Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

[liz]

For me, if a player is concussed, and this is documented by a doctor, then I have no issue of an emergency being brought on, at the start of the following quarter.
This would have to apply to any concussion, regardless of how it happened, and any infringing player follows the current process.

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

[Meg]

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

I'm ambivalent about the emergency player issue but I can see there is an argument that concussion is a special case.

The AFL has mandated a concussion protocol with set medical tests a player who has suffered a head knock must pass before he is allowed to continue playing. That doesn't apply to other injuries - it is up to the individual player, his pain threshold and the medical staff whether one player continues while another with the same injury does not (Fyfe, broken leg; Goodes, torn PCL; Tippett, fractured jaw; etc.).

And associated with the latter is the possibility of exaggerating an injury to bring on a fresh player. The concussion test is a clear-cut decision factor.

[liz]

I'm ambivalent about the emergency player issue but I can see there is an argument that concussion is a special case.

The AFL has mandated a concussion protocol with set medical tests a player who has suffered a head knock must pass before he is allowed to continue playing. That doesn't apply to other injuries - it is up to the individual player, his pain threshold and the medical staff whether one player continues while another with the same injury does not (Fyfe, broken leg; Goodes, torn PCL; Tippett, fractured jaw; etc.).

And associated with the latter is the possibility of exaggerating an injury to bring on a fresh player. The concussion test is a clear-cut decision factor.

But there are some injuries that no-one can play through. Not sure why an injury to the head is different.

For example, Gary Rohan broke his leg in the opening minutes of a game. Jake Lloyd (and Callum Mills) were concussed in the opening minutes of a game. Putting aside the fact that the sub rule might have been in place when Rohan broke his leg (I can't remember and can't be bothered to check when it came in), the effect of the injuries was the same in terms of the team being a player down for the rest of the game. I don't think anyone would suggest Rohan had a low pain threshold that prevented him playing on with his broken leg.

[CureTheSane]

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

It's not. I only used the word concussion as it was the context of the discussion.
I would advocate it for any game ending injury that could be proven.
ie: if it's a rolled ankle, the player shouldn't be able to be available the following week, just to make sure that it wasn't a strategic substitute.

[Meg]

But there are some injuries that no-one can play through. Not sure why an injury to the head is different.

Liz, I agree with you that there are some injuries (Rohan a good example) where it is obvious the player can't keep playing. And I agree that from that perspective a head injury is no different.

But the AFL protocol relates only to concussion. For other injuries there would always be the 'where do you draw the line' question.

It is for this reason that I am ambivalent on the emergency player issue. All things considered, leaving the rules as they are now may be the better answer.

[barry]

I agree on keeping the rules as they are.

I think the "1 player down" impact is overstated when you have 4 subs already. I would love to see the statistical analysis of how many games are influenced by significant injuries. I wouldnt think it would be much, and on a sample size of this year of the games I have seen (Swans v Melbourne, and Giants v someone(?)), both times the team with the injury still won.

[Meg]

Barry, Swans lost the Hawthorn match by 6 points when they were two players down with concussion (and Lloyd a very early loss). I think that match is probably one that could be used by those who support the injury/concussion emergency sub.

[stevoswan]

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury?

When they're caused by a coward punch, they are very different from any other game ending injury. While I am in two minds re: a red card system, it would render GF thuggery ineffective and probably eliminate it.

[cherub]

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

Because it is a different injury.1.The player has no choice. They may want to continue playing, and feel able to play, but the AFL (rightly) has made an arbitrary rule, and 2. concussion can be brought about by a deliberate act (punch, sling) more predictably than most other injuries.

[Doctor]

Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

They shouldn't. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game but sometimes they just happen. I'm only advocating it for situations such as the Bugg one, where it's the result of a clear, thug act.

[Club 80]

I think a classy decision by a coaching group could make things fair.

Imagine if a Swans player had committed the act that Bugg committed on Mills.

The Swans coaching staff, in the interest of fairness, decided to withdraw the perpetrating Swans player from the game so that the opposition were not disadvantaged on the bench.

Would Red and White support that style of decision?

I think the coaches should make a pact that If a Bugg or Houli incident occurs and leaves the opposition disadvantaged, they will voluntarily remove the offending player to even up the numbers.

[liz]

They shouldn't. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game but sometimes they just happen. I'm only advocating it for situations such as the Bugg one, where it's the result of a clear, thug act.

But situations like the Bugg incident (thankfully) happen once in a blue moon. Do you advocate every team should have an extra player sitting on the bench for every game on the off-chance that an opposition player has a brain fade like that?

And who is going to assess whether the act that caused the concussion is a "clear thug act", as opposed to just accidental (or even careless) contact? If the game feels the need to protect a side against this situation, wouldn't a red card system work more effectively? (Not that I am necessarily advocating that - but you'd need to have the same decision making process whichever solution is used to even up the numbers, and the second one doesn't require an extra player to sit on the bench.)

I understand where people are coming from, but acts like Bugg's are very very uncommon in the game. The disincentive to do something like that is surely best provided by having very heavy sanctions against the transgressor. Only in a grand final could the benefit really outweigh the cost to the player and I'm certainly a supporter of the tribunal coming down especially hard on a player who commits such an offence in a grand final. This used to be codified into the system but isn't any longer. Still, I am sure the tribunal could use some discretion to apply an extra loading if someone deliberately knocked out an opposition player, a la Bugg, in a grand final.

[AB Swannie]

The only way to truly even things up would be to have a swans player king hit a demons player off the ball causing them to lose a player to concussion and for us to have a player worried throughout the game about possible penalties.



insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here

[0918330512]

The only way to truly even things up would be to have a swans player king hit a demons player off the ball causing them to lose a player to concussion and for us to have a player worried throughout the game about possible penalties.



insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here

I'll have to check through the old posts to see if people had the same views when BBBH gave Staker a chin rub

[Beerman]

I think a classy decision by a coaching group could make things fair.

Imagine if a Swans player had committed the act that Bugg committed on Mills.

The Swans coaching staff, in the interest of fairness, decided to withdraw the perpetrating Swans player from the game so that the opposition were not disadvantaged on the bench.

Would Red and White support that style of decision?

I think the coaches should make a pact that If a Bugg or Houli incident occurs and leaves the opposition disadvantaged, they will voluntarily remove the offending player to even up the numbers.

I would be against that. It's not the job of the coaches to officiate the game, regardless of what happens.