Analysis Rule Changes Discussion and Vent thread

[HoneyBadger35]

On a day where shameless self interest has shone through more than ever, I’d like to say if you want to hear a properly impressive old man yells at cloud rant from Keys on this very topic, the BigFooty Eagles Pod drops the Round 1 episode tomorrow night.

 

[06Premiers]

"To be eligible for a medical sustitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days...Club doctors must provide the AFL with a medical certificate on the first working day after the match as evidence the substituted player sustained the injury."

Closed that loophole I think.

The issue of tactical substitutes will definitely come up on GF day. Nothing to stop a close finish being manipulated by a fresh sub coming on for an "injury".

 

[Campaigner for good]

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.

But when a clinician is making the decision to rule them out it is much more likely to be legally defensible.

Everything is scammable for a motivated coaching panel...

What if a player gets crunched in a tackle and has a mild concussion?A team could partially do the right thing and sub them out but give the reason as a sore shoulder. Result is concussed player is eligible to play the next week.

 

[DanWCE]

What if a player gets crunched in a tackle and has a mild concussion?A team could partially do the right thing and sub them out but give the reason as a sore shoulder. Result is concussed player is eligible to play the next week.

That's putting wins before player health and wellbeing. That's Essendon.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

That's putting wins before player health and wellbeing. That's Essendon.

Or mid-2000s Eagles

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

Absolute BS, I agree with it for concussion but not for injury. Just silly rule, that coached will look to take advantage of.

 

[DanWCE]

Or mid-2000s Eagles

I would argue a few pingaz are good for a mental reset!

 

[kane249]

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.

Wolves used it the other night when they subbed their goalie off after he got knocked out, and they had already used all three normal subs also

 

[MrKK]

"To be eligible for a medical sustitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days...Club doctors must provide the AFL with a medical certificate on the first working day after the match as evidence the substituted player sustained the injury."

Closed that loophole I think.

The issue of tactical substitutes will definitely come up on GF day. Nothing to stop a close finish being manipulated by a fresh sub coming on for an "injury".

Doesn't close the loophole at all. How's the doctor going to diagnose on gameday how bad a minor injury is, without scans etc? Easy to say the next day that it wasn't as bad as first thought.

 

[06Premiers]

Doesn't close the loophole at all. How's the doctor going to diagnose on gameday how bad a minor injury is, without scans etc? Easy to say the next day that it wasn't as bad as first thought.

I guess if it's minor & the player feels he can still play, then he does.
If not, you take the risk of them not being able to play the following week.

 

[tigger_ferret]

I hate the AFL administration as much as anyone and creating a loophole that an injured player can get approval to play within 12 days is stupid beyond belief.

However, I hope it is a rarity, rather than the norm, that players return within 12 days. It will get manipulated regardless.

I can just see a team faking injuries each week with players returning the next, then the AFL will make more stupid rules and punishments to “fix” their own incompetence.

 

[MrKK]

I guess if it's minor & the player feels he can still play, then he does.
If not, you take the risk of them not being able to play the following week.

I don't see the AFL ever forcing a player to miss the next week, other than a concussion. Any sanctions would be against the club.

And what about an injury like cramp? Unable to continue in the current game but you know they'll be able to play next week. No sub allowed?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I don't see the AFL ever forcing a player to miss the next week, other than a concussion. Any sanctions would be against the club.

And what about an injury like cramp? Unable to continue in the current game but you know they'll be able to play next week. No sub allowed?

Subbed out with a calf strain.

“Oh we’ve sent him for scans and they’ve thankfully not come back as badly as we’d feared. We’ll ease him through this week, hoping for the best but not expecting too much.”

“Yeah he’s actually trained pretty well, but we still have to see if he can pass a fitness test.”

“Yep he’s passed his fitness test, good to go.”

Nobody is ever willingly taking a star out of the game if they’re a bit tired to get some fresh legs in, but good god they might as well have called this the concussion/‘pretend your second ruck is sore once his shifts are done and sub in some fresh legs for the final 15 minutes’ sub.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

The AFL claim they’ll sanction teams that breach it, but I’m not holding my breath.

Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any footy player who feels “tightness” and is sent for scans that reveal nothing didn’t genuinely fear for their health on gameday. It’s a long season, there’s plenty of sore bodies all year, you could come up with any number of reasons why any number of players are injured enough to sub off.

AFL isn’t going to launch a full scale investigation into whether Jack Petrucelle genuinely felt his hammy go or not during a game he happened to have 3 disposals to half time. Prove that the club doctor didn’t genuinely think the ruckman had structural damage to his rolled ankle with only minutes to make the decision. He did it last week too but still got up for the next game? Even more reason to be concerned at a recurrence.

To sanction teams is to acknowledge that their rule was easily manipulated. Better chance of them just introducing a permanent sub next season, and binning off the pretence of it being an injury sub.

 

[Cm Perfect]

Spineless and brainless in equal measures.

I think you've found a perfect new slogan for the AFL there.

 

[squashface]

'A whole series of headaches for everyone': Bevo slams new sub rule

Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has taken aim at the AFL over the introduction of the medical substitute just over 24 hours before the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

Beveridge raises some good points here

 

[Farang83150]

H

'A whole series of headaches for everyone': Bevo slams new sub rule

Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has taken aim at the AFL over the introduction of the medical substitute just over 24 hours before the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

Beveridge raises some good points here

How dare he questions Clarkson's decision to introduce the new rule.

 

[Bender_]

H

How dare he questions Clarkson's decision to introduce the new rule.

Clarko with some extreme little man syndrome.

 

[Rowan18]

At least it might give Leon Davis some company, as a player to receive a medal without actually playing in a winning GF.

Apparently Leon Davis didn't want that medal, however, I think that's a pretty limited view. I look at those GFs as an 8 "quarter" game. He played in 4 and did his part to ensure they had the chance to get the win. He also played a large role during the season that allowed them to get to a GF. I think he 100% deserves it.

 

[ziad]

The AFL claim they’ll sanction teams that breach it, but I’m not holding my breath.

Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any footy player who feels “tightness” and is sent for scans that reveal nothing didn’t genuinely fear for their health on gameday. It’s a long season, there’s plenty of sore bodies all year, you could come up with any number of reasons why any number of players are injured enough to sub off.

AFL isn’t going to launch a full scale investigation into whether Jack Petrucelle genuinely felt his hammy go or not during a game he happened to have 3 disposals to half time. Prove that the club doctor didn’t genuinely think the ruckman had structural damage to his rolled ankle with only minutes to make the decision. He did it last week too but still got up for the next game? Even more reason to be concerned at a recurrence.

To sanction teams is to acknowledge that their rule was easily manipulated. Better chance of them just introducing a permanent sub next season, and binning off the pretence of it being an injury sub.

Ha, First step is to state that a Dr is lying about a medical matter. Next it all just follows.
If the AFL had the guts to do it they probably would not have a concussion problem

 

[Wild Kelly]

If we are playing at home on a Friday or Saturday and the sub is not called on can he front up for the Beagles if they are playing the next day?

 

[Bender_]

If we are playing at home on a Friday or Saturday and the sub is not called on can he front up for the Beagles if they are playing the next day?

Double dipping on the games tally!

 

[DanWCE]

Double dipping on the games tally!

Payments too?

 

[Dylan82]

To be honest, if the competition restricted the interchange to about 60 and expanded the standard bench to six players (i.e. match squad of 24), then the issue of losing a player in-game to injury no longer presents any aerobic disadvantage - and six on the bench is more than enough to cover for an injury in any position.

It would avoid the substitute farce that we had to go through from 2011-2015 and are now set to repeat again, watching promising talent sitting the entire match on the bench rather than getting development.

And perhaps most importantly, it removes entirely any of the stigma that an injury may have been "faked" in order to gain an advantage

 

[Dylan82]

So with the new substitute rule - what is preventing a club from selecting a player to simply try and injure the opponent's best players during the first quarter and then be subbed off through "injury" at quarter time?

Imagine a finals-bound club making a number of WTF selections at the mid-season draft only for it to found out later on that these players are single-use wrecking balls for each final.