Analysis Rule Changes Discussion and Vent thread

[Bacchus]

Richmond has made this rule a “joke” in the first game with Vlaustin coming off with a’sore knee’. They are daring the AFL to sanction them and the AFL is too weak to take them on. So they have exploited it massively already and set the standard.
The idea of a concussion sub was good because that meant an automatic 12 days off but now with a knock on the knee being legit it’s a’joke’. Puts great pressure on the integrity of doctors. They should, but won’t, change it immediately.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

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.

Yeah agree, I don't see how it could ever be enforceable. Unless before a sub can be activated an AFL doc confirms that the club medico's assessment is reasonable - but what doctor is going to disagree with a colleague for being too conservative with an injured player??

Also, doctors are working off subjective reports of the injury. If old mate is proppy & says his calf pain is 8/10 then reasonably it could be a 12 day injury.

 

[DanWCE]

The rule only ever worked if the player subbed out could not play the following week. The Tigers absolutely would not risk Vlaustin sitting out of a game, and he would have played through the knock as 1000s before him have done.

In reality, the Tigers were with their backs to the wall, Carlton wouldn't lie down and continued to challenge them, and the game was at risk of getting away from them unless they injected a bit of energy.

 

[Dazzler9]

At least two things need to happen (that I can think of off the top of my head and were clearly forseeable even for a dunce like me):
1. Injury sub misses 12 days.
2. Opposition gets to activate their sub as well.

 

[Dazzler9]

3. A 6 month consultation period prior to implementing the rule in the first place.

 

[Keys]

3. A 6 month consultation period prior to implementing the rule in the first place.

Nah, 6 days was plenty.

After all the poo and wee leprechaun had already made up his mind what needed to be done so Gil could rubber stamp it

 

[Dazzler9]

Nah, 6 days was plenty.

After all the poo and wee leprechaun had already made up his mind what needed to be done so Gil could rubber stamp it

It beggars belief, doesn't it?

 

[Feeling Groovy]

Wouldn't a better option be to just increase rotations by a set number depending on when a player is ruled out of the game, decreasing as the game progressed, and no injury sub (i.e. first quater +XXX rotations, second quarter + XX rotations etc)? I know others have already raised this but the injury sub seems so ripe for abuse.

 

[Doashuey]

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.

I suppose there is nothing preventing that but I would be extremely surprised- and disgusted, if there was an AFL coach in today's game that would send out a bloke to injure or maim an opposition player. I know they are ruthless and will do almost anything for an edge over the opposition but I think they are all professional and have more integrity than to stoop to those levels. What does it say about the coaches faith in his team that he doesn't think they are good enough to beat the opposition playing footy but have to bring in a thug to injure his opposite number?

 

[Chris_6678]

Curious , have any teams been in trouble for going over the interchange cap?

 

[Bender_]

I suppose there is nothing preventing that but I would be extremely surprised- and disgusted, if there was an AFL coach in today's game that would send out a bloke to injure or maim an opposition player. I know they are ruthless and will do almost anything for an edge over the opposition but I think they are all professional and have more integrity than to stoop to those levels. What does it say about the coaches faith in his team that he doesn't think they are good enough to beat the opposition playing footy but have to bring in a thug to injure his opposite number?

One of the Carr brothers would've been up for it.

 

[WCE_phil]

Curious , have any teams been in trouble for going over the interchange cap?

Not AFAIK.

However as far as i know going over the cap (blood rule doesn't count as an interchange) is the same result as infringing the interchange in any other way. Ball goes to the opposition and it's a 50 metre penalty.

 

[Doashuey]

One of the Carr brothers would've been up for it.

There are players out there who would, but I doubt there are any modern day AFL coaches that would go down that grotty path.

 

[Bacchus]

I have just read the rule on the AFL site and it is a shocker. Player is supposed to be out for twelve days but they are not clear what will happen if he is not. Opened the door for anything to go through. Hardwick thinks it is good because it will give more players a go. Mentioned Bolton was cramping so they could have replaced him. A ‘concussion substitute’ has morphed into a fifth interchange player. Amateurish.


3. A Medical Substitute can be activated immediately after it is determined a Player is medically unfit to continue to participate in the match and, due to the nature of the injury sustained, it is reasonably determined the player will be medically unfit to participate in any match for at least the next 12 days.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

If it meant I got to play a game for the Eagles, I would 100% put my hand up to cut off Fyfe's luscious locks at the opening bounce to force him to sub himself off.

 

[MrKK]

Wait until Qualifying Finals where the winning team's next match will be >12 days away. Total free hit to abuse the medical sub in the QF.

And again in the GF. If we were in the GF and playing 2 rucks then I would stake my left nut on Williams/Vardy going off with an injury in the 3rd quarter.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Not AFAIK.

However as far as i know going over the cap (blood rule doesn't count as an interchange) is the same result as infringing the interchange in any other way. Ball goes to the opposition and it's a 50 metre penalty.

It’s also administered by an AFL official, unlike this rule in which a club doctor makes the call on their own club’s behalf, with no external checking until the Monday after the game.

Play Thursday, tell the club that pays your salary yeah I reckon this guy can come out now, sub is made, five days later you defend your stance, AFL ticks it off.

Astonishing.

 

[woosha24]

I might be in the minority here, but I actually dislike the interpretation of the sub rule as "this player is now too injured to play and should be removed from the game", and much prefer using the sub to rotate out a sore or tired player.

Is it against the spirit of the current rule interpretation? Absolutely. But IMHO I believe the AFL were wrong to get rid of the old sub rule from a few years ago and im glad its been brought back (albeit in a more "creative" format).

With the increase in playtime off the back of the covid year and a decrease in rotations I reckon we're going to see a lot more stress-type injuries, and players are going to be asked to play through them and of course risk injuring themselves further. I dont see anything wrong with managing a player with a history of injury when they are out on their feet in the last quarter, and an injection of pace and fresh legs at a point in the game when everyone is fatigued.

I hope we take full advantage of it ourselves to manage guys like Shuey who refuse to do the team thing and sit their arses on the pine when they're hurting. It might save a few careers in the long run.

 

[Chris_6678]

Eh i know it can be abused but i think to so many players will cop soft tissue injuries this year that i can see most clubs going to legit need the sub.

 

[Dazzler9]

2 interchange players, with unlimited rotations, plus 2 subs who can be utilised however the club decides. ??

 

[THE A5]

I hope this never sees the light of day at AFL level

 

[Bender_]

I hope this never sees the light of day at AFL level
View attachment 1084474

Gross

 

[Keys]

Inb4 Clarkson decides he likes it and the AFL introduces it after the mid season bye rounds

 

[Spange]

Read the Perth now article and I tend to agree with Simmos take on the rule

your whole game strategy goes out the window. Reminds me of how the NBA big man is essentially dead now with the small ball lineups. I’d hate to see this effectively rule out players like NicNat.

 

[FKASC]

Read the Perth now article and I tend to agree with Simmos take on the rule

your whole game strategy goes out the window. Reminds me of how the NBA big man is essentially dead now with the small ball lineups. I’d hate to see this effectively rule out players like NicNat.

I don’t like the sound of Simpson saying they might have to change their drafting going forward - away from ‘power athletes’ toward what I can only presume is endurance athletes.

I don’t want to see a return to drafting track and field runners like Tim Houlihan at the expense of contested strength.

Richmond are proving that a combination of an outside running game style plus contested ball winning ability = dominance.

Clearly someone like NN won’t be able to rely on so many stoppages to get his breath back, but that doesn’t mean his strength around the ball isn’t still crucial