News Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Ways to make this rule better:

- independent doctor makes an assessment; and

- you have to miss next weeks game.

12 days to align with concussion rules.

No reserves footy either.

If a club still wants to use it tactically after that then go for it.

 

[JohnZ]

Get rid of the interchange and just have 4 injury subs. bring it back to the good old days.

whilst we're at it

1. 25min quarters plus a min per goal
2. introduce a proper home and away season. play every team at home, and away
3. remove the 3rd man rule
4. remove genuine attempt from any rule. you either disposed of it legally or you didn't, you either had prior opportunity or you didn't. less grey area, more tackles rewarded
5. move the sunday 3pm game to saturday 2pm (so that makes 3 total)
6. move the 2nd/foxtel saturday night games to thursday night, that way the only games which overlap are in the traditional timeslot (saturday 2pm)

that'll make footy feel like footy again

 

[RUNVS]

Fewer interchange rotations makes covering an injury easier!
They should reduce it by more.

Um what? That makes no sense.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

So the buzzword of 2020 ‘agility’ is now being used to vindicate decisions that are just rushed and half baked.

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

The AFL know how to tie themselves in knots.

Can anyone please explain what the 4 normal interchange players are for?

The VFL/AFL has no plan for what they want.

The used to have no subs/interchanges.
Then they had injury subs
Then just interchanges
The interchanges AND injury subs.
Then just interchanges
Now Interchanges AND injury subs.

Again, why have the four interchanges? is that not enough? They spend their whole life trying to use the interchanges less and less, but add more and more people?

 

[JayJ20]

I don't know how they managed to come up with a rule even worse than the original sub rule. At least the original sub rule guaranteed the player game-time. They miss a seconds game to wait for an injury?

Definitely sounds like a last-minute decision.

 

[DanWA]

So if they use the sub rule to advantage, the player subbed out cops 12 days like a concussion?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

From the AFL statement;

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.


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.

Any club found to be breaking the medical substitute rule can be sanctioned "for conduct unbecoming, or prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the AFL, or to bring the game of football into disrepute".

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

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Someone should ask Jarryd Lyons

17

Jarryd Lyons

Age

32

Ht

184cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.5

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

8.7

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

4.8

5star

D

21.7

5star

K

14.7

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.1

5star

CL

4.7

5star

D

11.0

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

5.8

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

CL

1.6

4star

about the sub rule. Most vested played in the AFL.

ruined his early career.

he Would have a great game at sanfl level, be sub for the next AFL game, then sent back to sanfl for another game to demonstrate form whilst other players leap frogged him because they were getting consistent footy.

 

[Vikingnz]

Do we know yet if the 23rd player will be named as the 23rd player, or will it be a 5-man interchange whittled down to 4 before the bounce - which if I remember correctly, was sort of how the sub worked?

 

[Purple Suit]

so another rule introduced to cover for the outcome of a previously introduced rule - the AFL are consistent if anything

Yep and they are bringing it in now to take the focus off the man on the mark rule. I assume Hocking's bonus is directly related to the number of new rules he introduces.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Do clubs need to have a 23rd man available?

 

[Vikingnz]

I don't know how they managed to come up with a rule even worse than the original sub rule. At least the original sub rule guaranteed the player game-time. They miss a seconds game to wait for an injury?

Definitely sounds like a last-minute decision.

Don't travelling teams normally take a couple of spares anyway? I doubt the injury sub will be the same player every week.

 

[RUNVS]

Don't travelling teams normally take a couple of spares anyway? I doubt the injury sub will be the same player every week.

No as that would mean potentially the 23rd man never gets to play reserves games.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Do we know yet if the 23rd player will be named as the 23rd player, or will it be a 5-man interchange whittled down to 4 before the bounce - which if I remember correctly, was sort of how the sub worked?

Teams will name a 22 player team and 4 on interchange as normal.

60 minutes prior to the match when they submit their final teams they must nominate their sub.

 

[Stamos]

Um what? That makes no sense.

Yes, it does.
The dramatically increased interchange numbers of a few years ago before the caps meant that teams were playing a full 22 man side (rather than 18+4), so it was harder to cover for an injury, because you could not match the rotations of your opposition.

A more limited number of rotations means a team with an injury is less disadvantaged. The extreme version of this would be no interchange, only subs (although then a team with a player needing treatment would be disadvantaged, which was the reason they switched to interchange (2) from subs in the first place).

 

[Fat Nyfe]

“An unused sub will still have a game credited to their games tally”

Why. So dumb.

 

[FRUMPY]

“An unused sub will still have a game credited to their games tally”

Why. So dumb.

Is this for real - FMD, give me credit for a few games for having to put up with this shit

Edit: This would be the players association input on this new rule

 

[RUNVS]

Yes, it does.
The dramatically increased interchange numbers of a few years ago before the caps meant that teams were playing a full 22 man side (rather than 18+4), so it was harder to cover for an injury, because you could not match the rotations of your opposition.

A more limited number of rotations means a team with an injury is less disadvantaged. The extreme version of this would be no interchange, only subs (although then a team with a player needing treatment would be disadvantaged, which was the reason they switched to interchange (2) from subs in the first place).

Everything is still a full 22 man side. If you think it is 18 and 4 extras like it used to be, or if you think it will ever go back to that then you are naive.

Teams will never go back to an 18 and 4 extras model as that was a very amateurish way of doing things.

 

[JayJ20]

Don't travelling teams normally take a couple of spares anyway? I doubt the injury sub will be the same player every week.

Yeah but now they basically have an extra player every week + the travelling emergencies for interstate games. It's unnecessary.

 

[Stamos]

Everything is still a full 22 man side. If you think it is 18 and 4 extras like it used to be, or if you think it will ever go back to that then you are naive.

Teams will never go back to an 18 and 4 extras model as that was a very amateurish way of doing things.

They're heading towards less interchange rotations. If it got down to 40 odd, it would lessen the impact of an injury compared to what it was a few years ago when they had 140+ rotations.

But your point shows that the coaches have bastardised the interchange, which exists purely to cover for injured players, not to manage the minutes of rotating midfielders.

 

[RUNVS]

They're heading towards less interchange rotations. If it got down to 40 odd, it would lessen the impact of an injury compared to what it was a few years ago when they had 140+ rotations.

But your point shows that the coaches have bastardised the interchange, which exists purely to cover for injured players, not to manage the minutes of rotating midfielders.

Could you tell me where in the rules it states that a bench is supposed to be purely to cover for injuries?

 

[Purple Suit]

“An unused sub will still have a game credited to their games tally”

Why. So dumb.

Because the sub will be used every single game. No way a knock or "tightness" doesn't occur every game.

 

[Stamos]

Could you tell me where in the rules it states that a bench is supposed to be purely to cover for injuries?

Injury is why the 19th man (substitute) was introduced in 1930, and the 20th in 1946.
It's why they switched to an interchange in 1978 (so players could get injury treatment but their team could still have 18 on the field), and also why the bench was expanded to 3 and then 4 in the 1990s.

It was not introduced for coaches to have 100+ rotations.

 

[RUNVS]

Injury is why the 19th man (substitute) was introduced in 1930, and the 20th in 1946.
It's why they switched to an interchange in 1978 (so players could get injury treatment but their team could still have 18 on the field), and also why the bench was expanded to 3 and then 4 in the 1990s.

It was not introduced for coaches to have 100+ rotations.

So you are going off rules that were in place in 1930?

why not bring back the drop kick, or the flick pass or whatever it was.