Medical sub

Remove this Banner Ad

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2002
17,980
8,572
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
I don’t mind the medical sub.
But I reckon once a team activates its sub the other team should be able to activate theirs even if they don’t have an injury, because depending on when it happens a fresh player on the ground could be a massive advantage.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,010
30,212
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I don’t mind the medical sub.
But I reckon once a team activates its sub the other team should be able to activate theirs even if they don’t have an injury, because depending on when it happens a fresh player on the ground could be a massive advantage.
Just make the 12 day compulsory break the same for medical or concussion.
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2002
17,980
8,572
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Just make the 12 day compulsory break the same for medical or concussion.
you missed my point.

Getting a fresh player on the ground, late in a game, would be an advantage ... Especially with reduced rotations etc..
why should a team activating a medical sub get an advantage?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,010
30,212
AFL Club
Hawthorn
you missed my point.

Getting a fresh player on the ground, late in a game, would be an advantage ... Especially with reduced rotations etc..
why should a team activating a medical sub get an advantage?
And then the next game the player cant play. So there is a big risk.

Except in a grand final maybe.
 

Glenhope

Club Legend
Jun 3, 2015
1,159
2,375
AFL Club
Hawthorn
10 minutes to go in a GF and scores are close. Everyone's exhausted. Call your worst player off and tell him he's injured. Insert fresh player. You'd be mad not to.
 

footyfan1978

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2014
30,295
32,463
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
10 minutes to go in a GF and scores are close. Everyone's exhausted. Call your worst player off and tell him he's injured. Insert fresh player. You'd be mad not to.
The whole thing is a farce. Should have never been brought. Four on bench is plenty to cover for injuries and still be 18 against 18.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,955
13,766
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Are we any closer to understanding what the real rule is here?

At first there was talk of the replaced player having to miss the next game, but that is not the case.

Do teams have to actually prove a player was injured? With a medical report?

How serious does the injury have to be? Could you make something that is hard to prove like migraine up?

As Glenhope said, you'd want to use the sub anyway near the end of an exhausting game (is exhaustion an injury? Playing on after severe exhaustion on a hot day can cause severe damage. Duty of care and all that.)

And as nut says, the team without the injury all of a sudden is disadvantaged so they should be allowed to activate for any reason after that point too.




I realise I've brought nothing new here, but have the AFL clarified this? Or have they just taken a "oh fu** it whatever" approach?
 

powerrrrrrrrrrrr

Premiership Player
Feb 17, 2010
3,621
6,609
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Are we any closer to understanding what the real rule is here?

At first there was talk of the replaced player having to miss the next game, but that is not the case.

Do teams have to actually prove a player was injured? With a medical report?

How serious does the injury have to be? Could you make something that is hard to prove like migraine up?

As Glenhope said, you'd want to use the sub anyway near the end of an exhausting game (is exhaustion an injury? Playing on after severe exhaustion on a hot day can cause severe damage. Duty of care and all that.)

And as nut says, the team without the injury all of a sudden is disadvantaged so they should be allowed to activate for any reason after that point too.




I realise I've brought nothing new here, but have the AFL clarified this? Or have they just taken a "oh fu** it whatever" approach?
I think the rule has obviously been abused for what it’s initial purpose was and the AFL have just let it be.

I think initially it was only to be used if the player was assessed by the doctor and it was determined that they would be unfit to finish the game and play another if they were to within the next week or within a certain number of days (can’t remember the exact days).

With that in mind however they never included in the rule that the subbed player must miss than number of days though like the concussion protocol which was a mistake.

Every club has abused the medi sub I think at some point. Majority who are subbed out seem to nearly always play the next week after a minor complaint which is signed off by the doctors.

Either remove the rule or if a player is subbed they must miss the next week.
 

Patronus

Club Legend
Jun 17, 2003
1,461
73
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Storm
I don’t mind the medical sub.
But I reckon once a team activates its sub the other team should be able to activate theirs even if they don’t have an injury, because depending on when it happens a fresh player on the ground could be a massive advantage.
Does the other team have to nominate a player to be replaced and that player is not allowed to play for the rest of the game or are they getting to have 5 players on the bench while the other team is down to 4?
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,955
13,766
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Does the other team have to nominate a player to be replaced and that player is not allowed to play for the rest of the game or are they getting to have 5 players on the bench while the other team is down to 4?
You'd have to nominate a player to be subbed off, or 'red vested' as it was.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad