News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[FRUMPY]

Unless the player who does a hammy falls to the ground and then holds his head. Who are we to question whether he is faking it? That he knows he isn't playing next week anyway shouldn't factor into whether he would fake a concussion to be replaced on the field.

Especially if he is a key player.

WTF are you on about - ive never said someone is faking an injury - quite the opposite. Legitimately 2 players get injured and cant play out the game - one can be replaced and the other cant.....its just a dumb rule

 

[faible]

Doctor rules out player 1 due to severity of injury both both - one can be replaced, the other cant......how does that make sense in any form? Both would have to miss the next 12 days (as others have mentioned) - a normal hamstring is more than 12 days.

Or alternatively if you like, a broken leg and gets carted off to hospital, an ACL - neither are coming back on and cant be replaced....

The AFL rules expressly prevents players being returned to the field if they fail a concussion test.

As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules stopping a player who's done an ACL (in say, a grand final) from having their knee strapped and returning to the ground.

 

[FRUMPY]

Yeah I get that there are obviously players who get injured during games who can't return, it's more the point around there being an actual rule from the AFL re concussion, unlike any other injury.

We all know its window dressing so they wont be sued for as much but make the rules fair, if you rule out a player through injury, he misses the next 2 games and can be replaced (either once a game or how ever many) - doesnt matter the injury

 

[faible]

window dressing

To an extent, maybe. But also, player welfare is an actual thing.

 

[footyfan1978]

Showing they are headless chooks on looking after the sport if they pander to likes of Clarkson and his short sighted coaching wants.

 

[FRUMPY]

The AFL rules expressly prevents players being returned to the field if they fail a concussion test.

As far as I know, there's nothing in the rules stopping a player who's done an ACL (in say, a grand final) from having their knee strapped and returning to the ground.

The doctor rules the player out for both concussion and other injuries - they tell the coach he cant continue and is out of the game

 

[faible]

The doctor rules the player out for both concussion and other injuries - they tell the coach he cant continue and is out of the game

There's nothing preventing the player and coach telling the doctor they'll play anyway. Houli played with a calf in the GF. Ablett played with a shoulder. Neither would have played 'on medical advice' but there was nothing in the rules stopping it. Vlaustin wasn't permitted to return to the field at all. No matter what he wanted to do.

 

[Taylor]

WTF are you on about - ive never said someone is faking an injury - quite the opposite. Legitimately 2 players get injured and cant play out the game - one can be replaced and the other cant.....its just a dumb rule

I'm suggesting that if the player can hold his head after falling to the ground upon sustaining an injury he knows will rule him out for the next game anyway then his team won't be disadvantaged by losing a runner.

Because who can argue? Did you know that AFL players quietly talk about tanking their baseline test answer score so they don't accidentally stuff it up by forgetting whether they are at Marvel Stadium or the MCG or playing on Friday or Saturday night. You know how easy it would be to stuff up the answer of who your mothers fathers sons child's relation is to you?

If you only need to be given a concussion test then it's even easier, you'll get an extra runner in the fourth and not lose a player for the next game.

 

[Sentinel]

We all know its window dressing so they wont be sued for as much but make the rules fair, if you rule out a player through injury, he misses the next 2 games and can be replaced (either once a game or how ever many) - doesnt matter the injury

I understand your point, but it still remains open to potential abuse even with a mandatory rest period (although far, far less likely), say in a grand final. There's no immediate test protocol for a strained hamstring like there is for concussion in the AFL.

There's also a scale of severity for every injury, eg a sore leg could be anything from a cork to a break. This is the same for concussion but in the AFL's case, for the welfare of the player, you can't be 'half concussed'. Hence the mandatory exclusion rule.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Yeah that's what I don't get. Why is a concussion worthy of a sub, but not any other injury where the player can't take any further part in the match?

Concussion is not as crystal clear of a diagnosis as the kinds of injuries you're talking about. Further, players often feel fine but are putting themselves at greater risk by returning to the field.

In a lot of less severe cases the 'diagnosis' is an educated guess. Under normal circumstances, there is obviously huge pressure on players to return to field. Coaches, fans, the player themselves, teammates all want the player back on the field and that pressure makes it extraordinarily difficult for the doctors to make unbiased decisions.

The idea here is to reduce this pressure and unburden the decision making process to emphasise player health above all. It allows decisions to be more on the safer side, as opposed to having to deal with your decision causing your team to play one player down.

I'm sure the coaches see the opportunity to push for having an extra player, and that underpins their interest in it, but there is actually a reasonable explanation for why this might be more helpful for concussion than it is for broken legs etc.

That said, the lack of diagnostic clarity would make this rule easy to exploit and for that reason I'm in two minds about it.

 

[FRUMPY]

I understand your point, but it still remains open to potential abuse even with a mandatory rest period (although far, far less likely).

There's also a scale of severity for every injury, eg a sore leg could be anything from a cork to a break. This is the same for concussion but in the AFL's case, for the welfare of the player, you can't be 'half concussed'. Hence the mandatory exclusion rule.

Its upto the club if they are willing to lose a player for 2 weeks - you'd have to be a pretty shit player for the club to 'injure' you for 2 weeks to be replaced by someone not good enough to get game in the first place

 

[Sentinel]

Its upto the club if they are willing to lose a player for 2 weeks - you'd have to be a pretty sh*t player for the club to 'injure' you for 2 weeks to be replaced by someone not good enough to get game in the first place

Halfway through a grand final and a player gets a bit of a knock to the hip which slows him down, or he just has complete stage fright, maybe the team went in 1 tall too many. Let's bring on the sub with fresh legs who was close to getting a game anyway. I don't know if there'd be any other possibilities, but that's one example where I could see it being abused.

 

[FRUMPY]

Halfway through a grand final and a player gets a bit of a knock to the hip which slows him down, or he just has complete stage fright, maybe the team went in 1 tall too many. Let's bring on the sub with fresh legs who was close to getting a game anyway, it'll cost the other fella 2 weeks next year but its a worthy price to pay. I don't know if there'd be any other possibilities, but that's one example where I could see it being abused.

And the same cant be done for a head knock?

 

[Sentinel]

And the same cant be done for a head knock?

If the club doctor wants to fake a mandatory test result, maybe, if they're happy to put their career at risk.

 

[Pessimistic]

Start with 23. At half time two players sit out the rest of the game. Injured or having a mare

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Concussion is not as crystal clear of a diagnosis as the kinds of injuries you're talking about. Further, players often feel fine but are putting themselves at greater risk by returning to the field.

In a lot of less severe cases the 'diagnosis' is an educated guess. Under normal circumstances, there is obviously huge pressure on players to return to field. Coaches, fans, the player themselves, teammates all want the player back on the field and that pressure makes it extraordinarily difficult for the doctors to make unbiased decisions.

The idea here is to reduce this pressure and unburden the decision making process to emphasise player health above all. It allows decisions to be more on the safer side, as opposed to having to deal with your decision causing your team to play one player down.

I'm sure the coaches see the opportunity to push for having an extra player, and that underpins their interest in it, but there is actually a reasonable explanation for why this might be more helpful for concussion than it is for broken legs etc.

That said, the lack of diagnostic clarity would make this rule easy to exploit and for that reason I'm in two minds about it.

Very well explained, thanks.

 

[Suma Magic]

Clubs already have held-over emergencies at every game, it's not as massive a change as it seems.

Teams now need a minimum of 1 held over. This rule change means they need a minimum of 2 held over.

 

[the harry]

Be interesting whether those held over can play seconds. Sure would be handy to have regular Friday and Thursday games.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What happened to the days of playing against adversity, having to do it the tough way with a man down? Builds character. This trying to make things equal and fair all the time is just crap.
Injuries, Concussions etc happen in football. It is just bad luck. There should be no replacements for any of it. Suck it up and finish out the game as best you can.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

What happened to the days of playing against adversity, having to do it the tough way with a man down? Builds character. This trying to make things equal and fair all the time is just crap.
Injuries, Concussions etc happen in football. It is just bad luck. There should be no replacements for any of it. Suck it up and finish out the game as best you can.

This even if you’re concussed? Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 months?

 

[SJ17]

Will having a sub in anyway influence the doctors decision on whether or not a player is concussed?
How many borderline calls are there, and even so if your a star player like Dusty and the call is borderline, Dimma isn't going to say 'yeah its all good, keep Dusty off and chuck Paddy Naish in the middle'.

If the sub rule makes no difference to the doctors decision then I don't want the sub rule. I love the uncertainty of sport, having a few players down just adds to the drama.

 

[Suma Magic]

This makes no difference to concussion.

Just makes it easier on the 21 players who don’t get concussed.

 

[faible]

Teams now need a minimum of 1 held over. This rule change means they need a minimum of 2 held over.

Is this set in stone? Also teams often travel with multiple emergencies already.

Will having a sub in anyway influence the doctors decision on whether or not a player is concussed?

It might. Where it's borderline. In a big game. I can definitely see where doctors would skirt the edges if they know the team will be a man down for the entire game (e.g. Vlaustin being knocked out 5 minutes or so in to Q1) where it's borderline, where they might be more inclined to play it safe and pull the player knowing the emergency can come in.

 

[banzai]

So team one loses a player to a hamstring 10mins in and team 2 loses a player to concussion 10 mins in - only one can be replaced......

******* typical AFL bullshit rules

In last years Grand Final Ablett did his shoulder and Houli did his calf, both played out the game anyway. Vlastuin is banned from coming back on, even if it was a very mild concussion.

 

[Suma Magic]

Is this set in stone? Also teams often travel with multiple emergencies already.



It might. Where it's borderline. In a big game. I can definitely see where doctors would skirt the edges if they know the team will be a man down for the entire game (e.g. Vlaustin being knocked out 5 minutes or so in to Q1) where it's borderline, where they might be more inclined to play it safe and pull the player knowing the emergency can come in.

It isn’t set in stone. It just means that at least two need to travel or be held over where ressies play after the AFL team.