Medical sub

Remove this Banner Ad

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2002
21,631
13,394
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.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,308
40,471
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
21,631
13,394
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.

Glenhope

Club Legend
Jun 3, 2015
1,255
2,592
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.
 
Aug 27, 2014
38,196
41,193
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.
 
Apr 12, 2010
14,674
23,286
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 * it whatever" approach?
 
Feb 17, 2010
6,388
12,473
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
1,509
161
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Apr 12, 2010
14,674
23,286
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
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.

Bump.

I don't know if it was THE difference, but at 3Q time last night, Geelong subbed out the injured Ratugolea and put in Luke Dahlhaus.

Normally a forward, Dahlhaus spent time in the guts as afresh player, opposed to some tired young Collingwood mids.

Geelong dominated and may well have won anyway, but it seems this was certainly a nice little boost, and it would only have been fair if Collingwood could have put Tyler Brown on at the same time or any time after.

Footy can be a complex game to officiate but the genius of the OP's suggestion is in its simplicity and common sense.

Make it happen AFL
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2002
21,631
13,394
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Bump.

I don't know if it was THE difference, but at 3Q time last night, Geelong subbed out the injured Ratugolea and put in Luke Dahlhaus.

Normally a forward, Dahlhaus spent time in the guts as afresh player, opposed to some tired young Collingwood mids.

Geelong dominated and may well have won anyway, but it seems this was certainly a nice little boost, and it would only have been fair if Collingwood could have put Tyler Brown on at the same time or any time after.

Footy can be a complex game to officiate but the genius of the OP's suggestion is in its simplicity and common sense.

Make it happen AFL

It’s ridiculous that this can still happen …
 

lusheslewis

All Australian
Oct 8, 2010
687
415
BEast Fremantle
AFL Club
West Coast
My idea for a sub rule with the following "fixes":
  • A team can have two players out through injury/concussion and still have a full interchange (IMO needed for finals).
  • A team isn't significantly advantaged by having a player injured.
  • Subs get guaranteed game time.
4 (or 3) Bench plus 2 Subs

Subs can be made at any time, for any reason in the first half but must be used at half time if not used already (this ensures the subs get some game time).

Each team gets 2 second half subs but can only be used for injury, concussion or if the other team uses their injury sub.


It's not perfect but better than what we have now in my opinion.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
11,731
21,711
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Either scrap it all together (injuries happen and all clubs are susceptible), or extend the bench to 5.
They won't extend the bench because it's counterintuitive to the reduction of rotations.

Problem is, if they cave to the complaints from the coaches that it's an unfair advantage and allow the other team to activate their sub once the first team does, the next complaint will be that the team with the injury has just lost their best player and had to bring on the 23rd best player as the sub, while the other team gets the luxury of pulling off their worst performer and replacing them with fresh legs. It swings the advantage too far back the other way.

The only genuine ways are to scrap it, extend the bench with no sub, or any player subbed off can't play the following week. The last one isn't fair on the subbed off player if they were genuinely injured, but capable of playing the following week, and also leaves it open for clubs to keep injured players on the ground if they don't want to rule out the possibility of them playing the following week.
 
Mar 15, 2012
8,186
23,727
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Either scrap it all together (injuries happen and all clubs are susceptible), or extend the bench to 5.
They won't extend the bench because it's counterintuitive to the reduction of rotations.

Problem is, if they cave to the complaints from the coaches that it's an unfair advantage and allow the other team to activate their sub once the first team does, the next complaint will be that the team with the injury has just lost their best player and had to bring on the 23rd best player as the sub, while the other team gets the luxury of pulling off their worst performer and replacing them with fresh legs. It swings the advantage too far back the other way.

The only genuine ways are to scrap it, extend the bench with no sub, or any player subbed off can't play the following week. The last one isn't fair on the subbed off player if they were genuinely injured, but capable of playing the following week, and also leaves it open for clubs to keep injured players on the ground if they don't want to rule out the possibility of them playing the following week.
Depending on the affected player, the sub rule often provides an advantage late in the game both through 'fresh legs' and a positional change where the sub isn't a like-for-like replacement of the injured player. Given the AFL now have mandatory rules for concussed players (as opposed to any other injury where a player technically can still take to the field) it should exist in one form or another. The interchange cap also plays a part here.

I would put forward some more alternatives:
  • Sub only for concussed players, not general injuries. This player will also miss the following week under mandatory rest periods.
  • Either team may make a substitution at or after three quarter time without the requirement for an injury. This removes any advantage which might be gained late in the game when one club has an injury and another doesn't.
  • A substitution can occur at any time in the game without the need for an injury. Like above, it's a roll of the dice as to when a club uses it though, in the case of injuries occuring after the sub has been made. This however might shift the sub too far from it's intended purpose of being an injury cover to a purely tactical move.
  • A team is free to make their substitution without any reason as soon as the opposing team has made theirs (following an injury).
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
11,731
21,711
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Depending on the affected player, the sub rule often provides an advantage late in the game both through 'fresh legs' and a positional change where the sub isn't a like-for-like replacement of the injured player. Given the AFL now have mandatory rules for concussed players (as opposed to any other injury where a player technically can still take to the field) it should exist in one form or another. The interchange cap also plays a part here.

I would put forward some more alternatives:
  • Sub only for concussed players, not general injuries. This player will also miss the following week under mandatory rest periods.
  • Either team may make a substitution at or after three quarter time without the requirement for an injury. This removes any advantage which might be gained late in the game when one club has an injury and another doesn't.
  • A substitution can occur at any time in the game without the need for an injury. Like above, it's a roll of the dice as to when a club uses it though, in the case of injuries occuring after the sub has been made. This however might shift the sub too far from it's intended purpose of being an injury cover to a purely tactical move.
  • A team is free to make their substitution without any reason as soon as the opposing team has made theirs (following an injury).
I don't see much different to previous versions or anything that solves the problems I mentioned.

1. That's what the most recent iteration of the sub started as. Then clubs complained and wanted it as a general injury sub, not limited to concussion. I doubt it goes back to this version.
2. This goes back to my previous problem where a team loses their best player to injury, while the other team gets to choose tactically which player comes off (worst performing player, or chance for positional change that might gain an advantage). It swings it too far in the other direction, where a team who has genuinely lost a player to injury, not only gets disadvantaged by the injury, but again by the other club being able to make the more tactical move.
3. While it leaves the choice in the hands of the clubs, when the roll of the dice starts backfiring, the clubs will just complain that it's unfair when they've used their sub and then gain an injury and become a man down. You can say 'too bad, it was their choice to use it early', but that won't change the clubs campaigning to get it changed.
4. Refer point 2.

The whole point of the sub is to balance out the disadvantage of getting an injury. It's a positive to counteract a negative. The fresh legs part is just a by-product of that. It comes with its own risks. The player coming on might have less impact than the player who came off. The player might completely stuff up team balance (too tall, too small, too slow). A Lachie Plowman with fresh legs isn't going to be better than Cripps if Cripps had to come off due to injury, even if Cripps had played 85% game time up to that point and wasn't fresh. He also wouldn't be able to line up at centre bounces. It would mean moving a Williams or Docherty to the middle, so Plowman can play down back. We would lose the efficiency of Cripps at stoppages and the rebound out of defence.
You either accept that part of it, or scrap it completely. All clubs are subject to the same potential advantages/disadvantages.

Even if they made it so that the player subbed off can't play the following week, to try and stop teams from faking an injury, it could still be used tactically.
Who's playing crap and likely to be dropped next week? Ok, that player is now 'injured'. Get the fresh legs on, the other guy wasn't playing next week anyway.

I don't have a problem with it the way it is. I also wouldn't have a problem if they scrapped it and just went back to 4 on the bench, or extended it to a 5 man bench with no sub. I just think changing it to anything different to that will create more problems than it fixes.
 
Feb 23, 2009
32,142
45,745
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
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.
Agree. Would be a sensible change, and stops the disadvantage being turned into an advantage for one team.

There'd be no point playing funny buggers, because the other team would have the same option.
 

Balmira

Debutant
Aug 23, 2020
146
419
AFL Club
St Kilda
I don't actually like the medical sub whatsoever. It comes with more cons than pros in my opinion. Firstly, if you nominate a young player, that's often one game they miss developing in the state league. When a medical sub is used, it also gives an advantage to the team using the sub. This could be fair if the other team were then allowed to use theirs. But even still, no injuries and you still have a guy sitting on the bench for two and a half hours, pretty often the same guy most weeks.

When you have an injury without the sub rule, it creates a bit of an underdog feeling, and makes the win all the more special. Plus, the AFL said when implementing the medical sub rule that it was only due to the disruption of covid and the amount of games that were being squeezed together and the higher risk of injuries that brought. This was never meant to be a long term thing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back