News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Freomaniac]

this was a dumb rule years back and just as dumb today

I feel for the 23rd man who misses the opportunity to develop in the reserves and is unsettled being chucked into a game at the end


the better solution would have been to sub off a player from the opposition or keep the game the same

I dont. Not after what happened last season.

The players out side of my teams and your teams best 22 couldnt play in the WAFL or SANFL teams last season because the AFL fear they were going to get the corona virus from the State league players.

Saying that..... I dont feel sorry for the 23rd man unless its the near end of the season. If it was in the 1st half of the season... Meh. your the 23rd man. you dont play, you dont play. Worse case scenario your back in the state league and play another good game the next weekend and try and get into the teams est 22 the week after.

 

[banzai]

Is there a rule on pre-existing injuries? So Cotchin is in doubt for tonights game with gastro apparently. Is there no reason why we cant start him and then sub him out if he is struggling? Just because you take in an injury or sickness into the match doesn't mean you cant be subbed out for the same injury yeah?

 

[faible]

Is there a rule on pre-existing injuries? So Cotchin is in doubt for tonights game with gastro apparently. Is there no reason why we cant start him and then sub him out if he is struggling? Just because you take in an injury or sickness into the match doesn't mean you cant be subbed out for the same injury yeah?

Not that I'm aware of.

Though, he'd then have to be reasonably believed to be likely to miss 12 days by the club doctor.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

What's the price tag of playing injured players?

The price tag of not responding to increases in injury?

Don't play them.

I thought the coaches care about their welfare? Yet they send them out regardless?


What a load of shit.

 

[faible]

I thought the coaches care about their welfare?

They do. They just care more about winning.

 

[Seadog]

Has Clarko got any more rule changes he wants to bring in before tonight's game? Bit of an inconvenience that he has to run his new rules by the AFL before they are implemented, surely a Clarko press conference is all the consultation needed.

 

[Nick Daffy 10]

What a shocker this rule is.... how is it fair that a team with an injured player in the 3rd or 4th quarter can rewarded with a fresh player...

AFL have also confirmed that an unused sub for the winning side in a grand final still gets a premiership medal. A player this season will get rewarded one of the games highest honors for doing nothing on the day or at best playing just a fraction of the game...

 

[Obeanie1]

Is there a rule on pre-existing injuries? So Cotchin is in doubt for tonights game with gastro apparently. Is there no reason why we cant start him and then sub him out if he is struggling? Just because you take in an injury or sickness into the match doesn't mean you cant be subbed out for the same injury yeah?

You have actually touched on an important point.

Now with a injury sub will selection panels take more risks playing someone under an injury cloud?

They probably would I suggest. They now have 'insurance'.

 

[Obeanie1]

Don't play them.

I thought the coaches care about their welfare? Yet they send them out regardless?


What a load of sh*t.

How many players play 100% fit?

 

[dont bowl there]

You have actually touched on an important point.

Now with a injury sub will selection panels take more risks playing someone under an injury cloud?

They probably would I suggest. They now have 'insurance'.

Of course they won't, they would never dare put the welfare of their players at risk...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

How many players play 100% fit?

??

So how does a sub protect them???

You're literally saying that it's Ok to risk players' physical health by playing them when they're injured - then in the same breath saying that this rule is good because it prevents injured players from taking the field??!

 

[sprockets]

Coach slams ‘rushed’ new sub rule

Premiership-winning Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge says the AFL’s new medical substitute rule was “hastily rushed through” and has slammed the league‘s hierarchy over a lack of consultation with clubs.

www.news.com.au

 

[AlwaysFreo]

Is there a rule on pre-existing injuries? So Cotchin is in doubt for tonights game with gastro apparently. Is there no reason why we cant start him and then sub him out if he is struggling? Just because you take in an injury or sickness into the match doesn't mean you cant be subbed out for the same injury yeah?

Hopefully the doctor needing to be reasonably confident it's a 12 day injury prevents something like Cotchin being subbed out with gastro. He's almost certain to recover in 12 days, so they would be on dangerous ground subbing him out. I guess the same goes for carrying injuries into the game, presumably if they're ok to play any doctor would be on shaky ground saying the injury is suddenly going to keep them out for 12 days. I don't mind the basic concept of the rule but I hate that the 12 days isn't mandatory for all substitutions. Can you imagine the furore the first time a subbed out player gets cleared for the next match? And it will happen.

 

[AlwaysFreo]

Coach slams ‘rushed’ new sub rule

Premiership-winning Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge says the AFL’s new medical substitute rule was “hastily rushed through” and has slammed the league‘s hierarchy over a lack of consultation with clubs.

www.news.com.au

I find it staggering that he didn't know about it. It can't have been a full consultation.

 

[Obeanie1]

??

So how does a sub protect them???

You're literally saying that it's Ok to risk players' physical health by playing them when they're injured - then in the same breath saying that this rule is good because it prevents injured players from taking the field??!

The point was in response to a blanket statement 'well don't play injured players'.

The reality is many AFL players play under duress and not at 100%. They play whilst carrying long term injuries. Example P Cripps played half a season with a strapped shoulder that needed surgery post season. But he played. That was obviously after getting scans and getting advice from medical professionals.

So not picking injured players isn't the answer as the industry mitigates injury risk by doing their due diligence.

But on game day an injury occurs or an existing injury is worsened well there is no time for scans or specialist opinions. You are making a less informed decision.

The injury sub means players and club should take less risks and sub the player out of the game as opposed to sending them back out.

 

[Coconut_twirl]

What a shocker this rule is.... how is it fair that a team with an injured player in the 3rd or 4th quarter can rewarded with a fresh player...

AFL have also confirmed that an unused sub for the winning side in a grand final still gets a premiership medal. A player this season will get rewarded one of the games highest honors for doing nothing on the day or at best playing just a fraction of the game...

It's the worst rule change of the lot. I would be happy just have five on the interchange. Why does this rule not apply to the lower leagues? Very rushed and very ill thought. I can see this rule getting manipulated. The fact that the fans have already predicted the multiple ways that this rule can be abused is very worrying.

 

[DamoESP]

Coach slams ‘rushed’ new sub rule

Premiership-winning Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge says the AFL’s new medical substitute rule was “hastily rushed through” and has slammed the league‘s hierarchy over a lack of consultation with clubs.

www.news.com.au

Liek I said before, its an absolute joke of a rule. What a debacle

 

[footyfan1978]

Sadly I don’t think it’s a sport anymore. It’s more sports entertainment than anything

I still consider it a sport but it is run as part of the wider entertainment industry as a business within that as a sporting entity business. But my question is there anyway to get somebody else in charge of the sport itself in terms of rules etc, so the business entity is not compromising the purity of the sport itself.

Back in the day the VFL was run by the Presidents and it was deemed later on for the best of the league overall there be an independent commission and the presidents not have all the power.

Now we have a sport itself of Australian Rules Football have the rules of it decided on by a league itself, a league that has business interests be at odds with the purity of the sport more and more. Surely there is some way an independent body can have control of the sport rules so the AFL cannot be able to make it up as they go along to suit their business needs that are not always good for the sport itself.

The VFL originally could not change the rules of the sport. All they could do was decide on their own fixture, size of league and who they employee etc. but the rules of sport were done by a body of people that controlled how the game rules were set in place for the purity of the sport. We do not have that now and have not for most of the time I been following. I think the body used to be called The Australian National Football Council and ran stuff like the state of origin football, carnivals, rules, player transfer and clearance regulations and were not compromised by business interests. It only existed to decide on matters of the sport itself between leagues etc. I do not even know when and how it was disbanded. This is why we are getting in mess we have now and the AFL itself is running the sporting rules but they change rules now not just based on purity of sport but on business and financial reasons and player union reps like it is all about workplace and the sport itself has nobody making looking after the plain and pure needs of the sport itself above business and financial influences.

I not sure where this all ends.... What was that movie again... RollerBall...

 

[HPKS]

I still consider it a sport but it is run as part of the wider entertainment industry as a business within that as a sporting entity business. But my question is there anyway to get somebody else in charge of the sport itself in terms of rules etc, so the business entity is not compromising the purity of the sport itself.

Back in the day the VFL was run by the Presidents and it was deemed later on for the best of the league overall there be an independent commission and the presidents not have all the power.

Now we have a sport itself of Australian Rules Football have the rules of it decided on by a league itself, a league that has business interests be at odds with the purity of the sport more and more. Surely there is some way an independent body can have control of the sport rules so the AFL cannot be able to make it up as they go along to suit their business needs that are not always good for the sport itself.

The VFL originally could not change the rules of the sport. All they could do was decide on their own fixture, size of league and who they employee etc. but the rules of sport were done by a body of people that controlled how the game rules were set in place for the purity of the sport. We do not have that now and have not for most of the time I been following. I think the body used to be called The Australian National Football Council and ran stuff like the state of origin football, carnivals, rules, player transfer and clearance regulations and were not compromised by business interests. It only existed to decide on matters of the sport itself between leagues etc. I do not even know when and how it was disbanded. This is why we are getting in mess we have now and the AFL itself is running the sporting rules but they change rules now not just based on purity of sport but on business and financial reasons and player union reps like it is all about workplace and the sport itself has nobody making looking after the plain and pure needs of the sport itself above business and financial influences.

I not sure where this all ends.... What was that movie again... RollerBall...

Australian National Football Council - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s a massive conflict of interest because we keep hearing custodians of the game in effect they do not act like this.

They’re the custodians of the money in the game

 

[Euku]

5 on the bench with the 75 interchange cap much better solution, takes any dodginess out of the doctors hands and only mildy effects the team losing a player and a player doesnt win a gf medal without playing, afl changing shit whenever it suits them is crazy

 

[1989]

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[HPKS]

What a shocker this rule is.... how is it fair that a team with an injured player in the 3rd or 4th quarter can rewarded with a fresh player...

AFL have also confirmed that an unused sub for the winning side in a grand final still gets a premiership medal. A player this season will get rewarded one of the games highest honors for doing nothing on the day or at best playing just a fraction of the game...

The even more absurd thing is a player literally doesn’t even need to play one minute of the season to be awarded a premiership medal.

 

[HPKS]

I’m listening to Hardwick right now & he just said when the game finishes blokes are really tired. Oh ffs that’s how sports are supposed to be.

 

[JM#1]

Once again the AFL show how amateurish they really are. What rubbish to make this type of rule change a day before the start of the season. This is going to cause nothing but controversy throughout the season, but once again Hocking will come out each week in defence of it.

 

[JM#1]

The other thing to consider is that it's simply not far for a team to get a fresh player enter the game potentially in the last quarter, regardless of whether it's due to injury or not. If a player is subbed due to injury, then maybe the other team should also get the opportunity to make a sub, even if they don't have an injury.