New Concussion Sub Rule 2013

[Skoob]

So the AFL have announced a rule change that will allow teams to bring their sub on for 20 minutes whilst an injured player is assessed for concussion.
The rationale I guess is remove the temptation to leave a potentially concussed player on the ground because they either don't want to activate a sub unnecessarily early or have done so already.
To me this really is a knee jerk reaction to appear as they are doing something. Trust must be put into the doctors' assessments and if you have to be a player short for 20 mins so be it.
How long before we see a team fake a head knock so they can use a sub for a quarter and still be able to use him in the last quarter. (ie. sub for second qtr and again for 4th quarter).
There are other injuries that occur putting a player out for 20 mins but able to return, so you either sub or don't.
Is it necessary for this kind of injury or is it unfair?


My first thread so be kind and discuss.

 

[POBT]

My first thought is that if it encourages clubs to take a conservative approach to players with head knocks, then I don't have a problem with it. I get that clubs may try and take advantage of the rules but that's something I'm willing to live with.

 

[Ironmonger]

It feels like this is pretty much what we have the interchange for.

I agree with POBT that this will cause clubs to take a more conservative approach to head knocks, but only at certain points in the game.

I expect to see clubs take an extremely conservative approach to head knocks early in the second quarter, when they can give their sub a run for twenty minutes, rest him early in the second half, then bring him on again.

I doubt it'll change the approach in the final quarter, once the sub has been made already.

You could argue that no one actually gets hurt by that approach, but I reckon we could come up with a solution that means players with possible concussion get treated the same at every point during the match.

EDIT: I think my biggest problem with it really is that it'll be impossible to punish anyone who abuses the system. So any club doctors out there prepared to waive their integrity to give their team an advantage can do so with impunity.

 

[adey115]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't....

Without the Temporary Sub - there is the temptation to leave a bloke running around who might be concussed (ie. push the boundaries of 'relying' on medical staff)
With the Temporary Sub - there is the temptation to say a bloke may have concussion and put on some fresh legs for 20 mins (ie. pushing the existing rule to your advantage - some may say cheating)

All I know is - one may save long term impairment, whereas the other is a potential opportunity to push a rule/'cheat'. Unfortunately given we're talking about head injuries, I say take a chance and include in the Temporary Sub rule.

I think its that important. Look at the recent studies in the US in relation to brain injury on NFL players, not to mention the reports here in relation to past players like Diesel Williams. I guess the point is - if someone with consussion gets hit again (ie. injury to the brain when there is existing injury to the brain), does it cause longer term impairment? We really don't know for sure, but it is plausible enough to think that in 2013, caution should be taken. That is essentially what happens with Linebackers game in and game out in the US - smacked hard enough to be semi concussed, but back in the play seconds later.

Remember blokes like Williams, Rhys Jones, Gary Wilson etc used to get smashed in the head weekly. Its not like that now - we're wiser. So we're being wiser again by bringing this in, because evidence seems to be leaning towards brain injury on brain injury can lead to permanent impairment.

Boxing is smart enough to have rules that prevent guys from even training in the ring for X number of months if they've been knocked out for X number of minutes in a fight. If I look at a guy like Jordan Lewis a few years back when he got smashed intercepting a mark - no doubt in my mind that is as bad as a knockout punch. Yet he was back on the field later on in the game from memory. To me, its 2013 - we're smarter, wiser and thinking as to a persons future.

 

[POBT]

Boxing is smart enough

There's a phrase you don't hear too often!

 

[Skoob]

I am not against formulating strategies to best protect players by offering alternatives that reduce the temptation to do so, in fact I think it is necessary as we learn more and become wiser.
But we have only recently introduced the sub rule to slow the game (purportedly to reduce high impact injuries) and in part we are now pushing that aside so a head bumped player is able to be replaced temporarily by another. This temporary substitution is not available in the circumstance of a knee injury, just a specific injury (head).
The game is being ruled now for specific situations and whenever that happens in any sport, the rules are open to manipulation.

The biggest problem (in my cynisim) is that I see it as a back slapping exercise of "Look , we've done something about it".

It is terribly sad (TERRIBLY) to think that the AFL believes that clubs need an incentive to fulfill their duties of care.
Teams are essentially now given an extra player if there is a head knock.
For the team that doesn't have a "head knocked" player, this is conversely a disadvantage, (depending on the stage of the game).
Rules dreamed up on a whim with 5 minutes consideration are rarely good for the game.
I would like to think there are alternatives like independant assessments of players.

Perhaps sometime in the future, if everyone is fair dinkum about protecting players, the AFL will evolve to a 36 team competition of 9s touch footy.

 

[Gibbo_88]

I like this rule, hope our club takes advantage of it from the start. Brown looks close to knocking himself out most games.

Sorry for the change of topic but also don't want to start a new thread. The interchange cap...Chances are we won't be in the top 8 come the end of the season, should the team be working towards trying to play games close to the cap suggested towards the end of the season. That way, next year the team would have a bit of experience with it (I think next year we will definitely be in top 8 contention) or is that a silly idea considering we could end up with a few less wins and Voss needs as many wins as possible to stay in the job?

 

[chopperduck]

I don't think you would play close to the interchange cap this season without basically chucking this season out the window, it would seriously cripple us in games. I think the club can tailor preseason programs to get us prepared enough for the change when it comes.

 

[steveys]

The ruling had to happen and is good for the game but yeh opens up a lot of opportunities for clubs to exploit it. I guess they are just going to have to introduce more rules around appropriate use and punishments for abuse of the rule i.e. heavy fines etc.

 

[BuntonRules]

One would imagine it would be the club doctor's call, & I am comfortable that their ethics would over rule any attempted skullduggery.

 

[chopperduck]

I doubt clubs will try and exploit this. Seriously, how much advantage are they really going to get by taking off a fairly fresh player in the 2nd quarter to play a total fresh player for 20 min. Also taking into consideration the sub isn't always the best player or a better player than the person you are taking off. Really can't see any exploit of this giving anyone any great advantage.

 

[BigCat2]

Yeah, and it'll have to be a head knock of some sort...you can't fake that.

It's much harder to fake than a tweaked leg muscle.

 

[Ray Button]

Picture the following scenario:

A player is brought off with 'suspected' concussion early in the second quarter, and the sub goes on.

Now, a lot of footballers are not exactly renowned for their mental facilities, and in 10 minutes time, when the concussion memory test is applied, I'd say there is a chance of said player not passing the test, thus possibly precluding a healthy player from re-entering the field.

End result is that the sub has to stay on and can't replace anyone for the remainder of the game. This, and the fact that I also tend to trust the integrity of the club doctors, makes me think that it's unlikely the system will be abused.

 

[dlanod]

Picture the following scenario:

A player is brought off with 'suspected' concussion early in the second quarter, and the sub goes on.

Now, a lot of footballers are not exactly renowned for their mental facilities, and in 10 minutes time, when the concussion memory test is applied, I'd say there is a chance of said player not passing the test, thus possibly precluding a healthy player from re-entering the field.

End result is that the sub has to stay on and can't replace anyone for the remainder of the game. This, and the fact that I also tend to trust the integrity of the club doctors, makes me think that it's unlikely the system will be abused.

No different from today, except the sub would only be able to go on after the player has been ruled out so the team is down a player for that 10 minutes.

Today the rule is that someone who fails a concussion test can't return. So your postulated moron (assuming the premise is correct) will still fail the test and still be held out for the rest of the game, and the sub will still be activated as the other option is to knowingly play a man down.