Re-Introduce the sub for finals

[ottoman]

During the game Lethal made the comment that the sub rule should be re-introduce but for finals only. Personally I thought the idea has a lot of merit. I don't think any player would complain about getting a spot in a finals side, even if it is as a sub.

My only proviso would be that it remains as a 4 man interchange plus a sub, not 4 man including the sub.

Thoughts.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

A no from me.

(Did Leigh say that? What have I done? Disagreeing with the great man )

 

[ottoman]

A no from me.

(Did Leigh say that? What have I done? Disagreeing with the great man )

Bad call SV. You know the great man is never wrong.
Your dissent has been noted.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Bad call SV. You know the great man is never wrong.
Your dissent has been noted.

It's 5.45am just back from airport.
I'm blaming that.

Sorry Leigh, you're right, I'm wrong

Just a lapse on my part.

 

[Vicky Park]

During the game Lethal made the comment that the sub rule should be re-introduce but for finals only. Personally I thought the idea has a lot of merit. I don't think any player would complain about getting a spot in a finals side, even if it is as a sub.

My only proviso would be that it remains as a 4 man interchange plus a sub, not 4 man including the sub.

Thoughts.

Agree, think it has merit, but as an injury sub only? To be used when a player is injured and cannot return to the field. Not a sub who replaces someone playing badly, only to have an injury occur a minute later! We've all seen that.

 

[ottoman]

Agree, think it has merit, but as an injury sub only? To be used when a player is injured and cannot return to the field. Not a sub who replaces someone playing badly, only to have an injury occur a minute later! We've all seen that.

I was thinking something similar but how would you police that.
Say for example Blair is having a bad game. The coach wants to sub him so all he has to do is fake hamstring tightness and off he comes.
Since it is only for the finals series I think if the coach wants to roll the dice and take that risk then just let them.
But if a player does genuinely get injured early on in a game at least a finals game is not being potentially decided by lack of rotations, or at the very least the affect is being minimised.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I don't mind this idea

 

[Vicky Park]

I was thinking something similar but how would you police that.
Say for example Blair is having a bad game. The coach wants to sub him so all he has to do is fake hamstring tightness and off he comes.
Since it is only for the finals series I think if the coach wants to roll the dice and take that risk then just let them.
But if a player does genuinely get injured early on in a game at least a finals game is not being potentially decided by lack of rotations, or at the very least the affect is being minimised.

The sub comes on when the 'injured' player dons the tracksuit, to take no further part in the game? I agree policing it, or ensuring the coach does not manipulate the situation, could be difficult.

I have heard Leigh's suggestion, and I thought he was referring to an injury sub. In the context of discussing Moore and Varcoe being down and not returning to the field.

 

[doodles98]

I'm in favour of an injury sub for all games. Only activated when a player is injured. It will just help reduce the impact of in game injuries on results. Can't see any downside to it really.
The player to be subbed out can be assessed by both clubs doctors to avoid skullduggery.

 

[doodles98]

I was thinking something similar but how would you police that.
Say for example Blair is having a bad game. The coach wants to sub him so all he has to do is fake hamstring tightness and off he comes.
Since it is only for the finals series I think if the coach wants to roll the dice and take that risk then just let them.
But if a player does genuinely get injured early on in a game at least a finals game is not being potentially decided by lack of rotations, or at the very least the affect is being minimised.

What an unrealistic example. Bucks would never want to sub out Blair. He's absolutely crucial to our structure and gameplan. Crucial ! Blair would also most likely be terrible at faking an injury as well.

 

[ottoman]

The player to be subbed out can be assessed by both clubs doctors to avoid skullduggery.

That's a good idea.

 

[ottoman]

What an unrealistic example. Bucks would never want to sub out Blair. He's absolutely crucial to our structure and gameplan. Crucial ! Blair would also most likely be terrible at faking an injury as well.

Yeah, not the best example. Not to mention the uproar from the supporter base if he were to ever get subbed.
I should have used a fringe player in my example

 

[doodles98]

Yeah, not the best example. Not to mention the uproar from the supporter base if he were to ever get subbed.
I should have used a fringe player in my example

Not to mention the unlikely probability that he'd be playing a bad game in the first place.

The other thing you could have is an automatic one week off the following week for the injured player subbed out..

 

[swiftdog]

It's a no from me. The team that then can't bring a sub in is at a disadvantage. If they make the rules so that if one team brings on the sub another team can too then we're almost back to where we started with the sub rule in the first place.

It sucks to lose a player to injury but it happens in a contact sport. Sure, the team that has less players to rotate will run out of legs much of the time. However, there are still a number of examples where the team with less players still run out winners (yesterday for example) to suggest that losing a player or two doesn't guarantee a loss and certainly doesn't warrant bringing in another sub rule that didn't work all that well to begin with.

 

[MyManLynch]

I'm in favour of an injury sub for all games. Only activated when a player is injured. It will just help reduce the impact of in game injuries on results. Can't see any downside to it really.
The player to be subbed out can be assessed by both clubs doctors to avoid skullduggery.

I don't want Essendon's Club Doctor coming anywhere near our players...

 

[Scodog10]

I'm in favour of an injury sub for all games. Only activated when a player is injured. It will just help reduce the impact of in game injuries on results. Can't see any downside to it really.
The player to be subbed out can be assessed by both clubs doctors to avoid skullduggery.

Doesn't that open it up to extra skullduggery? An independent medical advisor from the AFL might be a better option.

The suggestion has merit for finals only, IMO. One thing's for sure it was a breath of fresh air to hear Lethal adding value instead of his usual captain obvious comments.

 

[barrackers]

I don't like the idea of different rules for the finals. Yeah, I know the umps usually put the whistle away, but this is another level.

If a sub is to be returned it needs to be in addition to the 4 interchange. To stop clubs abusing it I'd simply make the player subbed out ineligible to play the following week. Obviously this wouldn't work in the grand final though.

I'd much prefer that the number of interchange players increases. The greater the number on the pine the less impact/discrepancy occurs when losing players to injury.

 

[doodles98]

Doesn't that open it up to extra skullduggery? An independent medical advisor from the AFL might be a better option.

The suggestion has merit for finals only, IMO. One thing's for sure it was a breath of fresh air to hear Lethal adding value instead of his usual captain obvious comments.

I can't see many circumstances where another club would want to collude to have an opposition player subbed out dubiously. I mean if we tried to fake an injury to Blair to get him off the ground because he's stinking it up you can bet your bottom dollar the opp clubs doctor ain't going to be going along with it. Add in a one week mandatory week off for the subbed off player and you have pretty good assurance it would be used properly.

 

[Scodog10]

I can't see many circumstances where another club would want to collude to have an opposition player subbed out dubiously. I mean if we tried to fake an injury to Blair to get him off the ground because he's stinking it up you can bet your bottom dollar the opp clubs doctor ain't going to be going along with it. Add in a one week mandatory week off for the subbed off player and you have pretty good assurance it would be used properly.

I was thinking differently.

A player is borderline to return to the field one team doc says it isn't worth the risk and the other says he could play the game out. Our club docs have a history of allowing injured players back onto the field and I wouldn't feel comfortable with them having a say in diagnosing another teams players.

An independent AFL doc removes the grey. I'm likewise inclined to say that clubs wouldn't collude in the circumstances you described.

 

[mike123]

A no for mine


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[doodles98]

I was thinking differently.

A player is borderline to return to the field one team doc says it isn't worth the risk and the other says he could play the game out. Our club docs have a history of allowing injured players back onto the field and I wouldn't feel comfortable with them having a say in diagnosing another teams players.

An independent AFL doc removes the grey. I'm likewise inclined to say that clubs wouldn't collude in the circumstances you described.

yes good point sco.. the potential for doctor stand-off is high; even with supposedly infallible medical people who always do everything in the players best interest.
I agree we'd need an independent doctor for it to work.

 

[Ketchup]

Ben Kennedy likes this. He may be able to get a game

 

[sideswipe]

I initially liked the idea, then thought about all the manipulation it would cause. I would guess if available, an injury sub would have been used by every club in just about every match this year.

 

[jjsmitty8]

I like it and don't think it should be exclusively for finals.

It'd be 4 on the bench and a sub. The only time the sub plays is a) during a 20 minute concussion test or b) when the club has ruled out a player for the game. Once the sub is made there's no going back, the guy who's been injured is off for the day. I can't see how anyone is disadvantaged by this, both teams still have 4 on the bench.

 

[Pacman Carney]

During the game Lethal made the comment that the sub rule should be re-introduce but for finals only. Personally I thought the idea has a lot of merit. I don't think any player would complain about getting a spot in a finals side, even if it is as a sub.

My only proviso would be that it remains as a 4 man interchange plus a sub, not 4 man including the sub.

Thoughts.

I think he said a concussion sub.
4 interchange remain however the concussion sub can only be used in the event of a player being concussed.
that was my take