News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Seeds]

What a farking joke, all because that angry little dwarf flog chucked a hissy fit

It’s not a joke, it’s makes the game fairer ffs.

 

[JM#1]

It’s almost like the AFL have made this rule up on the fly and don’t really know themselves.

Incredible that the season is underway and we still don’t fully understand how the rule works and it’s consequences.

The whole point of a player being out for 12 days is as a safety precaution for concussed players. How this 12 day thing managed to blur its way onto all injured players is beyond me. Does a player with a sore leg have to be out for 12 days as a safety precaution also??

 

[Seeds]

If a player can be legit subbed for a corkie then imo anything goes. Every coach would find a player with some kind of tightness, bruising or fatigue and sub them off.

Awful awful rule change.

Except they won’t be able to play next week. so no they won’t find silly injuries to sub players off.

both players Who went off last week will not play round 2.

 

[Seeds]

The whole point of a player being out for 12 days is as a safety precaution for concussed players. How this 12 day thing managed to blur its way onto all injured players is beyond me. Does a player with a sore leg have to be out for 12 days as a safety precaution also??

If it’s a hammy or acl or broken leg then yes. They do need 12 days off.

if the policy was just for concussion and not for other similarly bad or worse injuries it would be ridiculous.

imagine if a player slides head first into a pack gets concussed in the process but also breaks another players leg from the opposing team. both players go off on stretchers. One is replaced by a sub and the other isn’t.

that would be utterly stupid.

both players who were subbed off last night will not play next week.

 

[Sentinel]

The 12 day rule for general injuries is entirely arbitrary and does nothing but raise controversy. There are plenty of occasions where a player picks up a niggle or a bad cork which previously would have left them on the bench for the remainder of the game but have them selected in the side the next week. In the context of the current game being played, what relevance is it that a player has picked up a longer term injury or not?

If we are ok to trust a doctor's assessment that the player is right to go the following week, then why can't we trust that same doctor who says they can't continue in the current game?

The injury sub opens up room for abuse regardless of the 12 day rule. Unless it's a general sub like we had in the early 2010s, there will always be controversy about this because you are replacing a fatigued player with a non-fatigued player which the opposition can't do unless they also cop an injury or bend the rules.

 

[Bluelegs]

Except they won’t be able to play next week. so no they won’t find silly injuries to sub players off.

both players Who went off last week will not play round 2.

That's not true at all.

Club doctors must provide the AFL with a medical certificate on the first working day after the match as evidence the substituted player sustained the injury.

Should a subbed-out player recover from an injury other than concussion before the next match, he may be granted to play provided his return is ticked off by the AFL Medical Officer.

New rule reveal: AFL brings in 'medical sub' ahead of R1

AFL gives green light to an expanded bench that will include a medical substitute

www.afl.com.au

 

[JM#1]

If it’s a hammy or acl or broken leg then yes. They do need 12 days off.

if the policy was just for concussion and not for other similarly bad or worse injuries it would be ridiculous.

imagine if a player slides head first into a pack gets concussed in the process but also breaks another players leg from the opposing team. both players go off on stretchers. One is replaced by a sub and the other isn’t.

that would be utterly stupid.

both players who were subbed off last night will not play next week.

What I'm saying is that a concussed player must miss 12 days. For every other injury, this 12 day thing shouldn't even be discussed as it's not relevant.

 

[Thetrader15]

So...Damien Hardwick says the sub made a difference when he came on...

According to Damien Hardwick, there's "no doubt" both substitutes made a significant difference to the contest.
DH: "There's no doubt, you could tell the difference between both players. Jack was very good when he came on and he made a difference straightaway."

However, Damien Hardwick disagrees with Damien Hardwick:
DH: "You've got limited rotations, so one more player on the ground isn't going to make a big difference for me."


Interestingly, on Vlaustin being subbed out (remember, the Dr has to think he will be out for 12d):

DH: "We're not exactly sure what that is … but he'll have scans tomorrow. But from our point of view, it was fine."
Richmond remains hopeful the defender will recover during a 10-day break ahead of the club's round two clash with Hawthorn.

I'm sure there's nothing to see here.

Dimma backs positive impact of subs, new Blue's 'weird' debut

Damien Hardwick and David Teague reflect on the impact of the medical subs in the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

 

[Thetrader15]

What I'm saying is that a concussed player must miss 12 days. For every other injury, this 12 day thing shouldn't even be discussed as it's not relevant.

The point is if the 12d thing was compulsory for all players subbed out, you won't have players being subbed out for tactical reasons which is where we with the initial sub rule.

 

[JM#1]

The point is if the 12d thing was compulsory for all players subbed out, you won't have players being subbed out for tactical reasons which is where we with the initial sub rule.

The day they make every subbed player (excluding concussion) miss 12 days, is the day I stop watching AFL. That would bring the league to a new low. You often have players out of games through injury but are ok to play the following week.

 

[living_in_syd]

If a player can be legit subbed for a corkie then imo anything goes. Every coach would find a player with some kind of tightness, bruising or fatigue and sub them off.

Awful awful rule change.

I reckon then let the opposition sub so the advantage is slightly in favour of the opposition as they get to choose who to take off. The disadvantage is they have used their sub so they can choose to not use or use it later in the game

 

[Bluelegs]

I reckon then let the opposition sub so the advantage is slightly in favour of the opposition as they get to choose who to take off. The disadvantage is they have used their sub so they can choose to not use or use it later in the game

Having fresh legs is always going to be a big help on gameday, especially if the other team can't do the same. If one team activates their sub the other team will always find a way to activate their own.

We have a rule in place that has made sustaining an injury an advantage on gameday which is absurd.

 

[Jobe Watson]

It’s not a joke, it’s makes the game fairer ffs.

The rule is only fair if both teams get to use their sub. There are going to be instances where one team gets to bring on a fresh impact player during the 3rd quarter when everyone is tiring and the other team can't. Getting an "injury" at the right time can actually be an advantage now.

 

[living_in_syd]

Yep. Now there’s an incentive to get an injury.

Good job AFL. not rushed at all

 

[40porpoise]

This is stupid. And even if they changed it to a mandatory 2 week break for any subbed player, it’s still going to be manipulated on grand final day.

I hate it.

 

[JM#1]

Having fresh legs is always going to be a big help on gameday, especially if the other team can't do the same. If one team activates their sub the other team will always find a way to activate their own.

We have a rule in place that has made sustaining an injury an advantage on gameday which is absurd.

A team with an injury go from having a disadvantage with one less on the bench, to having the advantage.

 

[dont bowl there]

The rule is only fair if both teams get to use their sub. There are going to be instances where one team gets to bring on a fresh impact player during the 3rd quarter when everyone is tiring and the other team can't. Getting an "injury" at the right time can actually be an advantage now.

It’s so simple to fix. The sub can only be activated if an injury occurs in the first quarter. Once the second quarter starts there is no longer a sub available to either team. The reason the injury sub is a rule is because they were afraid of early injuries impacting rotations, not an injury late in the third.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

So...Damien Hardwick says the sub made a difference when he came on...

According to Damien Hardwick, there's "no doubt" both substitutes made a significant difference to the contest.
DH: "There's no doubt, you could tell the difference between both players. Jack was very good when he came on and he made a difference straightaway."

However, Damien Hardwick disagrees with Damien Hardwick:
DH: "You've got limited rotations, so one more player on the ground isn't going to make a big difference for me."


Interestingly, on Vlaustin being subbed out (remember, the Dr has to think he will be out for 12d):

DH: "We're not exactly sure what that is … but he'll have scans tomorrow. But from our point of view, it was fine."
Richmond remains hopeful the defender will recover during a 10-day break ahead of the club's round two clash with Hawthorn.

I'm sure there's nothing to see here.

Dimma backs positive impact of subs, new Blue's 'weird' debut

Damien Hardwick and David Teague reflect on the impact of the medical subs in the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

 

[telsor]

So...Damien Hardwick says the sub made a difference when he came on...

According to Damien Hardwick, there's "no doubt" both substitutes made a significant difference to the contest.
DH: "There's no doubt, you could tell the difference between both players. Jack was very good when he came on and he made a difference straightaway."

However, Damien Hardwick disagrees with Damien Hardwick:
DH: "You've got limited rotations, so one more player on the ground isn't going to make a big difference for me."


Interestingly, on Vlaustin being subbed out (remember, the Dr has to think he will be out for 12d):

DH: "We're not exactly sure what that is … but he'll have scans tomorrow. But from our point of view, it was fine."
Richmond remains hopeful the defender will recover during a 10-day break ahead of the club's round two clash with Hawthorn.

I'm sure there's nothing to see here.

Dimma backs positive impact of subs, new Blue's 'weird' debut

Damien Hardwick and David Teague reflect on the impact of the medical subs in the season-opener

www.afl.com.au

Rushed rule change pushed by coaches gets exploited by those same coaches who stretch the intent of the rule as far as they can.

Is anyone surprised?


They should have cut the bench by one and gone (back) to 3+1.

But either way, it should be a mandatory week (or two) off for the 'injured' player and the opposition given the option of automatic and immediate use of their sub (so they get fresh legs too, injury or not, so it's not an advantage to use the sub...but of course that leaves them vulnerable to subsequent injury).

 

[faible]

Rushed rule change pushed by coaches gets exploited by those same coaches who stretch the intent of the rule as far as they can.

Is anyone surprised?


They should have cut the bench by one and gone (back) to 3+1.

But either way, it should be a mandatory week (or two) off for the 'injured' player and the opposition given the option of automatic and immediate use of their sub (so they get fresh legs too, injury or not, so it's not an advantage to use the sub...but of course that leaves them vulnerable to subsequent injury).

They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for a concussion only where it's a mandatory 12 days. They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for any injury, where it could also have been a mandatory 12 days.

Instead they went for the option with the grey area that coaches will definitely exploit.

Silvangi seems like a genuine 12+ day injury. Vlaustin will be 'suspected' of an injury, now 'awaiting scans' then finally 'cleared by scans' just in time for their R2 game.

 

[telsor]

They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for a concussion only where it's a mandatory 12 days. They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for any injury, where it could also have been a mandatory 12 days.

Instead they went for the option with the grey area that coaches will definitely exploit.

Silvangi seems like a genuine 12+ day injury. Vlaustin will be 'suspected' of an injury, now 'awaiting scans' then finally 'cleared by scans' just in time for their R2 game.

Yep.

 

[doppleganger]

If it’s a hammy or acl or broken leg then yes. They do need 12 days off.

if the policy was just for concussion and not for other similarly bad or worse injuries it would be ridiculous.

imagine if a player slides head first into a pack gets concussed in the process but also breaks another players leg from the opposing team. both players go off on stretchers. One is replaced by a sub and the other isn’t.

that would be utterly stupid.

both players who were subbed off last night will not play next week.

In that situation both teams are down a player anyway, it is fair!

The concept of needing an extra sub in case one of your 4 gets injured is ridiculous.

The problem is that the coaches have manipulated interchange to take it from what it was originally meant to be, replacements to cover injury, to being full blown members of the team.

Somehow fans have just accepted it is no longer 18 v 18 with replacements, but the game is now 22 v 22.

And as such coaches now want additional replacements to ensure it came remain 22 v 22 in case of injury.

Absolute madness, the 22 v 22 is what is ruining the spectacle as it facilities the full ground press and congestion....go back to 18 v 18 and coaches won't be able to implement such defensive tactics

 

[JM#1]

They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for a concussion only where it's a mandatory 12 days. They had the opportunity to make it a black and white rule for any injury, where it could also have been a mandatory 12 days.

Instead they went for the option with the grey area that coaches will definitely exploit.

Silvangi seems like a genuine 12+ day injury. Vlaustin will be 'suspected' of an injury, now 'awaiting scans' then finally 'cleared by scans' just in time for their R2 game.

My issue with this is that if a player leaves the game because of an injury that will heal in 3 days, he now has to miss 12 days? I don't like it at all. The AFL is creating a mess and I could never imagine any other sport in the world doing something like this.

 

[Sherrinator]

If Cripps got a corkie, would they have activated the sub? Nope, they can afford to lose Silvagni since he is a fringe player anyway.

 

[carloss]

No surprise it was Nick Vlastuin from Richmond