22 not 23?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Injury Medical Sub - the first integrity check
- Thread starter powerrrrrrrrrrrr
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
22 not 23?
- Jun 19, 2016
- 21,204
- 41,012
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
I personally don’t see any way Weightman plays.
Gaming the rules not cheating them.
No not really. The umps do like you though, it’s there in black and white. All season long and now number 1 in finals.
- Jun 19, 2016
- 21,204
- 41,012
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
I don’t follow. Why would we want to remove our best small forward when we’re 1 point down probably ruling him out for a prelim? How is that gaming?
Using 23 IF he didnt HAVE TO ....
- Aug 15, 2014
- 11,396
- 23,991
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
The notion that we have tactically subbed off one of the few scoring threats in our team is one of the more ridiculous theories I’ve come across.
OnlyPowerForever
Cancelled
- Mar 22, 2021
- 2,682
- 3,821
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The inference is that you need a mandatory 20-min out if concussion test required, so do the sub to skip the 20 mins.
Yeah or that.
If he was concussed he misses. If he wasn't he plays.
Just as it went from 18+2 under the injury excuse. Stealth exactly.
How does it help the game, the spectacle? If you want to go to the athletics, watch a marathon.
Strahany
Premiership Player
Except the problem is that if they’re admitting to subbing off Weightman due to concussion concerns, then he immediately enters the 12 day protocol. The AFL has removed this from the club’s powers.
Firstly, all of the emerging evidence is that concussions take roughly 10+ days to recover on the best timelines.
Secondly, concussions aren’t like, for example, a ligament tear where you can have clinical suspicion of said tear which can be confirmed/denied on further imaging. There is no such clear diagnostic measure for concussion, like a scan. Because of this, any suspicion of a concussion is considered a positive diagnosis which reduces concussion to a binary outcome as opposed to “could be x”. The AFL has laid out a 12 day protocol not because they’re forcing 12 days off, but because they’re forcing a series of tests which requires 12 days, minimum, to complete. You cannot expedite these tests so you cannot be cleared to play any earlier than 12 days from the (suspected) concussion.
So, this leaves us with two scenarios. One, Weightman was legitimately subbed for a (suspected) concussion, in which case it’s a 12 day minimum return to play timeline - no ifs or a buts. Two, he did not actually sustain a (suspected) concussion, in which case he would be eligible to play next week but would be an admittance that he was not subbed for a legitimate reason.
Any rule like this will be gamed, winning is the only objective in sport. The onus is on the people running the sport to be smart enough to realise that - and they prove year after year that they are not.
- Thread starter
- #117
but then if he wasn’t concussed why was he removed from the game as he’s not injured?
It'a pretty simple. Injured doesn't mean concussed.
- Thread starter
- #119
then what is his “other” injury that he has sustained that forced him from the game?
If they cannot provide medical proof that he sustained another injury (scans etc) then the only other option is that he was subbed for concussion concerns.
Therefor as mentioned above, that automatically triggers the 12 day period.
Again, as outlined by Strahany above, there doesn’t have too be a definitive concussion diagnosis at the time if he is removed on the presumption of a concussion then it’s regarded as the same.
Genuine not facetious questions:
Are concussions the only head injuries players can be subbed out for and / or is every sore head a concussion?
If a player passes the concussion test but the doctor says from video footage they are mindful about the risk of delayed onset concussion then does that trigger the protocol or does it kick the can down the road to see if the delayed onset occurs? Does the answer change if I replace the word “mindful” with “concerned”.
If the protocol is triggered does this risk penalising the more mindful / risk-averse (medical) teams. It’s a big call for the AFL to say a team breaks the rule because they are mindful or delayed onset head injury risks.
Last edited:
No one cares about the injury side of it. He could have felt unwell.
Do we have the medical report?
I thought it said head knock, he could have a stiff neck for all we know.
Did you see him post game during the interview? His nose was spread across his face and looked higher than a kite. No I’m actually more scared for the seagulls around AO as flea man flops around chasing free kicks.
BigFatNorthFan
Senior List
- Oct 9, 2015
- 225
- 800
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Nah, this isn't even remotely a thing.
The only requirement to be subbed off is the club doctor reckons reasonable chance they won't be fit to play the next week. So the doctor sees them get a head knock, figures they could probably be concussed, sub them off. Assess them after that and realise they're not concussed, say to the AFL hey we made a reasonable decision at the time but actually they're not concussed, AFL says cool no probs.
You're acting like players should only be subbed off if the club has done a full assessment and is dead set certain what their injury is and how long it will keep them out. Depending on injury, by the time that happens the game could be long finished. It's very reasonable for clubs to say "this player is probably injured based on events we just saw, we're going to sub them out and assess them", and that's how the rules work.
In short - if he's genuinely not concussed then they won't have any trouble getting him to play next week & it won't have violated the rules.
The only requirement to be subbed off is the club doctor reckons reasonable chance they won't be fit to play the next week. So the doctor sees them get a head knock, figures they could probably be concussed, sub them off. Assess them after that and realise they're not concussed, say to the AFL hey we made a reasonable decision at the time but actually they're not concussed, AFL says cool no probs.
You're acting like players should only be subbed off if the club has done a full assessment and is dead set certain what their injury is and how long it will keep them out. Depending on injury, by the time that happens the game could be long finished. It's very reasonable for clubs to say "this player is probably injured based on events we just saw, we're going to sub them out and assess them", and that's how the rules work.
In short - if he's genuinely not concussed then they won't have any trouble getting him to play next week & it won't have violated the rules.
- Status
