Review Rd 19 Review - Freo Dont Lose Against Richmond

[StingBitten]

Definitely feel that the more difficult fixture has been a factor in this second half of the season, we've gotten the easier teams out of the way and we're struggling against better teams. Still managed to knock off Melbourne, Geelong and Brisbane this year so it's not like we can't beat good teams.

It's not easy playing strong teams EVERY SINGLE WEEK - And I swear to ****en Christmas every game we play each week is against a side throwing the kitchen sink at us to stay in touch with the Top 8 or Top 4.

 

[Square Peg]

But either of those scenarios does not fix the problem ... it only reduces it. So too does a 5 man interchange without the other conflicts existing.
That is, if you now have 2 injuries, the medical sub does not help as much as a 5 man interchange would help.

I am not sure you're getting my point. The concussion rule means for the first time doctors are overruling coaches as to which players can take the field. In theory a lunatic coach still can overrule a doctor and put an injured player back on the field rather than subbing him, but he can't overrule a doctor for a concussed player. That decision is 100% the doctors. So as a sop to coaches for losing that control, they brought in what was initially a concussion only sub rule. Until coaches complained about that, so they made it any injury sub rule.
The initial intent behind the rule was to protect players in la la land being put at risk by coaches more worried about winning than long term player welfare. It was an occupational health and safety measure not a football measure

 

[Madas]

I don't think they'll make it discretionary because that would defeat the purpose of protecting concussed players. If it was discretionary coaches would just pressure doctors the other way to keep concussed players on the field.
I think the only fair thing is to keep it in the hands of doctors and treat all subbed players the same - minimum 12 days off regardless of why you're subbed

Yes sorry
The rules Currently in place but being abused regularly
I thought this option was obviously out of the question as some teams just blatantly take the piss

 

[PurpleEyes]

I am not sure you're getting my point. The concussion rule means for the first time doctors are overruling coaches as to which players can take the field. In theory a lunatic coach still can overrule a doctor and put an injured player back on the field rather than subbing him, but he can't overrule a doctor for a concussed player. That decision is 100% the doctors. So as a sop to coaches for losing that control, they brought in what was initially a concussion only sub rule. Until coaches complained about that, so they made it any injury sub rule.
The initial intent behind the rule was to protect players in la la land being put at risk by coaches more worried about winning than long term player welfare. It was an occupational health and safety measure not a football measure

Yes, I hear you. But the initial reason for the medical sub rule is irrelevant if it is not being used under that premise currently and what I do not think you are hearing from me is, what if more than one player is concussed/injured ... 1 medical sub did not and still does not fix that problem ... which is why concussion now has other rules in place, including doctor evaluations, being ejected from the game and 12 days rest if concussion detected.

My point is player welfare is more likely to be looked after with a 5 man interchange vs the current 1 medical sub.
On Friday Richmond had 3 injured players (match report - Broad, Grimes and Miller) ... the one medical sub did nothing for 2 of their injured players. A 5 man interchange would give those 2 players more opportunity for medical attention and time off the ground than what the current 1 medical sub offers.

And you no longer have the cheating option available ... like what happened on Friday night.

 

[Square Peg]

Yes, I hear you. But the initial reason for the medical sub rule is irrelevant if it is not being used under that premise currently and what I do not think you are hearing from me is, what if more than one player is concussed/injured ... 1 medical sub did not and still does not fix that problem ... which is why concussion now has other rules in place, including doctor evaluations, being ejected from the game and 12 days rest if concussion detected.

My point is player welfare is more likely to be looked after with a 5 man interchange vs the current 1 medical sub.
On Friday Richmond had 3 injured players (match report - Broad, Grimes and Miller) ... the one medical sub did nothing for 2 of their injured players. A 5 man interchange would give those 2 players more opportunity for medical attention and time off the ground than what the current 1 medical sub offers.

And you no longer have the cheating option available ... like what happened on Friday night.

It is being used under that premise currently. It's working perfectly well for concussion as it was designed.
The rorting has arisen because of it being used for other injuries. So in my view either remove it for other injuries and return it to concussion only sub, or keep it for all injuries and make all subbed players sit out 12 days.
The size of the interchange bench seems peripheral to that argument. I get that if there are no subs a larger interchange will diminish the effect of a single injury, but then why stop at 5? Why not have an 8 man interchange and make it even fairer? Obviously the AFL won't do that as it wants to slow the game down, but a sub to me is the more sensible thing than a bigger interchange, however it's being rorted, so it needs modification

 

[PurpleEyes]

It is being used under that premise currently. It's working perfectly well for concussion as it was designed.
The rorting has arisen because of it being used for other injuries. So in my view either remove it for other injuries and return it to concussion only sub, or keep it for all injuries and make all subbed players sit out 12 days.
The size of the interchange bench seems peripheral to that argument. I get that if there are no subs a larger interchange will diminish the effect of a single injury, but then why stop at 5? Why not have an 8 man interchange and make it even fairer? Obviously the AFL won't do that as it wants to slow the game down, but a sub to me is the more sensible thing than a bigger interchange, however it's being rorted, so it needs modification

Once again, the medical sub system only offers some assistance for 1 injury, so it does not fix a problem, it only reduces it ... but a 5 man interchange would do that (plus offer more benefits).
You raised the point that the medical sub was initially proposed for concussion but is now being used for other injuries ie. it is not being used just for concussions currently and therefore the original reasons for it's introduction are now irrelevant.

Changing from 4 interchange + 1 medical sub to 5 interchange is negligible.
Changing from 4 interchange to 8 is a major change and in anycase, you would likely support 7 interchange + 1 medical sub more than 8 interchange ... a position I still struggle to understand.
And we have almost 100 years of changes to our AFL interchange rules that have seen us steadily progressing towards more interchange players, so obviously that is not a problematic change for the AFL (ie. pre 1930 - no interchange players, ... 1978 - two interchange, 1994 - three interchange, 1998 - four interchange players, ... 2021 - 4 + medical sub).

So far, the only reason presented for not having a 5 man interchange seems to be why stop at 5 ... but that question equally applies to why stop at 1 medical sub, why not 4 medical subs?
I'm trying to understand why a medical sub is better than an extra interchange and concussion no longer applies as a reason given our other concussion rules now in place.

 

[estibador]

As a Wests fan I am still ******* seething over that absolute corrupt bullshit. It was a classic example of the ref not knowing the rules and the bunker ref not having a ******* clue.

As a lifelong Cowboys fan since about 6 weeks ago when I started following League, I very much enjoyed it.

I had no idea what was going on, but I enjoyed it.

 

[apuchar]

But either of those scenarios does not fix the problem ... it only reduces it. So too does a 5 man interchange without the other conflicts existing.
That is, if you now have 2 injuries, the medical sub does not help as much as a 5 man interchange would help.

The AFL is trying not to disadvantage a side that has an injury. By giving the opposition access to an extra player every game (same for both so not a problem) but problematic when there is an injury to the opposition. You are just increasing the bench, not fixing the fairness issue. And the AFL don't want more fresh players.

 

[Fyfe! The Musical]

I am not sure you're getting my point. The concussion rule means for the first time doctors are overruling coaches as to which players can take the field. In theory a lunatic coach still can overrule a doctor and put an injured player back on the field rather than subbing him, but he can't overrule a doctor for a concussed player. That decision is 100% the doctors. So as a sop to coaches for losing that control, they brought in what was initially a concussion only sub rule. Until coaches complained about that, so they made it any injury sub rule.
The initial intent behind the rule was to protect players in la la land being put at risk by coaches more worried about winning than long term player welfare. It was an occupational health and safety measure not a football measure

They should have told the coaches to piss off.

 

[PurpleEyes]

The AFL is trying not to disadvantage a side that has an injury. By giving the opposition access to an extra player every game (same for both so not a problem) but problematic when there is an injury to the opposition. You are just increasing the bench, not fixing the fairness issue. And the AFL don't want more fresh players.

You say the AFL don't want more fresh players, yet on Friday night this medical sub rule allowed Richmond to unfairly remove a slow player (Miller) and replace him with fresh legs M.Rioli (who ended the game with the fastest average running times).
This scenario would not have occurred with a 5 interchange bench. I don't care if you even go back to a 4 man interchange with no medical sub. My point is the medical sub rules are not fair to both teams because they are open to abuse using subjective medical excuses.
Simply having just Interchange players provides more freedom, flexibility and options when reacting to game day player injuries without the subjective interpretations of how one team chooses to use the medical sub to their advantage.

And history shows simply having interchange players and increasing those numbers helps manage game day injuries well.
Sadly the AFL keep mucking about with substitutes and interchange caps with false beliefs that this will help them create a more free flowing (less defensive) game style. I say false beliefs because modern day premiership teams choose to play strong defensive style game plans with a huge importance placed on athletic speed and endurance. No amount of tinkering with the interchange player and rotation numbers will substantially change that (ie. last 5 years have been some of the AFL's worse scoring per game averages seen).

 

[apuchar]

You say the AFL don't want more fresh players, yet on Friday night this medical sub rule allowed Richmond to unfairly remove a slow player (Miller) and replace him with fresh legs M.Rioli (who ended the game with the fastest average running times).
This scenario would not have occurred with a 5 interchange bench. I don't care if you even go back to a 4 man interchange with no medical sub. My point is the medical sub rules are not fair to both teams because they are open to abuse using subjective medical excuses.
Simply having just Interchange players provides more freedom, flexibility and options when reacting to game day player injuries without the subjective interpretations of how one team chooses to use the medical sub to their advantage.

And history shows simply having interchange players and increasing those numbers helps manage game day injuries well.
Sadly the AFL keep mucking about with substitutes and interchange caps with false beliefs that this will help them create a more free flowing (less defensive) game style. I say false beliefs because modern day premiership teams choose to play strong defensive style game plans with a huge importance placed on athletic speed and endurance. No amount of tinkering with the interchange player and rotation numbers will substantially change that (ie. last 5 years have been some of the AFL's worse scoring per game averages seen).

I agree. But it is a pity you can't trust the ethics of a medical professional. The Afl tried to not disadvantage a team who got an injury during the game and left them one short through the game. The desperation to win has proven to be to great an incentive to cheat the system. It is the clubs fault, not the AFL.

 

[Fyfe! The Musical]

The point of making it a concussion sub rather than an extra interchange was to take the decision out of the coaches’ hands. They wouldn’t be down one player on the bench if a player was concussed, he would be replaced by someone and the bench would remain at four players. The problem is the coaches and their media sycophants griped that it’s not fair if someone gets another injury and the AFL relented.

The AFL wants to stop coaches sending concussed players back on the field. The coaches ultimately would rather have a concussed player on the field than being down a player on the bench. A concussed player, to a coach, can still play, he can still guard space, still run. Unlike a guy who has pulled a hammy, who is useless to a coach.

The AFL should have told the coaches no.

 

[PurpleEyes]

The point of making it a concussion sub rather than an extra interchange was to take the decision out of the coaches’ hands. They wouldn’t be down one player on the bench if a player was concussed, he would be replaced by someone and the bench would remain at four players. The problem is the coaches and their media sycophants griped that it’s not fair if someone gets another injury and the AFL relented.

The AFL wants to stop coaches sending concussed players back on the field. The coaches ultimately would rather have a concussed player on the field than being down a player on the bench. A concussed player, to a coach, can still play, he can still guard space, still run. Unlike a guy who has pulled a hammy, who is useless to a coach.

The AFL should have told the coaches no.

Concussion does not require a medical sub, because if you rely on that, then the system fails as soon as you get two concussions in one team.
Concerns about concussion have been around for at least the last decade now, which has led to some very stringent concussion protocols and detection.
It is not subjective like other minor injuries like that on Friday with Miller.
This is why the medical sub system does not work ... it is not required for treating concussion regardless of it's initial intent.
In 2013 we had a substitute for concussions and by 2016 we had got rid of that and went back to a straight 4 interchange.
Why are we repeating the same mistakes again. Give it time and the AFL will again get rid of the substitute ... just like they always have in the history of their mucking about with the interchange.

 

[Fyfe! The Musical]

In 2013 we had a substitute for concussions and by 2016 we had got rid of that and went back to a straight 4 interchange.

The sub rule between 2011-2015 was about stopping Collingwood’s mass rotation tactic, not concussion.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

They need to simplify the sub rule. If a player can’t finish the game due to injury or concussion, then sub him off. The whole 12 day thing was bought in as that’s what the minimum time off for a concussion was so they looped it in with the injury definition.

Clarkson bought it up a couple of weeks before a season started & the AFL went with it because it was Clarkson.

The injury sub rule was only partly about ensuring there was an evenness, it’s more about trying to stop injured players playing or concussed players continuing.

AFL is a game of attrition & the sub rule helps keep that even to a degree, but if you lose 2 to injury, then too bad. You win some you lose some, you’ve still got 18 on the field.

The problem with what Richmond did is there is no defined punishment if you are found to misuse the sub in its current form. You can be found to bring the game into disrepute, but that has no impact on the result of the game. Perhaps you should lose four premiership points, win or lose, then I’m sure clubs would take it seriously.

 

[Lach72]

Make it 23, no subs, concussion gets subbed and 12 days.

Thats it.

Also allows some flexibility with player types.

Two rucks could become standard.

Jackson for instance could play like Blicavs and Darcy and Meek can rotate off the bench

 

[Paracleet]

Is Dimmer the thickest and least imaginative triple premiership winning coach ever? Season on the line, they really have to win: Leaves his +1 in defense and refused to even it up while they dominate the midfield for 2.5 quarters but our halfbacks run rampant in Young and Clark and they are only a goal up at 3/4 time.

They were very lucky not to get buried in that last quarter.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

Make it 23, no subs, concussion gets subbed and 12 days.

Thats it.

Also allows some flexibility with player types.

Two rucks could become standard.

Jackson for instance could play like Blicavs and Darcy and Meek can rotate off the bench

I’m not disagreeing with you here, but that really doesn’t suit the AFL’s agenda of trying to fatigue players during a game to try to stop them setting up defensively & allow for more space to attack & therefore score.

 

[Tbonefreo]

I don't mind as long as we are allowed to cheat as well

 

[PurpleEyes]

I’m not disagreeing with you here, but that really doesn’t suit the AFL’s agenda of trying to fatigue players during a game to try to stop them setting up defensively & allow for more space to attack & therefore score.

The last 4 years have produced the lowest scores in the last 25 years of stats I have looked at ... so if the AFL are trying to do what you say, they are failing miserably ... nevermind that is junk logic because fatigued players aren't going to run as quick in attack either.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

The last 4 years have produced the lowest scores in the last 25 years of stats I have looked at ... so if the AFL are trying to do what you say, they are failing miserably ... nevermind that is junk logic because fatigued players aren't going to run as quick in attack either.

Sorry PurpleEyes, I’m not as passionate as you are about this, but you do know the reasoning behind capping interchange rotations?

 

[Madas]

Sorry PurpleEyes, I’m not as passionate as you are about this, but you do know the reasoning behind capping interchange rotations?

Sorry to chip in but I was wondering the same thing
From my recollection Part of it was to slow the game down to decrease the amount of syndesmosis and soft tissue injuries that were occurring a couple of years ago
Also I think it was to try and rid the game of the defensive flooding, I think the theory was that if players were tired they couldn’t just run end to end constantly causing congestion
However other than teams like Carlton and Geelong ( and WC a few years ago) with True KPF most teams including the Dockers still do it , they just create super fit athletes

 

[PurpleEyes]

Sorry PurpleEyes, I’m not as passionate as you are about this, but you do know the reasoning behind capping interchange rotations?

I believe it was because a number of people within the AFL who have the power to change the rules abuse that power and like to meddle where they shouldn't.
At the time that the interchange caps were introduced, they intended to make the cap 80, but the backlash led it to be 120 for 2 years, then 90, then 75 (where we are now).
Well over 80% of both the players and supporters didn't want it.
And since bringing in the caps, the scoring has got worse ... so if you know something, please do tell the reasoning behind the capping of rotations.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

I believe it was because a number of people within the AFL who have the power to change the rules abuse that power and like to meddle where they shouldn't.
At the time that the interchange caps were introduced, they intended to make the cap 80, but the backlash led it to be 120 for 2 years, then 90, then 75 (where we are now).
Well over 80% of both the players and supporters didn't want it.
And since bringing in the caps, the scoring has got worse ... so if you know something, please do tell the reasoning behind the capping of rotations.

From the below article.

"The main reason (for the 75 interchange cap) is to try and open up congestion around the ground. There are a lot of high pressure game styles which have kicked in, the pressure factors have increased, and have been on the increase for five years now, so our belief is we need to put a little bit of fatigue back into the system, and to recalibrate that part of the game and hopefully have the result of opening up the game," Hocking said.

2021 rule changes revealed by the AFL

Interchange rotations will be further reduced, while tougher penalties will apply for 'man on the mark' infringements

www.melbournefc.com.au

 

[PurpleEyes]

From the below article.

"The main reason (for the 75 interchange cap) is to try and open up congestion around the ground. There are a lot of high pressure game styles which have kicked in, the pressure factors have increased, and have been on the increase for five years now, so our belief is we need to put a little bit of fatigue back into the system, and to recalibrate that part of the game and hopefully have the result of opening up the game," Hocking said.

2021 rule changes revealed by the AFL

Interchange rotations will be further reduced, while tougher penalties will apply for 'man on the mark' infringements

www.melbournefc.com.au

But it hasn't opened up congestion ... it has done the opposite.
Statisticians/coaches like Rob Harding have shown using champion data that it has resulted in more congestion around the ball with an increase in contested possession stats and reduced scoring since being implemented. He and many of his colleagues advocate returning to a no cap interchange.
The AFL often respond to these types of reports by saying it was introduced to reduce concussions by reducing player speeds, but again the player associations have advocated that soft tissue injuries increase with player fatigue so again the interchange caps are not necessarily an improvement for the health of AFL players either.

Just like the medical sub rule, so many of these junk rules are more about AFL representatives flexing their muscles instead of making sound logical improvements to the game.