Hypocritical Coaches and the Concussion Sub Rule

[Lavender Bushranger]

Listening to Hardwick and Teague on AFL360 irritated me tonight.

It irritated me, largely because I was just stunned at the bizarre ignorance of how these guys do not see that they are the cause of most of the sport's problems. Directly, and of course indirectly more often than not.

They were discussing the new concussion sub rule, and Hardwick said something along the lines of how it was great because we all care about the welfare of the players.
Then went on to say that he'd like a sub for any injured player, not just concussed ones, and that he'd like to be able to choose from 4 emergencies instead of just 1 sub.

Cause, you know. Player welfare is the priority right.

Whilst this was happening, they're showing footage of Vlaustin recklessly going head first into a contest with his head and getting duly knocked out cold.

Cause, you know, player welfare is the priority right?

Is it? Is it really?

If it really was, would coaches bully and humiliate players to 'take their turn' when it comes to putting themselves in dangerous situations and putting their long term welfare at risk?

If player welfare is that important, would Hardwick instruct Lynch to go forearm and knee first into the back of unprotected defenders every week?

Would Paddy McCartin have been coached from his first game to crash the pack? A 19yo that has never played against men, being coached to crash packs?

Would coaches herald guys for 'going back with the flight' at their press conferences, if they really valued their well being more than winning?


I mean WTF??


If Vlaustin, or some 19yo rookie jibbed it and pulled out of a contest when the game was on the line, would Hardwick, or any other coach be cool with it? Would they be pleased because, you know, player welfare.


Coaches are just so full of shit. It irritates how self-serving they are, whilst pretending how much they care for the game, and the players. It's just nonsense.


The sooner the AFL stop getting their input on things the better.

 

[RUNVS]

I am fine with it being used to replace an injured player, but the player who is replaced immediately misses two weeks.

Also any player that is a sub must ride 4km on an exercise bike every quarter so if they come in in the 4th quarter they are not fresh, not that I am expecting the AFL to actually do that last part.

 

[Suma Magic]

Perhaps we should just sub out Hocking.

 

[mike123]

Maybe it’s the supporters fault for labelling players soft if they don’t wilfully injure themselves

 

[Lahmy88]

Umm because this is Aussie Rules football and it’s exactly how we like it? If you want to go watch soft footy, go make a marshmallow league of your own mate. Accidents happen but we’re not going to wrap up everyone in cotton wool and NEVER have any injuries, it’s just not realistic. I do support tweaking the rules to lessen head injuries but not if it’s for the sake of trying to eradicate ALL instances because our beloved game would be unrecognisable. Maybe go follow Soccer

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Umm because this is Aussie Rules football and it’s exactly how we like it? If you want to go watch soft footy, go make a marshmallow league of your own mate. Accidents happen but we’re not going to wrap up everyone in cotton wool and NEVER have any injuries, it’s just not realistic. I do support tweaking the rules to lessen head injuries but not if it’s for the sake of trying to eradicate ALL instances because our beloved game would be unrecognisable. Maybe go follow Soccer

That's fine. No issue with that viewpoint.

What I have issue with, is the bullshit that coaches spin about their priority being the well being of players.

It's a load shit. They care about winning. Everything else is a distant second.

 

[HairyO]

I am fine with it being used to replace an injured player, but the player who is replaced immediately misses two weeks.

Also any player that is a sub must ride 4km on an exercise bike every quarter so if they come in in the 4th quarter they are not fresh, not that I am expecting the AFL to actually do that last part.

Rather than the come in tired bit, the other team gets to sub in a player for whoever they want at the same time. So you would actually need 2 subs - 1 for the concussion, 1 for the other team's concussion.

But it has to be done at the same time.

Though maybe you need 3 or 4 subs, because more than 1 player could get concussed. I wonder what happens to player development if you end up having a bunch of players sitting around not playing each week...

 

[Sentinel]

I am fine with it being used to replace an injured player, but the player who is replaced immediately misses two weeks.

Also any player that is a sub must ride 4km on an exercise bike every quarter so if they come in in the 4th quarter they are not fresh, not that I am expecting the AFL to actually do that last part.

They'd easily do the equivalent of 4km/quarter on a stationary bike just trying to stay warm. That would barely raise the heart rate above resting.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So what is this rule for? What is it designed to achieve?

The way I see it, it's come about because of a coach's whinge session.
They literally want 18 super fit, healthy players on the ground for 100 minutes so they can clog the game up defensively.

The other reason is aesthetics. Some neutral supporters may also want to see a game played where the intensity remains high for 100 minutes and injuries don't get in the way of that.


They're the only reasons. There's no logic to support that it's a health & safety thing.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Don't think I've hated anything in AFL as much as the former sub rule.

We've got FOUR players on the bench, that's plenty of spares for the occasions that a player gets ruled out due to concussion or anything else. The game has been ruined by too many on the bench, too many rotations leading to the congestion we see as players are not getting fatigued and continue to run from contest to contest just like young kids footy.

Subs will definitely be manipulated by coaches, in fact every club would already be busy working through scenarios right now in readiness for R1.

Coaches and the effing AFLPA give me the sh*tz

 

[The 747]

Make them happy, have a concussion sub. And three on the bench

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So are they conceding that coaches and doctors may not err on the side of caution currently and send potentially concussed players back on?


I genuinely don't get how this would help anyone in terms of health & safety?

 

[Milanista28]

The game is longer now, umm no it's not it was shorter for 1 year.
Only 75 rotations now so we need a sub, why did we drop it only to create more rule changes?
Players can be ruled out with concussion now, that's been around for a few years and every team has been able to cope.

Players get injured it's happened for 150 years, deal with it.

 

[unplugged]

I expect they'll say whoever gets subbed off has to miss the 12 day period.

But then the stupid part is there'll be a bloke with "hamstring awareness" (likely a case where a player hasn't pulled up clenching their hammy, one that the average fan hasn't recognised) that will say he feels dizzy and must've copped a knock to the head.

Player likely to miss a week anyway, gets subbed off and a fresh player replaces him.

So many loopholes, it's going to be one of those shit rules they get rid of in a year or two, and yet watch the AFL proceed with the change.

 

[JackFlash]

Footy has changed, it's no longer the crash, bang game with a lot of running in between. We're lucky to have it all in 2021? The last five years is just a game of "Keepings Off" No comparisons can be made any more to past players or team eras before 2010, i would even go as far as 2015! This is how Footy is in the boring 20s.

 

[RUNVS]

Rather than the come in tired bit, the other team gets to sub in a player for whoever they want at the same time. So you would actually need 2 subs - 1 for the concussion, 1 for the other team's concussion.

But it has to be done at the same time.

Though maybe you need 3 or 4 subs, because more than 1 player could get concussed. I wonder what happens to player development if you end up having a bunch of players sitting around not playing each week...

I had not thought of that but that is not a bad idea. Would keep things fair.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

What complete absurdity...

Stop blaming coaches for ‘ruining the game’, says Dimma

Richmond coach Damien Hardwick has urged fans to stop blaming coaches for “ruining the game,” as the AFL brings in further rule changes in a bid to increase scoring and open up play.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Power Raid]

If a player is subbed off due to concussion, rather than replace the man with a 23rd........the opposition should sub off one player under a gentlemen's code

 

[faible]

If a player is subbed off due to concussion, rather than replace the man with a 23rd........the opposition should sub off one player under a gentlemen's code

Agreed. And the player subbed off should be chosen by consensus voting from the opposition team.

 

[Power Raid]

Agreed. And the player subbed off should be chosen by consensus voting from the opposition team.

Not a bad idea but I feel we need crowd participation in the process and a video review..........and lights, music, fireworks and the bugle playing the last post for the fallen

 

[RUNVS]

Agreed. And the player subbed off should be chosen by consensus voting from the opposition team.

Do what they do in Formula 1 qualifying.

Start with 22 players.

End of first quarter you need to drop 3 players to 19 players (16 on field, 3 on bench)

End of second quarter you need to drop another 3 players to 16 players (13 on field, 3 on the bench)

End of the third quater you need to drop another 3 players to 13 players (11 on the field, 2 on bench)

 

[faible]

Not a bad idea but I feel we need crowd participation in the process and a video review..........and lights, music, fireworks and the bugle playing the last post for the fallen

The AFL app can have a voting function, player subbed off chosen by poll results. To enter your vote, you must watch a 30 second video ad first.

 

[faible]

Do what they do in Formula 1 qualifying.

Start with 22 players.

End of first quarter you need to drop 3 players to 19 players (16 on field, 3 on bench)

End of second quarter you need to drop another 3 players to 16 players (13 on field, 3 on the bench)

End of the third quater you need to drop another 3 players to 13 players (11 on the field, 2 on bench)

Elimination by fantasy points? I like it.

 

[Power Raid]

If 22 players can't run out a game, which was once done with 18 players then something is wrong

23 is ridiculous

but given it is ridiculous, we know it will happen

 

[Lahmy88]

What I have issue with, is the bullshit that coaches spin about their priority being the well being of players.

It's a load sh*t. They care about winning. Everything else is a distant second.

Yeh I get ya and they shouldn’t be dishonest about their role. To me, they’re employed to find the best way to win within the rules (and whilst also potentially stretching them). This is how it will always be.

The AFL as the rule makers are the ones that should be charged with the responsibility of making the game safe and actually the Clubs as employers will also have to make sure they have significant input too if they’re going to be potentially held liable alongside the AFL in the future.