News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[doppleganger]

I think it is simple. One interchange a game for any player is all if it not for serious injury.
If you try to take a player off a second time and it not for serious injury he stays off for good.
That right there stops the coaches exploiting the bench for things it was not meant for. There cannot be mass rotations if you not give the luxury to exploit the bench for things it was not intended for.
It was not meant for rotations but before mass rotations was un-intended consequence of extending it to four there was never an issue with interchange that were no subs only. So I do not believe you need to strictly make them all four subs. I mean, you do not even need 4 subs and that would be a waste as then you got 3 or 4 players every round that virtually had no football at all on your list.

You are still in tactical mode.

How can a coach make changes at 1/4 and half time if players can only come off once? Already is getting complicated.

The breaks are there to give the 18 a rest.

Yeah, normally you don't need 4, but I guess the concern is concussion plus an injury or 2 and bang 4 subs is needed to ensure it is 18 v 18.

Making them replacements is actually about fairness, go back to picking your best 18 and create a plan to win based on those 18 playing 100% game time.

Not the current 22 where about 4 players play 100%, and the rest are then load monitored to play 85-60% game time.

 

[Kozzie_Magic]

What happens if 14 players get injured?

1 sub is better than no subs as fair as fairness from an early injury goes, whataboutism is such a dumb nonsensical argument.

You're going around in circles and ignoring reality. The rules had already been changed to allow for injuries be extending the interchange.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

What happens if 14 players get injured?

1 sub is better than no subs as fair as fairness from an early injury goes, whataboutism is such a dumb nonsensical argument.

To me, 'fair' means that you start the season, and each game on an even par.

The first part is done and dusted - different clubs get a head start each season due to the fixture. It is what it is. Unless you play each team at home, and away then this will never change. And even then, clubs with a true home ground get an advantage over clubs that share their ground.

The best way to achieve 'fairness' from the outset of the season is to conduct a true draw. Like the barrier draw the Melbourne Cup. Barrier 4 has a huge advantage over barrier 24 - but the draw was fair and square. No arguments or complaints.

But that will never, ever happen. So we move on....


In regards to it being unfair if a player gets injured early, I disagree. That's not unfair. You can avoid injury. You can avoid collisions. Vlaustin chose to recklessly go head first into a contest. If he pulled out, he wouldn't have been injured. That's not unfair, it was his choice.

Ablett's shoulders were dodgy before the game. He also could have gone softer at that contest, or not played at all. To claim it's unfair to lose a player due to injury is absurd IMO.

If coaches really, really care about the welfare of their players and don't want them to get hurt, they could instruct them to bcak it up a little. Don't be reckless with your bravery. Don't put your 'body on the line'. Don't go 'when it's your turn'. Don't sprint up and down the ground at full speed for 20 minutes straight.

It's unfair if you stand in a rabbit hole and do your ankle. But if you get hurt doing things that your coach has instructed you to do in order to win the game - then it's simply bad luck. Coaches know players get hurt in certain situations - so if they really don't want them to get hurt, whether it be for their welfare or because they don't want to be a player short for the rest of the game, don't put players in those situations! Simple!


What if a player dangerously collects a bloke's head with his forearm in a marking contest and breaks his own arm? Or if you try to kill someone with a hip and shoulder and pop your collarbone in the process? Both actions that players are literally coached to do.

Yet we want a sub rule to replace these guys??

It's so laughable that isn't even funny.

 

[HPKS]

They do, but some of them so far up their arse whilst they are a coach , that they probably would laugh ten years later when out of the coaching caper and think how stupid the admin were for the sport at the time to allow the narrow minded coaching mind at the time have so much influence on the sport rules themselves. The more I hear and see sh*t like this go down the more I think the sport really f’ed up big time when it did not have an independent body have total control of the sport rules and the people running the commercial aspects have nothing to do with it. So many of these rule changes now are not made for the good of the game but for things to do with workplace and financial reasons. When the leading competition that becomes a business entity first and foremost runs the sport and decides on the rules it is not a good place for the purity of a sport to stay true to why it was created for in the first place.

Sadly I don’t think it’s a sport anymore. It’s more sports entertainment than anything. It shows out in Our commentary every week. It has a manipulated draw. No incentive to really improve your club as it will make no difference the next year on who plays at the most popular time slots, no offence but Carlton getting beat every year is not the way to start your competition opening for the year. Your club can completely fail and you’ll still get looked after in the draft. Changes are made every year without not one thought of the lower levels of footy. One of the advantages of footy was you could watch it live but we’ve turned it into such a tv sports entertainment industry that now we have created competition with every other international sport due to this. We have a club that has limitations on memberships. I could go on but they’re seriously killing Aussie rules slowly.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

that is irrelevant when an employer is facing law suits and families of footy players dealing with brain damaged (memory loss, aggression, depression, suicide and changes in personality).

So one would think the head is sacrosanct then yes? Yet it isn’t.

 

[FRUMPY]

Club doctors must write medical certificates when a player is subbed out, so it needs to be a genuine injury otherwise the doctor risks being charged with fraud and losing his medical license, not worth it.

Doctor writes - 'tight calf'
AFL - Tick

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's not just not being able to hold the tackle though, it's the lowering of the knees and leaning into the tackler that causes head high contact.

A simple shrugging of a tackle is different. If a player shrugs your tackle, you have to let go before you make head high contact. Same as if your tackle slips low, you need to let go before it becomes a trip.

The issue here though is when a player initiates head high contact. Traditionally you shrug tackles to break free. No one wanted to cop one in the head - if that happened it was an unfortunate result for everyone. Now, the shrugging is designed solely to initiate head high contact and get a free kick.

If we care so much about the head (which is complete bullshit by the way) then why do we reward the player initiating the head high contact?

We don’t reward them and your say everyone When it is less than 5% of players.
Let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

I dispute that, if a player fails the concussion test they're ruled out anyway so can't come back on. This is all about the coaches wanting control and the AFL giving them something back after reducing rotations to 75 (and probably further in coming years).

The interchange was already increased from 2 to 3 to 4 due to Sheedy amongst others agitating for it to cover multiple injuries. I think Essendon had a game in the early 90s (against Melbourne from memory) where they finished with 16 fit players in the days of 2 on the bench. We already increased the interchange to cover injuries, there is no reason to now have a 23rd player as a sub.

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

Problem will be grand final day, no club will care about draft picks or premiership points, they will do everything to win that premiership.

 

[Obeanie1]

Yet we want a sub rule to replace these guys??

It's so laughable that isn't even funny.

It not laughable at all.

What is laughable is the Robbo's of the world pulling the hair out of their heads when they don't have any.

What people are not thinking about is the other changes made recently that have led to increased injuries this preseason.......and we haven't even played a true game.

Interchanges dropped from 90 to 75 = more strain on bodies.

Preseason reduced due to late finish to last season = more strain on bodies.

Game time increasing back to 20 min = 16 more minutes in a game than last season = more strain on bodies.

So three changes from last season all of which = more strain on bodies.

THEN we have the concussion issue getting more focus and the league correctly adjusting rules in an effort to look after the health of their employees should they suffer a clinical or sub clinical concussion. Concussion is NO laughing matter.

Now lets look at history. A lot of games end with a player injured who cannot return to the field. When that occurs well the coach can't exactly use the sub on a fake injury because a player is injured.

Then we have the case where injured players are forced back onto the field and risk further injury. Again not a laughing matter. We shouldn't expect an employee who is injured and in pain to return to the worksite.

So there are a fair few serious factors that went into making this call. All of them legitimate and non of them a laughing matter.

But people instead focus on the rare chance a coach will try and manipulate the rule to gain a slight unfair advantage. Now THAT is laughable!

 

[Sentinel]

Any club trying to exploit the rule do run the risk of it backfiring, in the case that you sub an uninjured player off and shortly afterwards an actual injury occurs and you can't replace them. For this reason I can't imagine any illegitimate changes would be made until quite late in the game.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It not laughable at all.

What is laughable is the Robbo's of the world pulling the hair out of their heads when they don't have any.

What people are not thinking about is the other changes made recently that have led to increased injuries this preseason.......and we haven't even played a true game.

Interchanges dropped from 90 to 75 = more strain on bodies.

Preseason reduced due to late finish to last season = more strain on bodies.

Game time increasing back to 20 min = 16 more minutes in a game than last season = more strain on bodies.

So three changes from last season all of which = more strain on bodies.

THEN we have the concussion issue getting more focus and the league correctly adjusting rules in an effort to look after the health of their employees should they suffer a clinical or sub clinical concussion. Concussion in NO laughing matter.

Now lets look at history. A lot of games end with a player injured who cannot return to the field. When that occurs well the coach can't exactly use the sub on a fake injury because a player is injured.

Then we have the case where injured players are forced back onto the field and risk further injury. Again not a laughing matter. We shouldn't expect an employee who is injured and in pain to return to the worksite.

So there are a fair few serious factors that went into making this call. All of them legitimate and non of them a laughing matter.

But people instead focus on the rare chance a coach will try and manipulate the rule to gain a slight unfair advantage. Now THAT is laughable!

What nonsense.

I disagree on many levels.

I still can't see how this reduces or prevents injury? Can you explain exactly how this helps with concussion?

The only apparent case for this is that coaches currently ignore the existing rules and send concussed players back out on the ground - and this will provide some incentive for them not to continue to do this??

That's unfathomable logic.


If the underlying issue here is that players get head knocks, this sub doesn't change that one skerrick.

If the underlying issue is that concussed players are being sent back out on the ground, that's simply appalling. Beyond appalling actually.

And thirdly, if coaches care so much about winning that they will send concussed players back on, then do you think they'd sub Dustin Martin out in the 2nd quarter of a GF and bring on a no name to replace him?? Please.


The only way to stop players from getting hurt, if that is in fact what we're trying to achieve here, is for coaches to consider their physical welfare when coaching them. Don't play injured players. Don't instruct them to be recklessly brave for their teammates. etc. etc.

 

[DamoESP]

Joke of a rule

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

The price tag attached to the 23rd man is significant.

With half the players in the league on guaranteed money and the other half an a base contract topped up by match payments, the game needs to find $2 million plus.

Your garden variety medical sub will most likely be a low paid battler or youngster on match payments.

I bet more than a few club CEO’s have called head office to find out when the money starts flowing to pay for the 23rd man.

Typical rushed decision making, not considering the full ramifications of any changes, is classic AFL.

Life for struggling clubs just got a little harder, and the drain on the AFL purse strings continues at the worst possible time.

 

[Power Raid]

So one would think the head is sacrosanct then yes? Yet it isn’t.

It is

That’s why the AFL are banning techniques that result in head high contact

 

[Libba39]

Just when you think the AFL is a fully professional organisation/league something like this comes along...

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It is

That’s why the AFL are banning techniques that result in head high contact

No it isnt, Head high contact is rife in the game because of poor tackling technique and no onus any longer on the tackler.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Just when you think the AFL is a fully professional organisation/league something like this comes along...

It's been the Auskick footy league for over 15 years now. Hardly a professional organization.

 

[Power Raid]

It not laughable at all.

What is laughable is the Robbo's of the world pulling the hair out of their heads when they don't have any.

What people are not thinking about is the other changes made recently that have led to increased injuries this preseason.......and we haven't even played a true game.

Interchanges dropped from 90 to 75 = more strain on bodies.

Preseason reduced due to late finish to last season = more strain on bodies.

Game time increasing back to 20 min = 16 more minutes in a game than last season = more strain on bodies.

So three changes from last season all of which = more strain on bodies.

THEN we have the concussion issue getting more focus and the league correctly adjusting rules in an effort to look after the health of their employees should they suffer a clinical or sub clinical concussion. Concussion in NO laughing matter.

Now lets look at history. A lot of games end with a player injured who cannot return to the field. When that occurs well the coach can't exactly use the sub on a fake injury because a player is injured.

Then we have the case where injured players are forced back onto the field and risk further injury. Again not a laughing matter. We shouldn't expect an employee who is injured and in pain to return to the worksite.

So there are a fair few serious factors that went into making this call. All of them legitimate and non of them a laughing matter.

But people instead focus on the rare chance a coach will try and manipulate the rule to gain a slight unfair advantage. Now THAT is laughable!

All good points and yes concussion is a serious issue. It’s a matter of life and death in some cases and suffering in others.

But I question, do doctors have integrity or not? They should make decisions based on the facts of their patient rather than the game.

Further more stress on the body is a good thing. As it slows players down, thus the impacts may be reduced for tackles, bumps and high flying marks.

 

[Power Raid]

No it isnt, Head high contact is rife in the game because of poor tackling technique and no onus any longer on the tackler.

Sure but that’s irrelevant now

This is a medical and legal issue not a football skills issue. This your not looking at the issue the same way as the AFL.

The AFL needs a solution now, not one that starts with Auskick.



But I do hear you

 

[Freomaniac]

Didn't seem to be a problem in the 80s, 90s or early 2000s

Yeah, well the players as a whole ran a lot less in the 80's and 90's.

Bingo but consider 2 things.....

1.Back in the 1980s and 1990s, KPFs stayed in the forward 50. You would of seen Jason Dunstall running on a wing to get the ball.

2. Also.... Forward flankers in the 1980s and 1990s always stayed in the forward 50, very occasionally go on the wing. Now days some forward flankers are pratically 3rd and 4th wing players.

Under Kevin Sheedys coaching reign, Sheedy would put a forward flanker in the defensive 50 to have an extra man in defence to counter attack and to try and out number a KPF 2 to 1.

 

[Jupes]

absolute clown league

 

[Obeanie1]

I still can't see how this reduces or prevents injury? Can you explain exactly how this helps with concussion?

The only apparent case for this is that coaches currently ignore the existing rules and send concussed players back out on the ground - and this will provide some incentive for them not to continue to do this??

That's unfathomable logic.


If the underlying issue here is that players get head knocks, this sub doesn't change that one skerrick.

If the underlying issue is that concussed players are being sent back out on the ground, that's simply appalling. Beyond appalling actually.

And thirdly, if coaches care so much about winning that they will send concussed players back on, then do you think they'd sub Dustin Martin out in the 2nd quarter of a GF and bring on a no name to replace him?? Please.


The only way to stop players from getting hurt, if that is in fact what we're trying to achieve here, is for coaches to consider their physical welfare when coaching them. Don't play injured players. Don't instruct them to be recklessly brave for their teammates. etc. etc.

Open both eyes and both ears. That will help. The illogical reasons you refer to focus just on concussion not other injuries. And THAT is why the sub is an injury sub not a concussion sub.

Having an injury sub provides an option to take an injured player out of the game to best treat any injury and avoid further injury.

Do you understand this logic?

The sub means players and clubs won't be jabbing them full of pain killers and sending them back out onto the ground. That happens far too much.

When you have a compromised bench (reduced to 3 or 2 or even no fit players) the remaining players need to play more minutes under fatigue which exposes them to playing on carrying injuries. Again playing injured is not a desirable outcome.

Putting injured players back on the ground risks further injury. Pretty logical I would suggest.

If you can't fathom the logic in that then there is no need to bother discussing the issue any further TBH.

If at the end of the season we have 100 injury subs and 90% of them were legitimate injuries where an injured player is subbed and gets treated that is a better outcome than risking them and others playing on injured.

If 10% of the time its a bit dodgy, well that is the price you pay for developing safer workplace practices. And that price is pretty low when you think about it. Given coaches have been warned that if they blatantly take the p!ss and obviously rort the system well they know they will get penalised. Some will try and get away with it but again, that is worth the price to have a safer work environment where a player can 'tap out' knowing the team won't be massively penalised being a player short.

 

[Freomaniac]

Imagine the poor unused sub who wins a premiership medal

Cam Mooney got a premiership medal in 1999 and got 0 disposals.

Come to think of it. I dont think he even got off the bench.

 

[Obeanie1]

The price tag attached to the 23rd man is significant.

With half the players in the league on guaranteed money and the other half an a base contract topped up by match payments, the game needs to find $2 million plus.

Your garden variety medical sub will most likely be a low paid battler or youngster on match payments.

I bet more than a few club CEO’s have called head office to find out when the money starts flowing to pay for the 23rd man.

Typical rushed decision making, not considering the full ramifications of any changes, is classic AFL.

Life for struggling clubs just got a little harder, and the drain on the AFL purse strings continues at the worst possible time.

What's the price tag of playing injured players?

The price tag of not responding to increases in injury?