News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[faible]

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.

I don't see why it would necessarily require two? The emergency concussion sub is also the emergency. If clubs want to run the risk of only taking one, they should be able to. If they have to bring the emergency in pre-game and then a player goes out with concussion, bad luck.

It's only relevant for the H&A season for the most part, by finals it's much less of a deal.

I don't however, support the general idea that's it's a sub for any injury.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't see why it would necessarily require two? The emergency concussion sub is also the emergency. If clubs want to run the risk of only taking one, they should be able to. If they have to bring the emergency in pre-game and then a player goes out with concussion, bad luck.

It's only relevant for the H&A season for the most part, by finals it's much less of a deal.

I don't however, support the general idea that's it's a sub for any injury.

My point is that no club would risk having just one. If someone goes down in warmups (or someone is a late out an hour before the game) and then someone else gets concussed in the first quarter, you’ve significantly reduced your ability to win.

It just sucks for the second player who misses out on playing any form of game that week.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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

I am not saying the player concussed plays on, you just end up playing one man short. there is 4 players on the bench and that is ample coverage for any scenario.

 

[MOVEMENT_MAN]

To be honest I can see Brisbane exploiting this rule when Mitch Robinson

5

Mitch Robinson

Age

35

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.9

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

8.7

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

15.8

4star

K

11.3

4star

HB

4.5

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

1.9

3star

CL

1.8

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.6

5star

is in there best 22.. "hey Robbo you're cooked, go knock yourself out" or they could just get him to sit the concussion test regardless and he would most likely fail it.

 

[RUNVS]

To be honest I can see Brisbane exploiting this rule when Mitch Robinson is in there best 22.. "hey Robbo you're cooked, go knock yourself out" or they could just get him to sit the concussion test regardless and he would most likely fail it.

Would have been easy for St Kilda a decade ago as Kozi was always knocking out his own teammates.

 

[Brezsa]

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

Teague & Hardwick talked about this last night on 360. If you playing on the same day as a reserve match, or after 1 player has already been held out of that reserve match incase you get an injury in the warm up and need the emergency. Hardwick also commented sometimes that player will be playing a half in the reserves the previous day if possible.

So it wouldn’t be anything new that a team playing Thursday or Friday night have a slight advantage of that emergency/sub getting an opportunity to play that wouldn’t occur if you where playing Saturday or Sunday

 

[D-N-R]

Why is this suddenly a problem? We had subs a few years ago and they got rid of them - coaches hated them. They've had concussion tests for a few years as well and players haven't been able to go back on if they are concussed.

The only thing that has changed is the players can't play the week after.

If a player was concussed last year, a team was a man down. If a player is concussed this year, a team is a man down. Nothing had changed.

Are coaches admitting they have been risking players' health by not taking them out of the game when they should have?

 

[SJ17]

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.

I would like to know if this is actually happening? A sub doesn't really fix the problem, not fully anyway. Using the Vlaustin example, having a sub would hardly influence the decision because the sub would still be an inferior player to Vlaustin.

 

[SJ17]

My point is that no club would risk having just one. If someone goes down in warmups (or someone is a late out an hour before the game) and then someone else gets concussed in the first quarter, you’ve significantly reduced your ability to win.

It just sucks for the second player who misses out on playing any form of game that week.

I think people are overestimating the impact the 23rd player would have on the game. I think the majority of the time they will do **** all so I don't see the need for a sub. Didn't we get rid of the sub rule because everyone hated it?

But I agree that clubs will hold over an extra player.

 

[faible]

My point is that no club would risk having just one. If someone goes down in warmups (or someone is a late out an hour before the game) and then someone else gets concussed in the first quarter, you’ve significantly reduced your ability to win.

It just sucks for the second player who misses out on playing any form of game that week.

There’s often more than 1 emergency at a game anyway, so it wouldn’t be as much an issue as it seems. They usually have a tall and a small for example.

Why is this suddenly a problem? We had subs a few years ago and they got rid of them - coaches hated them. They've had concussion tests for a few years as well and players haven't been able to go back on if they are concussed.

The only thing that has changed is the players can't play the week after.

If a player was concussed last year, a team was a man down. If a player is concussed this year, a team is a man down. Nothing had changed.

Are coaches admitting they have been risking players' health by not taking them out of the game when they should have?

They’ve become increasingly strict on concussion, or anything that even looks like concussion. The CTE diagnoses to Tuck, Farmer and Frawley would have only made them more cautious.

I would like to know if this is actually happening? A sub doesn't really fix the problem, not fully anyway. Using the Vlaustin example, having a sub would hardly influence the decision because the sub would still be an inferior player to Vlaustin.

Surely Selwood has been borderline a few times.

 

[SJ17]

There’s often more than 1 emergency at a game anyway, so it wouldn’t be as much an issue as it seems. They usually have a tall and a small for example.



They’ve become increasingly strict on concussion, or anything that even looks like concussion. The CTE diagnoses to Tuck, Farmer and Frawley would have only made them more cautious.



Surely Selwood has been borderline a few times.

A borderline Selwood is still a better player then the sub so if we do have a problem then a sub doesn't fully solve it.

Personally I don't think we have a problem. We had a problem in the past but there is more knowledge now and players are not going back on if concussed, sub or no sub.

 

[Purple Suit]

Why is this suddenly a problem? We had subs a few years ago and they got rid of them - coaches hated them. They've had concussion tests for a few years as well and players haven't been able to go back on if they are concussed.

The only thing that has changed is the players can't play the week after.

If a player was concussed last year, a team was a man down. If a player is concussed this year, a team is a man down. Nothing had changed.

Are coaches admitting they have been risking players' health by not taking them out of the game when they should have?

I think so, by offering a direct, immediate incentive the coach will be able to easily make the call. In that environment and during the heat of battle it must be hard to think about anything except winning. The player is probably saying I'm fine too.

 

[FRUMPY]

I think so, by offering a direct, immediate incentive the coach will be able to easily make the call. In that environment and during the heat of battle it must be hard to think about anything except winning. The player is probably saying I'm fine too.

Coaches dont make the call to have players ruled out during games, doctors do

 

[Purple Suit]

Coaches dont make the call to have players ruled out during games, doctors do

Club Doctors do, not independent ones. I wonder how much control some coaches have over them? Things can also be border line so maybe they run closer to the line rather than they would like due to the stakes.

 

[Suma Magic]

There’s often more than 1 emergency at a game anyway, so it wouldn’t be as much an issue as it seems. They usually have a tall and a small for example.



They’ve become increasingly strict on concussion, or anything that even looks like concussion. The CTE diagnoses to Tuck, Farmer and Frawley would have only made them more cautious.



Surely Selwood has been borderline a few times.

West coast commonly only hold over 1 emergency for Sunday games.

 

[SJ17]

West coast commonly only hold over 1 emergency for Sunday games.

Teams go interstate they only take one.

 

[SJ17]

Club Doctors do, not independent ones. I wonder how much control some coaches have over them? Things can also be border line so maybe they run closer to the line rather than they would like due to the stakes.

But how does a sub change this? People are talking as if the sub is an equal player who is going to come on the ground and actually do something when most likely they will do **** all.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Don’t have a problem with the concussion sub as long as the player misses the following match (which they should usually under the 12 days) but if it occurs before their bye then they miss the next game regardless and they must sit through the 20 minute concussion test period before the sub can be activated.

The 20 minute test period is key to avoiding the rule being manipulated as for that period they are still down a player and prevents teams doing it towards the end of the match and putting fresh legs on the ground for an advantage.

 

[Franc de Borges]

As they’ve technically been selected in the team, would the concussion sub get a premiership medal even if they didn’t get on the field?

There’s potential to exploit this in Bob Murphy situations as well.

 

[doppleganger]

The entire thing is ridiculous.

The game was historically meant to be 18 v 18.

They introduced the interchange sub to make it fairer for teams copping an injury.

The coaches and high performance managers hijacked the game and turned it from 18 v 18 to 22 v 22. This facilitated the full ground press and team defensive play which is ruining the spectacle.

Pretty simple, go back to picking your best 18 and then you can have 4 injury subs sitting on the bench who if come on, permanently repL e that player for the game.

 

[footyfan1978]

The entire thing is ridiculous.

The game was historically meant to be 18 v 18.

They introduced the interchange sub to make it fairer for teams copping an injury.

The coaches and high performance managers hijacked the game and turned it from 18 v 18 to 22 v 22.

There is no need for any extra sub. Four is ****ing plenty already. Beyond a joke if they turn it into another player stolen from playing in the level below just so coaches can **** up spectacle more.

 

[doppleganger]

There is no need for any extra sub. Four is ******* plenty already. Beyond a joke if they turn it into another player stolen from playing in the level below just so coaches can fu** up spectacle more.

But the problem is the coaches now see it as 22 v 22.

The game is meant to be 18 v 18.

Pick your best 18, and then have 2,3 or 4 subs injury subs.

Let the coaches and high performance managers come up with game plans when there are NO interchanges....like the game was for 100+ years. Who knows, might even get some positional play!

 

[juss]

Muppets running the comp.
2 days out from the season and clubs don't know the rules.

Suddenly something happened in the last week that required a rule change. Why?

 

[footyfan1978]

But the problem is the coaches now see it as 22 v 22.

The game is meant to be 18 v 18.

Exactly and you would think the people presently custodians of the game, should point that ****ing massively important point out to ****wits like Clarko that want to change it into a rotation festival.

It's 18 v 18
Not human chess

 

[HPKS]

The entire thing is ridiculous.

The game was historically meant to be 18 v 18.

They introduced the interchange sub to make it fairer for teams copping an injury.

The coaches and high performance managers hijacked the game and turned it from 18 v 18 to 22 v 22. This facilitated the full ground press and team defensive play which is ruining the spectacle.

Pretty simple, go back to picking your best 18 and then you can have 4 injury subs sitting on the bench who if come on, permanently repL e that player for the game.

It’s what I’ve spoken about on here for a while. Do not listen to the coaches, we’ve done it for way to long and ended up with a congested boring mess. Open the game up and show us some tactics that involve positional play.