a storm is coming. It'll happen in America first, and will naturally move here. We are still in the infancy stage of understanding CTE, but what they do know is very scary. I don't think it'll end contact sport or anything, but it'll probably see a reduction, at least a short-term one, of kids playing footy with contact rules. The AFL won't be able to afford the lawsuit if it comes, and they're getting in ahead of the curve in whatever way they can to mitigate the risk now that the seriousness is known.

Another way to look at it, along the lines of your example, is that CTE is a bit bigger than footy. You can heal a broken collarbone, you can heal a broken leg. All you can't really heal is a broken spine, which we knew already hence the entrenched laws about high contact and push in the back etc., and CTE.

I agree totally with all of this.

I get the why - I’m just a bit confused about the how. The mandated rest from games for a player with concussion makes sense. The blowback from coaches or whoever demanding a sub replacement in the circumstances makes less sense. Replace the player from the existing interchange bench

 

[Russian Demon]

I can imagine an AFL where a Gus Brayshaw walks away after the second knock because risking your future isn't worth it.

 

[Blackas87]

Well no, because it wouldn't work that way. From the half a paragraph I've read, the sub could come on while the player gets a concussion test, and would stay on if the player is declared to have a concussion, at which point that player is out for 12 days.

If they open it up to injured players, the same consequences would need to apply.

When the sub rule was in place a decade ago, coaches used it during the last quarter if no injuries had occurred, bringing on a fresh player.

The concussion test takes 20 minutes doesn’t it? You could take a player off without a head knock during the last quarter, give him the concussion test and have a fresh player on.