Autopsy AFL 2022 Round 21 - Demons v Pies Fri Aug 5th 7:50pm EST (MCG)

[adammania9]

They missed U14 level kicks at goal all night. Pies barely missed.

Yeah good kicking typically wins games of football. That’s a credit to Collingwood’s manic four quarter pressure

 

[CaptainHowdy87]

Whinging about everything during the game? Tick.

Brave after the fact? Tick.

Loves large men wearing underpants pretending to fight each other? Tick.

Appears to live their life through a football club? Tick.

You are the stereotype.

View attachment 1467533

Congratulations.

Settle down mate, geez

7 of the last 8. Cope.

 

[NSWCROW]

We know why Hoskin-Elliott got subbed yet ?

 

[deck]

They missed U14 level kicks at goal all night. Pies barely missed.

To be fair the few Gawn missed are consistent with his career trajectory.

 

[deck]

We know why Hoskin-Elliott got subbed yet ?

Coach thought the bloke sitting on the bench might be a better option.

 

[Stottzy]

In what world world would that be?

I understand it’s become a bit of a pile on from the wilfully naive and antagonistic trolls to bag Grundy. But he is still in the top few rucks in the comp when playing.

Ironically his dominant skillsets suit our current game style even more so now. Much more than the dour defensive style we played in the last handful of years. You know the ones where he had been named a dual All Australian.

Yeah sorry mate think you've misread my original post. Meant that Grundy should be in over Cox. Can't understand how media s#^t trucks like Sam Maclure think it's even a contest.

 

[NSWCROW]

Coach thought the bloke sitting on the bench might be a better option.

 

[No SPIN]

They missed U14 level kicks at goal all night. Pies barely missed.

You mean like Johnson on the goal line and Carmichael and Hoskin Elliot running into open goal?

 

[#40]

Bad kicking is bad football.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Coach thought the bloke sitting on the bench might be a better option.

Seen some dumb rules over the years but none dumber than the medi-sub

As if it wasn't going to get exploited

Where do they come up with this stuff

 

[Lampers]

Seen some dumb rules over the years but none dumber than the medi-sub

As if it wasn't going to get exploited

Where do they come up with this stuff

Agree. And it has a very simple solution (besides revoking the rule which won’t happen because the rule is the AFL showing they are doing something about concussion management).

Once a player is subbed out they are ineligible to train or play for 12 days, irrespective of any medical clearance.

This would prevent almost all tactical substitutions because there would be a price to pay.

But it makes too much sense to do that.

 

[Fadge]

Agree. And it has a very simple solution (besides revoking the rule which won’t happen because the rule is the AFL showing they are doing something about concussion management).

Once a player is subbed out they are ineligible to train or play for 12 days, irrespective of any medical clearance.

This would prevent almost all tactical substitutions because there would be a price to pay.

But it makes too much sense to do that.

It's not commonsense to do that.

There are many issues a player could have that renders them unable to play for the remainder of the game, but able to return the following week.

The more commonsense approach would be to just call it a substitute who can be called upon at any time, regardless of the reason, or a sub specifically for the purpose of concussion, where there is the mandated minimum period of 10 days to be out of action.

 

[peternorth]

Have five on the bench. But afl are worried about fairness aren’t they?

 

[Lampers]

It's not commonsense to do that.

There are many issues a player could have that renders them unable to play for the remainder of the game, but able to return the following week.

The more commonsense approach would be to just call it a substitute who can be called upon at any time, regardless of the reason, or a sub specifically for the purpose of concussion, where there is the mandated minimum period of 10 days to be out of action.

Losing a player mid game is bad luck and has been part of football forever.

The medical substitution was initially brought in for concussion only at the last minute, then changed to be for any injury reason at the last second. It is being habitually exploited by some teams.

Four players on the bench is already plenty. There is no need for a tactical fifth.

If you have a player concussed during the game, you should be down to three on the bench, just like you would be now if two players were concussed mid-match.

Why not two medical substitutions? Or three? Or seven? Just do away with it, or if it must exist make there be a downside to it rather than letting clubs with less integrity benefit over clubs with integrity.

 

[Fadge]

Losing a player mid game is bad luck and has been part of football forever.

The medical substitution was initially brought in for concussion only at the last minute, then changed to be for any injury reason at the last second. It is being habitually exploited by some teams.

Four players on the bench is already plenty. There is no need for a tactical fifth.

If you have a player concussed during the game, you should be down to three on the bench, just like you would be now if two players were concussed mid-match.

Why not two medical substitutions? Or three? Or seven? Just do away with it, or if it must exist make there be a downside to it rather than letting clubs with less integrity benefit over clubs with integrity.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but my comments were made on the basis there IS a fifth player available as a substitute, as is currently the case.

For whatever reason, the AFL just love grey areas in our rules. I don't understand it. It's as if the Laws of the Game committee sit around the table and postulate all the different options they have when making a rule change, and go with the one that has the most ambiguity in it...

 

[deck]

Have five on the bench. But afl are worried about fairness aren’t they?

I believe 6 and with 75 rotations I don't believe a injured player is that much of a disadvantage. I believe coaches would use 1 of those players sparingly anyway. They will still want there best players on the ground for maximum time.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Losing a player mid game is bad luck and has been part of football forever.

The medical substitution was initially brought in for concussion only at the last minute, then changed to be for any injury reason at the last second. It is being habitually exploited by some teams.

Four players on the bench is already plenty. There is no need for a tactical fifth.

If you have a player concussed during the game, you should be down to three on the bench, just like you would be now if two players were concussed mid-match.

Why not two medical substitutions? Or three? Or seven? Just do away with it, or if it must exist make there be a downside to it rather than letting clubs with less integrity benefit over clubs with integrity.

100% agree with this

 

[peternorth]

Losing a player mid game is bad luck and has been part of football forever.

The medical substitution was initially brought in for concussion only at the last minute, then changed to be for any injury reason at the last second. It is being habitually exploited by some teams.

Four players on the bench is already plenty. There is no need for a tactical fifth.

If you have a player concussed during the game, you should be down to three on the bench, just like you would be now if two players were concussed mid-match.

Why not two medical substitutions? Or three? Or seven? Just do away with it, or if it must exist make there be a downside to it rather than letting clubs with less integrity benefit over clubs with integrity.

Yes sir!

First sentence is spot on. If theyre worried about concussions, which is totally understandable, increase the bench size. but its all about fairness. if a player is concussed and cant return, it will disadvantage his team wahhhhhhh. and by having a sub, both teams only have four on the bench at the same time.


but i contend as always, why only 1 sub? what if the sub is activated and ANOTHER team mate is knocked out, or does a knee etc? then the team only has THREE on the bench!

 

[Carringbush2010]

We know why Hoskin-Elliott got subbed yet ?

All I can find it's a hip injury, whether it's a nasty knock or something more serious I dunno

 

[My Tilly]

View attachment 1468046

Settle down mate, geez

7 of the last 8. Cope.

I wonder what ever happened to that bloke?

 

[loopy08]

Seen some dumb rules over the years but none dumber than the medi-sub

As if it wasn't going to get exploited

Where do they come up with this stuff

Was designed to stop the argument of X team only won because they had more fit players. However, like majority of rule changes, because of the nature of competitive sport players and coaches adapt and learn how to manipulate rules to their advantage. The AFL are just slow to realise this. I suspect a tiny bit of ego and the floodgates theory might also play a part.

All teams have players that do it better, especially successful teams. Although I agree that it is annoying to watch as certain players (and by extension clubs) regularly are rewarded for bending / manipulating the rules. There are only two ways to stop it and ones illegal and incredibly poor sportsmanship to the point no team would publicly sanction or instruct a player to do it, whereas the other is downright unsafe. There are however ways to curb it such as penalizing the players and in some cases clubs that are more obvious about it.

An example of a player that was very good at this is Alex Rance. He was exceptionally good at infringing on a player to the point that it was technically a free kick but doing so in such a way it wasn't obvious and wasn't paid. Another example, from the team I support (Sydney), is Lance Franklin who regularly initiates contact just prior to a marking contest knowing that the likelihood is that the opponent will respond by grabbing him back.

The idea that any rule implemented isn't going to be exploited or bent by a player or club to try and gain an advantage is farcical. I do agree though that this rule is a lot easier to manipulate though.