Injury Medical Sub - the first integrity check

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

There is a big difference in the rules between a medical substitution and a concussion substitution and they shouldn’t be getting confused or compared as having the same guidelines

 

[PrisonBars4life]

I mean, we all know Jonas flopped and not one Port fan would defend that. Was pretty disgraceful tbh.

But it's clearly a different situation to subbing a player out for concussion symptoms (why else would they take off a highly dangerous forward) and then getting him up to play?

It doesn't quite pass the stink test. Interesting week ahead. Regardless if Jonas flopped or not, which isn't even the slightest bit relevant.

Yeah, I mean it was a clear free kick without the head wobble because he was tackled well after the whistle had gone and thrown to the ground in a way that saw Lycett get Death threats, but nice try.

 

[Morris Major]

If you get medically subbed out you should not be able to play the next game whatsoever for any reason, then there is no wiggle room.

100%

Such an easy and effective way to police teams abusing the medi sub

 

[The 747]

Im assuming you meant that the tackle from McNaughton where he was slung to the ground when play had stopped? Yeap that was a real dive from Jonas.

Yes that one. Did you see him fake the head knock and lie there dead? Actually you wouldn't see that...

 

[The 747]

I mean, we all know Jonas flopped and not one Port fan would defend that. Was pretty disgraceful tbh.

But it's clearly a different situation to subbing a player out for concussion symptoms (why else would they take off a highly dangerous forward) and then getting him up to play?

It doesn't quite pass the stink test. Interesting week ahead. Regardless if Jonas flopped or not, which isn't even the slightest bit relevant.

Did you read the post I responded to?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Here we have a couple of perfect examples in an almost identical situation in round 9. This is where the integrity of the competition will be pulled into question if there is a different outcome applied here.

Case study: Jordan Roughead

23

Jordan Roughead

Age

34

Ht

200cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

5.7

2star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.1

4star

T

2.7

4star

MG

132.4

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.1

2star

M

3.5

3star

T

1.1

2star

MG

82.0

1star

D

12.4

4star

K

4.4

2star

HB

8.0

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

and Nathan Murphy

28

Nathan Murphy

Age

24

Ht

192cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

3star

MG

176.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

4star

MG

176.5

3star

- Both removed from the game due to a “head knock”
- Both passed concussion tests after the game
- Both were ruled out by the AFL under the concussion protocol from playing the following week

Compared to Weightman

- Removed from the game due to a “head knock”
- Then on the assumption if he passed his concussion test (just as above) or if he fails it’s an automatic out anyway
- The only outcome which maintains the integrity is for him to be ruled out As well. So will the goal posts be shifted now it’s finals?


The AFL’s new concussion rules could be challenged by Collingwood in Round 9 after two players were ruled out with head knocks, despite passing concussion tests.

Magpies coach Nathan Buckley revealed post-game that Jordan Roughead

23

Jordan Roughead

Age

34

Ht

200cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.0

3star

K

5.7

2star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.1

4star

T

2.7

4star

MG

132.4

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.1

2star

M

3.5

3star

T

1.1

2star

MG

82.0

1star

D

12.4

4star

K

4.4

2star

HB

8.0

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

and Nathan Murphy

28

Nathan Murphy

Age

24

Ht

192cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

3star

MG

176.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

4star

MG

176.5

3star

had both passed their tests, despite being withdrawn from Saturday’s win over North Melbourne by club medicos.

Under league rules, the pair won’t be available for the clash with Sydney next weekend.

Collingwood puzzled over concussion call despite two guns passing tests

Collingwood puzzled over concussion call despite two guns passing tests

www.google.com.au

 

[doggiesin08]

There is a big difference in the rules between a medical substitution and a concussion substitution and they shouldn’t be getting confused or compared as having the same guidelines

Understood and agreed however I would prefer a system that is more accomodating rather than less accomodating of being medically conservative on head injuries without “punishing” the player and team.

My views based on first principles:
- Is it a good thing for medical teams to be more conservative on head knocks even if not “concerned” as such: Yes
- Should a player miss a game because of a medical concern that existed a week ago but no longer does: No

This absolutely creates risk that the rules can
be “gamed”. Beveridge was the biggest critic amongst the coaches of this at the start of the year. In this instance however, on balance, I don’t believe the Bulldogs achieved an advantage. At the start of the 3rd quarter every bulldog fan though “shit we don’t have Weightman” not “great we have a fresh JJ”. The only counter argument is we “benefited” by not being needlessly a player down for a period of time.

The rule was rushed in and appears to have a stupid amount of grey zone. If Weightman is concussed this all becomes irrelevant. If he isn’t then the question is who wears the cost between the Dogs or the AFL’s reputation. The Collingwood precedence is compelling.

 

[banzai]

100%

Such an easy and effective way to police teams abusing the medi sub

They shouldn't even call it a medi sub. Let teams sub for any reason they want, but the subbed player cant play for 12 days at any level. Or just get rid of it all together.

 

[conrad_437]

Well, exactly. Unless he had a concussion...you wouldn't sub him out unless there was reason? If every single slight head knock was a precaution you'd be left with 16 players...

To be honest mate, we just don't have the exact details on the injury itself. Cody may have felt a bit groggy, had his jaw or cheek feel real sore, etc, etc. One thing is for certain; he didn't fail the concussion test.

The Dogs have been extremely conservative on concussion this year (Tim English missing 5 weeks for example), so I highly doubt there's intention to bend the rules. The worry would have been delayed concussion, and with the doctors having access to the vision of the incident (fairly big hit), it was reasonable to take precaution.

It will be interesting to see where the AFL will go on this, provided Weightman and our medical staff are sure that he is 100%.

 

[PowerBaz]

To be honest mate, we just don't have the exact details on the injury itself. Cody may have felt a bit groggy, had his jaw or cheek feel real sore, etc, etc. One thing is for certain; he didn't fail the concussion test.

The Dogs have been extremely conservative on concussion this year (Tim English missing 5 weeks for example), so I highly doubt there's intention to bend the rules. The worry would have been delayed concussion, and with the doctors having access to the vision of the incident (fairly big hit), it was reasonable to take precaution.

It will be interesting to see where the AFL will go on this, provided Weightman and our medical staff are sure that he is 100%.

It will be interesting to see where the AFL will go on this, 'whatever you want so the Doggies can join the Dees narrative'....

 

[conrad_437]

It will be interesting to see where the AFL will go on this, 'whatever you want so the Doggies can join the Dees narrative'....

**** me. Obsessed, you campaigners are.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Understood and agreed however I would prefer a system that is more accomodating rather than less accomodating of being medically conservative on head injuries without “punishing” the player and team.

My views based on first principles:
- Is it a good thing for medical teams to be more conservative on head knocks even if not “concerned” as such: Yes
- Should a player miss a game because of a medical concern that existed a week ago but no longer does: No

This absolutely creates risk that the rules can
be “gamed”. Beveridge was the biggest critic amongst the coaches of this at the start of the year. In this instance however, on balance, I don’t believe the Bulldogs achieved an advantage. At the start of the 3rd quarter every bulldog fan though “sh*t we don’t have Weightman” not “great we have a fresh JJ”. The only counter argument is we “benefited” by not being needlessly a player down for a period of time.

The rule was rushed in and appears to have a stupid amount of grey zone. If Weightman is concussed this all becomes irrelevant. If he isn’t then the question is who wears the cost between the Dogs or the AFL’s reputation. The Collingwood precedence is compelling.

I think it should just be made very clear cut that any player that is subbed out for whatever reason must miss the next week. This removes any space for differing interpretations and the game was fine without it beforehand.

That would still provide protection for a concussed or injured player but would prevent the rule being misused as it has at times.

 

[doggiesin08]

I think it should just be made very clear cut that any player that is subbed out for whatever reason must miss the next week. This removes any space for differing interpretations and the game was fine without it beforehand.

That would still provide protection for a concussed or injured player but would prevent the rule being misused as it has at times.

Agree.

What’s your view on the suggestion earlier in this thread that once one team has used their medical sub then the other team has unfettered or time-bound access to activating their own sub (i.e. the subbed out player doesn’t miss the next week)?

I think these work well in tandem.

 

[Lockyer24]

Have the concussion rule but if the player wants to play in a final they can if they sign a waiver of any future litigation or benefit

 

[Giant Pete]

One thing you cant question is the medical team at the dogs. Drs Zimmerman et al in no way will cross the line when it comes to the players health. As i would expect from all clubs.

It’s so cute that you think this.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Have the concussion rule but if the player wants to play in a final they can if they sign a waiver of any future litigation or benefit

This is what would happen once a player decides to legally challenge their own ban based on a standard arbitrary 12-day period, rather than the best medical advice. The AFL is covered if they let the player play.

This is also the real reason for the pre-GF bye. No need to hide a concussion on PF day in order to be available for the GF.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Agree.

What’s your view on the suggestion earlier in this thread that once one team has used their medical sub then the other team has unfettered or time-bound access to activating their own sub (i.e. the subbed out player doesn’t miss the next week)?

I think these work well in tandem.

I don’t think there should be any correlation between one team using their sub and the other team being able to use it solely based on that.

Again that opens up the opportunities for a disadvantage based on the circumstance.

For example, team A subs out a player in the first 5 minutes due to injury.

Then the sub is essentially playing a full game.

Then if Team B doesn’t suffer any injuries come the last qtr could have a fresh player available if they were able to sub a player out solely because the other team had an injury.

Injuries and substitutions swing in round abouts but I don’t think the role should allow for additional benefits depending on its timing.

 

[ashep]

You're not wrong.

But you should have begged literally anyone else to make this thread.

 

[Kermit]

I think it should just be made very clear cut that any player that is subbed out for whatever reason must miss the next week. This removes any space for differing interpretations and the game was fine without it beforehand.

That would still provide protection for a concussed or injured player but would prevent the rule being misused as it has at times.

The next week or the next game? If it’s the next week, it’s still open to being exploited due to bye rounds etc. As such, if you go that route, it should be that the player subbed out misses the next match.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Excellent explanation.

Essentially, if he plays they have tried to dodge the rule and subbed him out under another random injury and not concussion.

Which would be a clear violation of the rule.

Ever since you found out Port is playing the Bulldogs you have banged on about this, obviously nervous.

For one thing, Flea’s defensive pressure, and goal kicking accuracy was missed in the second half, JJ was not a like for like replacement.

The Bulldogs are very careful with players with any sign of a head injury, after losing Picken to premature retirement from head trauma. If there is any risk to Flea, he won’t play, simple as that, demonstrated by him being subbed out. The link between depression and head trauma is something that should be looked at as a serious issue after losing Spud, not trivialised as some club trying to rort the system.

I don’t know if it is because of COVID lockdowns or what, but the nastiness, lies and tribalism has gone to another level on here recently.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Ever since you found out Port is playing the Bulldogs you have banged on about this, obviously nervous.

For one thing, Flea’s defensive pressure, and goal kicking accuracy was missed in the second half, JJ was not a like for like replacement.

The Bulldogs are very careful with players with any sign of a head injury, after losing Picken to premature retirement from head trauma. If there is any risk to Flea, he won’t play, simple as that, demonstrated by him being subbed out. The link between depression and head trauma is something that should be looked at as a serious issue after losing Spud, not trivialised as some club trying to rort the system.

I don’t know if it is because of COVID lockdowns or what, but the nastiness, lies and tribalism has gone to another level on here recently.

This discussion actually has nothing to do with the fact that it’s come down to Port V dogs this week and it’s actually been a very open discussion for majority of the thread because that’s what it is, a discussion and not some tribal crap contest.

This is the first real test this rule has seen for a player to potentially miss a prelim where this incident currently sits within the grey are between the rules.

That there is the whole point of the discussion and not to argue the dogs have a bad medical team or that they will ignore health advice and play him if he’s at risk. If he is at risk or suffering any affects, ofcourse I don’t think they will play him.

The point is, what does a “head knock” actually mean in terms of the use of a concussion sub. As we have seen through out the year with other examples, players who have had a “head knock” and passed concussion tests have still been required for go through the 12 day protocol. So does that still stand or does it change when we get to a prelim?

If you are going to turn this into an us v them and port v dogs argument then I think everyone would rather you just stay out of the thread.

 

[Teal Leviathan]

When Fantasia was subbed out for SPP in the latter part of the qualifying final against Geelong, both Fantasia in his post-game interview and Hinkley during his press conference after the game basically suggested that there was nothing in it. Not sure how that doesn't qualify as abuse of the system, tbh.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Dogs medicos are saying they were concerned of damage to the jaw not concussion. He’s been cleared of
structural damage so should be good to go

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Dogs medicos are saying they were concerned of damage to the jaw not concussion. He’s been cleared of
structural damage so should be good to go

If that’s the case and A) he’s been signed off by the Dogs chief medical officer and B) they provide scans from the following day to rule out any fractures if that was their concern, then no problems returning to play.

Listening to Barrett this morning (I know, you can’t trust a journalists word) he was certainly under the impression he was off for concussion concerns and they would have to argue their case with the AFL for clearance too play.

Won’t know anything until the club issues a statement I think (unless they have?)

Also, it it was a jaw concern from the start, why would he not have been subbed off as a jaw injury instead of a “head knock” and that clarified after the game? If it was truely a jaw issue, I’m sure that message would have made it too Bevo before his post match media conference?

 

[Hoops]

Next week there is a huge decision for the AFL which will demonstrate if it maintains the integrity of the competition and the rules or if they shift the goal posts being finals and to suit certain teams.

Weightman was subbed off and out of the match after a head knock.

The dogs are already claiming it was precautionary and not concussion, in the hope he would be able to play next week.

Now we all know under the new medical sub and concussion rule that any concussion, no matter how severe, is a 12 day break. Meaning he cannot play the prelim next week.

So either, he was subbed out with a concussion (even if slight) and he misses.

Or they determine he wasn’t concussed which then means a perfectly healthy player was subbed out of the game for a fresh player. If he was not concussed and he was removed as a precaution, a precaution is not a reason for a medical substitution as they are saying at the time he is not injured. Meaning he cannot then be subbed out.

The AFL was very clear with the rules that they will come down hard on teams trying to circumvent the rules.

He’s either concussed and out next week, or the Dogs broke the medical sub rule.

Particularly when Johanisson was the medical sub who came on and kicked a goal for the dogs in a final decided by 1 pt, if it was a precautionary sub for a player who by their own admission was not injured, that’s a massive integrity issue.

This decision alone will either support the rule or remove any credibility the rule has.

They haven't been coming down hard with the sub rule so far this year. Why will they start now?