News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Shadow89]

We're reading the same thing here mate.

Why do you think they only put the mandatory 12 day recovery against concussion? I promise you that if a player is cleared by the doctor within those 12 days they will be able to play.

Read the edited above. They've extended it to any circumstance that utilizes the medical substitution.

We're not saying the same thing at all.

 

[Bald]

Read the edited above. They've extended it to any circumstance that utilizes the medical substitution.

We're not saying the same thing at all.

I didn't say we were saying the same thing. I said we were reading the same thing.

If you injure yourself at work and are granted a month away from work to recover, but in 3 weeks you recover and visit your doctor for a review so you may return to work and that's accepted and put through, the doctor was never wrong in the first place. This will be exploited. Until I read "All subs will need to sit a 12-day mandatory recovery period" there is a grey area.

 

[Sentinel]

“An unused sub will still have a game credited to their games tally”

Why. So dumb.

Imagine officially debuting or being listed for any other milestone game as the sub and not even getting to step on the park..

Pre-interchange though I think they used to count the 19th and 20th man in the official tally even if the player wasn't brought on. That precedent may be why they've decided to do the same here for consistency in the records.

 

[Stevi_Tigers]

Imagine the poor unused sub who wins a premiership medal

 

[Sentinel]

I can't do this, lol - you've had it presented in black and white and you still argue your own point of view despite the facts presented to you. It clearly states that ANY player who is removed as a result of the medical substitute will not be able to play for a mandatory 12 day period. It's saying the exact thing that would allow you to accept it...yet you don't accept it due to your own faith in your own point of view overriding the actual statements presented to you. This is the world we live in now.

I'm out.

This is from The Age:

The doctor can only rule out a player if they deem them to have an injury that would take a minimum of 12 days to recover. But unless they have concussion, the player can play in their club’s next game if they recover before 12 days.

 

[Bald]

This is from The Age:

The doctor can only rule out a player if they deem them to have an injury that would take a minimum of 12 days to recover. But unless they have concussion, the player can play in their club’s next game if they recover before 12 days.

Thank you.

This is what I'm saying, the player CAN recover in the 12 days if their subbing off was not as a result of a concussion, hence why the mandatory 12 day period ONLY applies to the concussion.

 

[Dunger]

Get ready everybody, Hocking's about to do something stupid (again)

 

[Bald]

Imagine the poor unused sub who wins a premiership medal

Who's the 23rd best player on your list? You better get him prepared.

 

[Sentinel]

Thank you.

This is what I'm saying, the player CAN recover in the 12 days if their subbing off was not as a result of a concussion, hence why the mandatory 12 day period ONLY applies to the concussion.

That is correct, yes. There's a mandatory rest period for concussion only.

A doctor must believe that the player has an injury which would require a minimum 12 day recovery period to use the injury sub in the first place, but then if they do happen to recover earlier they can be signed off to play (excluding concussion). It is open for exploitation.

 

[Shadow89]

That is correct, yes. There's a mandatory rest period for concussion only.

A doctor must believe that the player has an injury which would require a minimum 12 day recovery period to use the injury sub in the first place, but then if they do happen to recover earlier they can be signed off to play (excluding concussion). It is open for exploitation.

You guys realize the AFL can just request extra independent medical inquiries if players make 'miraculous recoveries', right? If clubs do this, they only get one shot at it, and then it starts becoming suspect. There'd be a media shit storm and it wouldn't be worth all the furore just to try to get some nobody on the field, to play minutes for what is probably a better player.

Apologies though to ThePhreshOne , as that's not information that was contained within both the AFL report and the AFL's statement...which is pretty egregiously omitted. I've deleted my post as I quite clearly was unaware that the AFL had once again screwed up...damn my optimism.

 

[Bald]

You guys realize the AFL can just request extra independent medical inquiries if players make 'miraculous recoveries', right? If clubs do this, they only get one shot at it, and then it starts becoming suspect. There'd be a media sh*t storm and it wouldn't be worth all the furore just to try to get some nobody on the field, to play minutes for what is probably a better player.

Apologies though to ThePhreshOne , as that's not information that was contained within both the AFL report and the AFL's statement...which is pretty egregiously omitted.

No need to apologise.

I agree the repercussions are severe, but there's so much room for grey area when dealing with opinion and it's hard to say that an opinion is wrong after the fact (especially multiple days after the fact in relation to injury).

They solve it simply by applying the 12 day rule to any sub, simple.

 

[dont bowl there]

No need to apologise.

I agree the repercussions are severe, but there's so much room for grey area when dealing with opinion and it's hard to say that an opinion is wrong after the fact (especially multiple days after the fact in relation to injury).

They solve it simply by applying the 12 day rule to any sub, simple.

Except in a grand final. Does anyone think a club will care about a fine if at 3/4 time they haven't had an injury and have a fresh player waiting? But the coaches said they promise they won't exploit it, the same people that were using runners to block space then whinged when it was taken away. **** the coaches, they are the biggest blight on the game by far.

 

[Dangerousfield]

That is correct, yes. There's a mandatory rest period for concussion only.

A doctor must believe that the player has an injury which would require a minimum 12 day recovery period to use the injury sub in the first place, but then if they do happen to recover earlier they can be signed off to play (excluding concussion). It is open for exploitation.

I see an explosion in "hamstring awareness" cases! Then early in the week that "awareness" disappears and player is signed off as now ok for next week.

AFL has written yet another easily rorted rule, the bigger the game, the more likely a substitution, guaranteed if winning a final is involved and the hamstring awareness etc will always be to a fringe player.

 

[Sentinel]

You guys realize the AFL can just request extra independent medical inquiries if players make 'miraculous recoveries', right? If clubs do this, they only get one shot at it, and then it starts becoming suspect. There'd be a media sh*t storm and it wouldn't be worth all the furore just to try to get some nobody on the field, to play minutes for what is probably a better player.

I agree with this, although the AFL would need to have fairly substantial/conclusive proof to overturn a club doctor's own medical report and issue any punishment.

It's impossible to say whether clubs will actually exploit it or not, but there is a reasonable grey area and historically where grey areas exist clubs will push the envelope.

 

[Shadow89]

No need to apologise.

I agree the repercussions are severe, but there's so much room for grey area when dealing with opinion and it's hard to say that an opinion is wrong after the fact (especially multiple days after the fact in relation to injury).

They solve it simply by applying the 12 day rule to any sub, simple.

Nah there definitely is. I got on my high horse based on their shoddy reporting, and I was definitely wrong.

Completely agree on the mandatory part (which is what I thought there were doing because it's just f*cking common sense).

Said this in another thread, but, the AFL seems to just create problems for themselves where there are none - which should honestly be their slogan

 

[dont bowl there]

I see an explosion in "hamstring awareness" cases! Then early in the week that "awareness" disappears and player is signed off as now ok for next week.

AFL has written yet another easily rorted rule, the bigger the game, the more likely a substitution, guaranteed if winning a final is involved and the hamstring awareness etc will always be to a fringe player.

I don't get why the sub doesn't expire at 1/4 time, the same "injury" clause as they have now but anything after 1/4 time is just bad luck. Isn't it all about not having the players too fatigued? What good does a sub in the last quarter do to that? It's so obvious (well the obvious thing is to not have it at all).

 

[Kappa]

How does it protect them? There's already 4 on the interchange, if a player gets concussed he can be replaced. What happens if multiple players get concussed from the same team?

It protects them by removing the temptation for coaches to put concussed players back on the field to help them win the game. Now they just sub them out instantly and get a fresh man, thus the concussed player is more protected.

 

[Kappa]

How do you know the player has told the Dr the absolute truth of the injury...if it went to the tribunal, the Dr and player can say it's confidential and no details can be released.

Im pretty sure fraud cases overrule doctor patient confidentiality

 

[Purple Suit]

It protects them by removing the temptation for coaches to put concussed players back on the field to help them win the game. Now they just sub them out instantly and get a fresh man, thus the concussed player is more protected.

Then why bother for other injuries? It should just be concussion, simple.

 

[Kappa]

Then why bother for other injuries? It should just be concussion, simple.

Well that's a different argument, but u can't deny its better than nothing as far as proving the afl is taking steps to protect against concussion.

 

[Thetrader15]

Im pretty sure fraud cases overrule doctor patient confidentiality

You think the AFL would take a Dr + player to court on fraud? That would be a criminal case, and need DPP to initiate charges.

I don't even know if fraud does overrule confidentiality.

Any legal minds on here?

 

[Underarm]

Then why bother for other injuries? It should just be concussion, simple.

Why should 1 injury get treated different than an other?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Except in a grand final. Does anyone think a club will care about a fine if at 3/4 time they haven't had an injury and have a fresh player waiting? But the coaches said they promise they won't exploit it, the same people that were using runners to block space then whinged when it was taken away. fu** the coaches, they are the biggest blight on the game by far.

If they do it in a grand Final they wont be playing the next week anyway.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's Rocket Surgery, which is even harder!

As long as there is an advantage, players and coaches will exploit it. It's up to the AFL to make sure the rules reflect common sense. A player deliberately making a tackle go high by dropping the knees or lifting the arm up isn't footy, it's exploiting a loop hole in the rule the AFL deliberately make ambiguous so they can change interpretation as they change socks.

I disagree mate, players have been dropping low, wriggling around, lifting their arms for as long as I can remember which is the 70’s. The tackler still could not touch them high.
As the game has evolved the tackling got better but more reckless and in the last 8 year’s the AFL decided it’s the bloke with the balls fault? Other than ducking his head the fault is always the tackler and it should be penalised. The players will very quickly change the way they tackle if the correct free is paid when it should be.
Why can’t Selwood lift his arm for all tackles? because some tackles are strong and won’t allow him to. For me this is just rewarding the weak tackler and penalising the ball player.
Anyway we won’t agree and it is what it is. Auskick

 

[Pacman Carney]

You think the AFL would take a Dr + player to court on fraud? That would be a criminal case, and need DPP to initiate charges.

I don't even know if fraud does overrule confidentiality.

Any legal minds on here?

Apparently someone here has an Uncle who is a QC