Analysis Rule Changes Discussion and Vent thread

[squashface]

Because they technically took the field. No problem with that.

Coming out of the dugout?

 

[Keys]

So after a meeting with coaches a week or two ago the AFL has decided a day before the season starts to change the competition to 23 per side

It’s a fundamental change that should have been given better consideration

At the very least it should be a mandatory 12 day exclusion not just for concussion

 

[Chris_6678]

I think we the prospect of way more soft tissue injuries with increased 1/4's and a shorter pre-season , a Med Sub does make sense for this year ... but for the future im not so sure.

 

[Keys]

It's how it used to work when they had 19th and 20th men back when Keys was a young lad.

This is true. And once they came on the player who came off was done for the day, injured or not

 

[Broken_Chairs]

I like the change - was calling for it to happen instead of the original sub rule.

Assuming it's s 12 day lay off after substitution, can't see many teams looking to abuse it

 

[Bender_]

So after a meeting with coaches a week or two ago the AFL has decided a day before the season starts to change the competition to 23 per side

It’s a fundamental change that should have been given better consideration

At the very least it should be a mandatory 12 day exclusion not just for concussion

It's far too grey. Someone could roll an ankle then they could get up for the next week - then the AFLPA would be kicking up a stink about them not being able to play instead.

The timing and implementation of the rule annoys me more than anything else.

 

[Campaigner for good]

So after a meeting with coaches a week or two ago the AFL has decided a day before the season starts to change the competition to 23 per side

It’s a fundamental change that should have been given better consideration

At the very least it should be a mandatory 12 day exclusion not just for concussion

Agree. Makes it super easy to rule on. Subbed? See you in 12 days.

Having said that I think that the injury (not concussion) sub rule should be unavailable in the last quarter to stop tactical 'injuries'.

 

[Bender_]

Agree. Makes it super easy to rule on. Subbed? See you in 12 days.

Okay, but then someone makes a miraculous recovery but are denied playing and match payments, contract trigger clauses etc and there'll be legal issues. They can't police it that easy.

 

[WCE_phil]

Simple, you just game the ******* system. Play two rucks, get the second ruck to just go as hardcore as they can in the first 2 and a half - 3 quarters then come off with 'an abdominal injury' and put a runner / utility on the field.

Or for other sides it essentially means they only ever need to name 1 ruck and just have a utility or ruck in the 23rd spot just in case their ruck gets injured. Team can then have 4 runnings players on the bench each game.

 

[WCE_phil]

Stupid ******* AFL with stupid untested ******* rullchanges.

Just how far down Gills throat is Clarksons dick. I mean i'd suggest 5 inches but that may be more than what he's packing.

 

[MrKK]

They had one chance to avoid exploitation by mandating a 12-day break for all subs, and fluffed it. Clowns.

 

[WCE_phil]

They had one chance to avoid exploitation by mandating a 12-day break for all subs, and fluffed it. Clowns.

It was all so easy, almost certainly stops exploitation. But no, the afl admin are so out of touch with the game they can't see what is so ******* obvious. Whats even worse is this, guy has a head knock, comes off the ground, subbed for random abdominal injury and not even concusssion tested so can play next week.

It is absolutely ******* absurd.

 

[Bacchus]

I like the change - was calling for it to happen instead of the original sub rule.

Assuming it's s 12 day lay off after substitution, can't see many teams looking to abuse it

But it is not a twelve day exclusion for all injuries. Twelve days only for concussion. This is a great open gate for abuse and manipulation by coaches - has a sign saying 'Come and abuse me'.

 

[Bender_]

Sounds taylor made for Zane "4th quarter specialist" Trew!

 

[DanWCE]

I wonder if the reduced interchange will remain beyond 2021? There's been an audible push back about it, Simmo sounds like he hates it and has openly admitted if our side tires they will flood back to protect being scored against.

Pendles also said the medical sub rule feels like a rule to correct a rule as the coaches and players are much more worried about being overworked to breaking point because of less rotations. Certainly when the idea was first floated to have a concussion sub, I'm sure it was because coaches knew they were close to maxed out with rotations when they have access to 22 fit players, so you take one player away early in a game and you become heavily compromised.

Watch Dimma in the Making Their Mark footage around the GF. He asks whether they are definitely putting a line through Vlaustin returning, and soon after gets Houli on the blower to tell him to play through a calf injury because they have no choice. That's in shortened game time with better rotations.

 

[Dazzler9]

Teams just gotta pace themselves better.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

But it is not a twelve day exclusion for all injuries. Twelve days only for concussion. This is a great open gate for abuse and manipulation by coaches - has a sign saying 'Come and abuse me'.

Weird it wasn't mentioned in the AFL statement - reads like 12 days mandatory.

I suppose we can only hope that the AFL monitor and sanction appropriately afterwards - lest we end up with soccer-like "injured" players rolling around in fake anguish & being carried off the ground only to jog out post match ready to play next week.

 

[kane249]

" If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally. And on Grand Final day, an unused medical substitute player on the winning team will receive a premiership medal. "

Not a fan of this ruling

Re-draft these guys (Redden excluded) and get them up to 100?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

As has been said, make it 12 days for all subbed players and it solves itself. Still worth the risk for a player who is having an absolute shocker - sub him off, get a fresh and hopefully better option on, and let’s be honest he was probably getting dropped anyway if he was getting subbed so 12 days mandatory isn’t much of an issue.

Not having a mandatory ineligible period after makes it certain it’ll get used tactically every week.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I can't believe McGinnity played so many games. And still ended up with a positive W/L record.

UP THE COASTERS!!!

 

[MrKK]

As has been said, make it 12 days for all subbed players and it solves itself. Still worth the risk for a player who is having an absolute shocker - sub him off, get a fresh and hopefully better option on, and let’s be honest he was probably getting dropped anyway if he was getting subbed so 12 days mandatory isn’t much of an issue.

Not having a mandatory ineligible period after makes it certain it’ll get used tactically every week.

In the history of sport, every substitution with restrictions applied has been abused at one point or another to enable tactical substitutions. Of course the AFL are so arrogant they think they'll be able to succeed where others have failed.

 

[DanWCE]

As has been said, make it 12 days for all subbed players and it solves itself. Still worth the risk for a player who is having an absolute shocker - sub him off, get a fresh and hopefully better option on, and let’s be honest he was probably getting dropped anyway if he was getting subbed so 12 days mandatory isn’t much of an issue.

Not having a mandatory ineligible period after makes it certain it’ll get used tactically every week.

Thoughts on capping substitution use after a particular point in the game? I don't like the optics of someone coming on fresh in the last quarter and turning a game. I think that could be better managed - maybe give the team with the concussed player a few extra bench rotations.

The AFL might go really weird and say if one team uses their concussion sub, the opposing team may elect to use their sub also - injury or not.

 

[Bender_]

Thoughts on capping substitution use after a particular point in the game? I don't like the optics of someone coming on fresh in the last quarter and turning a game. I think that could be better managed - maybe give the team with the concussed player a few extra bench rotations.

Great idea. Please take over from Hocking ASAP. Extra 15 rotations per player out for the game.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Thoughts on capping substitution use after a particular point in the game? I don't like the optics of someone coming on fresh in the last quarter and turning a game. I think that could be better managed - maybe give the team with the concussed player a few extra bench rotations.

This is the issue with how they’ve set it up. Why wouldn’t your second ruck go down with a hamstring strain in the final 15 of a close game? There’s no penalty if they play the following week.

I see why they wanted a sub for concussion. I’m in favour of it. It removes any perceived penalty (loss of rotation) to a club doing the right thing and protecting players with head knocks.

The issue of adding a sub for injuries, the way they have, is that it will be abused. In a team sport with four on the bench, if you lose someone to a broken leg I’m inclined to say that’s just unlucky. Over the course of a season you’ll have some games down rotations and some games where your opponents are down. It’s fine.

The difference is nobody is waking up at 50 years old and failing to function because they broke their leg at 20. Concussion is a very different beast and needs its own rules. Lose all your rotations to injury? s**t luck, absolutely horrible, but that’s the nature of the beast with professional sport.

Instead, let’s add some untested rules in the day before the season starts (by the way, do we think any delisted players might have kept their job if this rule existed six months ago? Burst players, veterans whose match payment sits outside the cap? Seems plausible), and have the arrogance to think that our sub rule won’t be manipulated because we asked the clubs nicely not to.

Next year it’ll be “the sub is here to stay and doesn’t have to be injury related. Let’s be honest, clubs were using it tactically anyway, might as well just have it.” Spineless and brainless in equal measures.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

The AFL might go really weird and say if one team uses their concussion sub, the opposing team may elect to use their sub also - injury or not.

Premier League went back and forth over this, because if there’s any league that puts the AFL to shame in the self interest department it’s them.

Clubs basically wanted the option to have a fourth sub if the opponent had used their concussion sub. I think it got through in the end, haven’t heard anything about the EPL concussion subs since they were implemented actually. They did this weird thing where they deliberated for ages about it and had broad discussions with a number of stakeholders before acting, but I can’t imagine that worked.