Injury Medical Sub - the first integrity check

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the chaps on First Crack if Weightman is subbed due to a head knock but never failed/fails a concussion test he is ineligible to play next week.

Such a dud rule. If you are replaced as a medical sub you should be ineligible for the following week whether you are concussed, have a corky you can get over in a few days or do an ACL.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sounds like a catch 22 for the dogs unless they can blame it on something else. But I suspect they just lodged it as a head knock as you've suggested which means they've cooked them selves for next week.
Knowing Dr Zimmerman, I know that Cody will be given the best medical advice which may be contrary to what the team would prefer to hear.
 
This has already been done hasn't it - players returning the next week after being subbed out?

Bevo is known for pulling some bizarre selection moves but instructing the doctors to take our best forward out of the game would be a new level for him.
 
This has already been done hasn't it - players returning the next week after being subbed out?

Bevo is known for pulling some bizarre selection moves but instructing the doctors to take our best forward out of the game would be a new level for him.

The difference here is he’s been subbed out specifically due to a head knock which has the required 12 days rest.

Others have overcome other injuries to play the next week but that doesn’t come with the mandatory concussion protocol which the AFL implemented.
 
The op really screwed up the wording and missed the point.

My concern is that the rule is that if you take a player out for concussion that they automatically miss 12 days.

Reports are saying weightman left the game with a ‘head knock’

whether it’s legit or not, whether weightman had a concussion or not isn’t really the issue.

The issue is that any team can attempt to avoid the 12 day concussion protocol by choosing which label they apply. They can say head knock and make a later call whether the player needs to miss the next game on their terms, not the afls.
 
The op really screwed up the wording and missed the point.

My concern is that the rule is that if you take a player out for concussion that they automatically miss 12 days.

Reports are saying weightman left the game with a ‘head knock’

whether it’s legit or not, whether weightman had a concussion or not isn’t really the issue.

The issue is that any team can attempt to avoid the 12 day concussion protocol by choosing which label they apply. They can say head knock and make a later call whether the player needs to miss the next game on their terms, not the afls.

They could equally say Cody had a calf injury which he then recovered from. Or ignore the head knock entirely during the game. The system relies on doctors not lying about injuries and concussions.
 
According to the chaps on First Crack if Weightman is subbed due to a head knock but never failed/fails a concussion test he is ineligible to play next week.

Such a dud rule. If you are replaced as a medical sub you should be ineligible for the following week whether you are concussed, have a corky you can get over in a few days or do an ACL.
While I absolutely agree that anyone subbed out should be automatically excluded from the following week's game, there's precedent for players being subbed off but not missing a game this year.

If he's cleared of concussion he should be allowed to play. BUT - the rule needs to be tightened for next year. As a matter of integrity, they can't change things part way through the season.

If it's a concussion, there's a less than zero percent chance the docs would let him play. We've been extremely conservative with concussions ever since Picken.
 
Last edited:
The op really screwed up the wording and missed the point.

My concern is that the rule is that if you take a player out for concussion that they automatically miss 12 days.

Reports are saying weightman left the game with a ‘head knock’

whether it’s legit or not, whether weightman had a concussion or not isn’t really the issue.

The issue is that any team can attempt to avoid the 12 day concussion protocol by choosing which label they apply. They can say head knock and make a later call whether the player needs to miss the next game on their terms, not the afls.
If a player truly did suffer a concussion, any club who lets them play the following week should have their doctor's licence removed and the club deregistered.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

While I absolutely agree that anyone subbed out should be automatically excluded from the following week's game, there's precedent for players being subbed off but not missing a game this year.

If he's cleared of concussion he should be allowed to play. BUT - the rule needs to be tightened for next year. As a matter of integrity, they can't change things part way through the season.

If it's a concussion, there's a less than zero percent change the docs would let him play. We've been extremely conservative with concussions ever since Picken.

There is, but there is also this:


Magpies coach Nathan Buckley revealed post-game that Jordan Roughead and Nathan Murphy had both passed their tests, despite being withdrawn from Saturday’s win over North Melbourne by club medicos.

Under league rules, the pair won’t be available for the clash with Sydney next weekend. But the Pies are likely to assess whether exemptions can be granted by the AFL’s chief medical officer.
 
Next week there is a huge decision for the AFL which will demonstrate if it maintains the integrity of the competition and the rules or if they shift the goal posts being finals and to suit certain teams.

Weightman was subbed off and out of the match after a head knock.

The dogs are already claiming it was precautionary and not concussion, in the hope he would be able to play next week.

Now we all know under the new medical sub and concussion rule that any concussion, no matter how severe, is a 12 day break. Meaning he cannot play the prelim next week.

So either, he was subbed out with a concussion (even if slight) and he misses.

Or they determine he wasn’t concussed which then means a perfectly healthy player was subbed out of the game for a fresh player. If he was not concussed and he was removed as a precaution, a precaution is not a reason for a medical substitution as they are saying at the time he is not injured. Meaning he cannot then be subbed out.

The AFL was very clear with the rules that they will come down hard on teams trying to circumvent the rules.

He’s either concussed and out next week, or the Dogs broke the medical sub rule.

Particularly when Johanisson was the medical sub who came on and kicked a goal for the dogs in a final decided by 1 pt, if it was a precautionary sub for a player who by their own admission was not injured, that’s a massive integrity issue.

This decision alone will either support the rule or remove any credibility the rule has.
Hasn’t this already been tested by the Pies and he won’t play?
 
Makes sense given the spirit of the rule. If it's bad enough of a head knock to sub a player out, it should be treated like a concussion.

100%. But in true AFL fashion a grey area exists.

I don't think you sub out a player at half time in a close final unless you have to, so if Weightman is OK to play he should be able to. But then we subbed out Josh Kennedy late against Hawthorn (calf I think) and he played the following week. Game wasn't particularly close and he's 34 so why not give Foley a run? Without the sub rule in place he would've just stayed on the ground or sat on the bench with someone else at FF.
 
What actually happened to Weightman? Was he hit by the karma bus?
Karma for what? You realize of the frees he received last week, only 1 you could put down to his doing.

We burying blokes for receiving one dubious free-kick now are we lol?
 
I have heard there's been a few head knocks throughout the season that resulted in a substitution, with the players playing the following week after it was determined not to be concussion. Thus the precedent says that it won't be an issue, and that dilemma here is being overstated. Not sure if true
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top