News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Seeds]

The change was sold as a player welfare improvement....if a player was concussed they were already out of the game in previous situation, how has player welfare improved?

This is the entire reason why coaches pushed for it, it is nothing to do with player welfare.

There is no difference to the sub that was trialled in 2011, remember that...3 interchange and a sub to make it fair in case of injury so both teams could keep rotating.

This is no different, coaches will sook and complain if they actually get an injury as it will again mean they don't get that boost of fresh legs for Q4 if they have to make the injury sub in Q1, whilst the Tigers can sub out a bloke with a cork late Q3.

Nobody liked the sub in 2011-16, primairly because it didn't aid fairness, because coaches didn't leave it their as an injury sub...they wanted to tactically deploy an extra fresh set of legs in Q3....so if you actually copped an injury you were at a disadvantage still.

And it does nothing for player welfare.

one, it doesn’t matter how it’s sold. All that matters is does it make things fairer or worse in any or all aspects of the game.

two, player welfare is improved because injured players will now more likely not be brought back on. Not just concussion but any injury. Proof of concussion also isnt black and white either. Especially by a doctor on a boundary line. There is a big grey area. A player is now more likely to be declared concussed if there isn’t a major advantage from losing them.

so your argument against a sub is that it doesn’t remove all the unfairness of injury loses just some of the unfairness so you conclude lets not have it all ? You get that conclusion is completely irrational thinking right?

plenty of people liked the sub in 2011-16. My team may not of won the 2011 flag if it wasnt for having a sub when pods went off early in the second qtr of the grand final.

and this isn’t the same sub rule as back then. There clearly is a major injury component now that risks doctors reputations and major club penalities if abused for non injury related reasons. Bringing up the old sub rule is irrelevant.

 

[Obeanie1]

When a change is made why do supporters always sook about some minor perceived weakness of the change rather then focus on the massive improvement generated by the change?

if having a sub on for the last qtr is a massive advantage due to fresh legs for just 1 qtr (even though that sub isn’t good enough to be in the starting 22) then surely the disadvantage of losing a good player in the first qtr and replacing them with no one provides 4 fold the advantage to the other team in comparison. The other team has effectectively an extra fresh legs for 3 qtrs, not just 1.

how do you not see this? Is it that all big footy posters are idiots? Or is it that all people suffer from a negative change bias where they are happy to keep major injustices of the current system but can’t stand minor new injustices. Even if those minor new injustices get rid of the major existing injustices.

you are not idiots. You are all just suffering from negative change bias. Try to think rationally.

You won't get many likes but you are spot on.

Too many focusing on the 'what if' negatives instead of the tangible positives.

Giving players the option of subbing out injured and not 'playing on for the team' is a big positive.

 

[Acinath]

Get used to it guys. Longer quarters, less rotations, get ready for a lot of hamstring tightness.

I still don’t understand why it can’t be a “subbed off, miss a minimum one game”. Does it have to be more complicated than that?

 

[faible]

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.

Well. Currently they don't.

But they should. If it's not a minimum 2 week injury. Don't sub him out of the game. Simple.

Team A, your injured player is deemed to be a 14 day injury. Bring on your fresh sub.
Team B, your player is deemed to only be a 10 day injury. Sorry, your stuck with 3 on the bench.

The team doctor decrees it 'might' be a 12 day injury. Not that it is.

 

[JM#1]

Well. Currently they don't.

But they should. If it's not a minimum 2 week injury. Don't sub him out of the game. Simple.

Nah, this does not make any sense. If the player is too injured to continue, then it's only fair they get to sub also. The player should not have to sit out 12 days just because his injury wasn't as bad as the bloke from the other team. If it was bad enough where they could not continue in the game, then that's all it should be judged on.

 

[Underarm]

He will miss cos he was replaced by a sub.

Being subbed out doesn't bar you from playing the following week.

 

[Sentinel]

The solution is very simple.

You sub off a player and use the sub the injured player doesn't play next week.

If a coach wants to gain an advantage well they pay a price and lose that player for next week.

It sounds like a simple solution but doesn't work on all occasions. What about games immediately before a bye, or the final game of the season for a club (be it round 23 or the grand final)?

 

[Seeds]

Being subbed out doesn't bar you from playing the following week.

It doesn’t explicitly but it does implicitly. it would look terrible on the afl and doctors if it didn’t.

 

[doppleganger]

one, it doesn’t matter how it’s sold. All that matters is does it make things fairer or worse in any or all aspects of the game.

?? Of course it does.

It wasn't rushed in at the last minute in order to make the game 'fairer'.

two, player welfare is improved because injured players will now more likely not be brought back on. Not just concussion but any injury. Proof of concussion also isnt black and white either. Especially by a doctor on a boundary line. There is a big grey area. A player is now more likely to be declared concussed if there isn’t a major advantage from losing them.

The grey area remains exactly the same. Just like in 2020 if a player fails a concussion test they are ruled out....

Do you think the concussion rule of 2020 was exploited, coaches overruled doctors?

so your argument against a sub is that it doesn’t remove all the unfairness of injury loses just some of the unfairness so you conclude lets not have it all ? You get that conclusion is completely irrational thinking right?

My argument is that we have been sold a lemon, it isn't about player welfare, instead about coaches being able to have additional legs to keep their preferred game style going for longer.

plenty of people liked the sub in 2011-16. My team may not of won the 2011 flag if it wasnt for having a sub when pods went off early in the second qtr of the grand final.

and this isn’t the same sub rule as back then. There clearly is a major injury component now that risks doctors reputations and major club penalities if abused for non injury related reasons. Bringing up the old sub rule is irrelevant.

LoL, Vlaustin had a knock to his knee and was subbed out....yet he isnt ruled out of R2, what odds he is magically fit enough to play in Rd2?

All it did was facilitate Richmond having fresh legs in Q4 with Ross who came on and ended up with most tackles on the ground, whilst Carlton players clearly tired.

If the AFL wanted to ensure fairness there are other levers to pull, if the AFL was about player welfare there were other levers to pull.

 

[Seeds]

It sounds like a simple solution but doesn't work on all occasions. What about games immediately before a bye, or the final game of the season for a club (be it round 23 or the grand final)?

These are good points. I’m sure the afl will figure out how to cover those examples before they happen.

 

[HairyO]

Being subbed out doesn't bar you from playing the following week.

Concussion sub does. But if a player is concussed and injures their shoulder at the same time, can the team use an injury sub and bring the player back the following week as long as they pass the concussion tests during the week? As long as their shoulder injury gets better?

 

[Thetrader15]

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.

and the AFL will tick it off, but give clubs a warning they shouldn't abuse the rules.

 

[Thetrader15]

Let's think about this the other way around...

Using last night's example, when Silvagni was subbed out, Richmond should also have a player subbed out (of their choosing).

Both teams now have 21 players (equal) and more rotations for each player, so they get more opportunities for a rest.

When Vlaustin was subbed out, Carlton then go down to 20 players as well, and even more rotations for players.

All the time, we have equal numbers on the bench.

 

[Underarm]

It doesn’t explicitly but it does implicitly. it would look terrible on the afl and doctors if it didn’t.

How do you think that conversation is going to go down?

DR: "Hey Chris, here's the situation on Gary Rohan's hamstring Issues that we made up to pull him from the game to put Parfitt in. He's fit to play if you want him, but we think you should wait a week to avoid the AFL looking bad. I know its the Grand Final but we don't want to hurt Hocking's feelings".

 

[Underarm]

Concussion sub does. But if a player is concussed and injures their shoulder at the same time, can the team use an injury sub and bring the player back the following week as long as they pass the concussion tests during the week? As long as their shoulder injury gets better?

There's nothing that forces a player to make a concussion check after a head knock, so yeah technically.

 

[Obeanie1]

Well. Currently they don't.

But they should. If it's not a minimum 2 week injury. Don't sub him out of the game. Simple.



The team doctor decrees it 'might' be a 12 day injury. Not that it is.

How do you deem how long an injury will keep a player out?

Remember Mark Le cra being carried off with what looked like a bad groin strain. Looked like a 6 week injury he was in that much pain. Turned out it was a cramp in the groin and played fine the next week.

No subs back then either.

 

[Makka]

Just go back to no sub, the way it used to be. If you lose a player then that sucks but continue on with less.

 

[SunshineBoy]

If this new rule is going to be used like it was last night then the rule is a joke. There are 4 players on the bench for a reason.

A concussion sub for when a player can't continue and will miss weeks? Yeah ok, fair enough. Getting to bring a fresh player on because someone copped a minor knee knock? Stupid.

Another rule brought in by the moron without thinking it through, ease congestion get rid of the inrterchange, but they want to turn ot into a 1 hour game which lasts for 3 hrs like the nfl lots of commercials

 

[Monument Hills]

Question re the sub rule for those that know more than me. Saw on Tuesday that: "To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days".

Now hearing from the media that the subbed players for Carlton and Richmond (and I expect for the others too) could line up for R2?

So do the subbed players have to sit out for 12 days or is it just that the doc in their assessment during the game considers that they could possibly be out for 12 days due to the issue? Cause if it's the latter, why did they even bother with the above clause. Should have just said it's a sub like last time and give the docs a break from the added stress.

 

[Obeanie1]

It sounds like a simple solution but doesn't work on all occasions. What about games immediately before a bye, or the final game of the season for a club (be it round 23 or the grand final)?

Make it a min 8 days then.

If a player does need subbing off for real it's a decent probability they won't play the following week.

If its manageable then they stay on.

 

[Bluelegs]

Question re the sub rule for those that know more than me. Saw on Tuesday that: "To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days".

Now hearing from the media that the subbed players for Carlton and Richmond (and I expect for the others too) could line up for R2?

So do the subbed players have to sit out for 12 days or is it just that the doc in their assessment during the game considers that they could possibly be out for 12 days due to the issue? Cause if it's the latter, why did they even bother with the above clause. Should have just said it's a sub like last time and give the docs a break from the added stress.

"Hey doc you reckon he'll be out for 12 days?"

"Possibly? No way to say for sure."

"Good enough."

 

[banzai]

Question re the sub rule for those that know more than me. Saw on Tuesday that: "To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days".

Now hearing from the media that the subbed players for Carlton and Richmond (and I expect for the others too) could line up for R2?

So do the subbed players have to sit out for 12 days or is it just that the doc in their assessment during the game considers that they could possibly be out for 12 days due to the issue? Cause if it's the latter, why did they even bother with the above clause. Should have just said it's a sub like last time and give the docs a break from the added stress.

Was does might be unable to play for 12 days mean though? Houli example, he hurt his calf in the Granny and played on. If it was a prelim he possibly could have played the Grand Final next week with a jab, so he was able to play with a torn calf. In reality though he missed round 1 the following season with the same injury. So it was a 6 month injury yet he still could have played the following week. Technically you could play the following week with a broken arm.

 

[Dr Tigris]

The Concussion sub is 12 days. The injury sub is "The team doctor has to believe it is an injury... yadda yadda".

So if Vlaustin recovers earlier he is free to play.

I wonder if we can use this with Burgoyne. Get 3 full quarters out of him then "Well, he is rather old. Old people take longer to recover."

Well that is stupid. It should just be 12 days. Then you pay the penalty of a one game off for a first 22 player. Vlas will be back. Bad knock, so he'll be fine in a week.

This is about the first time I hope the AFL change the rule to stop that sort of semi-rorting. Just make it clear cut and off we go. Pity my club has done the testing of this rule, and in the first game of the season.

 

[Sentinel]

Make it a min 8 days then.

If a player does need subbing off for real it's a decent probability they won't play the following week.

If its manageable then they stay on.

The other question though is what relevance does it hold whether the player can play the following week or not? Yes it probably makes it a little more definitive that an actual injury has occured, but the use of the sub should be relevant to the current game only, not future games.

There are plenty of examples of players suffering game ending injuries (which the sub is intended for) without needing to miss subsequent matches.

Banning a player from playing future games is simply a way to try and cover a flaw in the rule, in which case the rule itself should be redesigned not the disincentive.

 

[Dr Tigris]

It sounds like a simple solution but doesn't work on all occasions. What about games immediately before a bye, or the final game of the season for a club (be it round 23 or the grand final)?

Suck up the minor anomalies to solve the larger issue. The next week off works in all circumstances really. That once of twice a season you can play funny buggers is OK then.

But what the Tigers have done is create a precedent. Every team plays injured players every week. So you give someone 3 quarters then say, injured for a week and a half. Wow! They recovered well, and they are tough, so they play next week. Just nip it in the bud.