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

[MattW]

The principle a 'concussion sub' would reflect is that a team which has lost a player for an entire game as a result of severe foul play should not be worse off than the offending player's team. I like the original suggestion on here that it would be available for a reportable offence. That is an offence the umpire deems serious enough to warrant review, without condemning the player. It works most logically for concussion above other injuries because there is an accepted protocol for assessing concussion and a diagnosis mandates a player missing the rest of the game. Similar decisions about non-concussion injuries would be more subjective and liable to be abused.

The 'red card' reflects the same principle, but is problematic because there is a question as to where to draw the line of severity and applying it consistently.

[Beerman]

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.

Exactly right. An "emergency substitute" would see a remarkable number of game-ending injuries early in the fourth quarter, followed by a nearly equal number of miraculous recoveries the next day. Remember what rugby union was like in the early 80s when there were no subs except for injury? A lot of unexplained and mysterious injuries used to happen every game. Even with the concussion test, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some abuse by players who were coached to fake concussion.

I think the only way of combatting it would be to say that a player who is replaced is ineligible to be selected the following week (or the following game, in the event of a bye). It seems the standard practice in cases of concussion to rest the player for a week anyway, so it would still be effective in cases where the player was genuinely injured, but would provide a strong disincentive to fake injuries.

[liz]

I think the only way of combatting it would be to say that a player who is replaced is ineligible to be selected the following week (or the following game, in the event of a bye). It seems the standard practice in cases of concussion to rest the player for a week anyway, so it would still be effective in cases where the player was genuinely injured, but would provide a strong disincentive to fake injuries.

I don't believe it is automatic that players who are concussed miss the following week. It depends on the severity of the concussion and the individual player.

It sounds like Mills is still a reasonable chance for this weekend's game. Do you think someone on the Swans coaching team should have had to make a decision halfway through the first quarter last week to be without Mills not just for the rest of that game but also for this game. Imagine if the same decision needed to be made about Franklin, or Kennedy.

[Beerman]

I don't believe it is automatic that players who are concussed miss the following week. It depends on the severity of the concussion and the individual player.

It sounds like Mills is still a reasonable chance for this weekend's game. Do you think someone on the Swans coaching team should have had to make a decision halfway through the first quarter last week to be without Mills not just for the rest of that game but also for this game. Imagine if the same decision needed to be made about Franklin, or Kennedy.

I agree that it's not automatic, and my proposal is definitely not perfect. I just think it would be better than the rampant abuse that would happen if there were no such penalty, particularly if the emergency were allowed for any injury and not just concussion.

[Mug Punter]

I think the idea of an emergency sub is a good one for concussion and I'd actually have no problem with it being just a blanket sub (or even two) that is part of an extended bench. Or for all injuries deemed game ending by an independent doctor.

I just find the concussion injuries are often as a result of questionable play and by doing the right things by the player the club is being penalised.

10 years ago Mills would have come back on in the second quarter and played OK. I'm glad we are more enlightened about head injuries but I just would like the clubs in question to not be disadvantaged. And I do think there is a difference between concussion and other injuries because they are really AFL mandated player removals

- - - Updated - - -

The principle a 'concussion sub' would reflect is that a team which has lost a player for an entire game as a result of severe foul play should not be worse off than the offending player's team. I like the original suggestion on here that it would be available for a reportable offence. That is an offence the umpire deems serious enough to warrant review, without condemning the player. It works most logically for concussion above other injuries because there is an accepted protocol for assessing concussion and a diagnosis mandates a player missing the rest of the game. Similar decisions about non-concussion injuries would be more subjective and liable to be abused.

The 'red card' reflects the same principle, but is problematic because there is a question as to where to draw the line of severity and applying it consistently.

I'd be OK with this too...

- - - Updated - - -

The red card I agree with in theory but in practice I can see the borderline indiscretions being a minefield

[S.S. Bleeder]

I don't like the idea of introducing a concussion sub. Remember what we all thought of having subs? Players like Luke Parker we sitting on the fringes missing out on valuable game conditioning and having to do additional training post-match.

Taking the emotion out of it, concussion is no different from any other game ending injury. The only difference is that concussion can sometimes be caused by an opponent.

Introducing a red card would solve this problem. I would give this responsibility to the "3rd umpire" after he has reviewed all video footage and enforce a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". I would never trust a field umpire to make an important decision such as this. Just look at last years GF if you think they are competent.

[neilfws]

I understand where people are coming from, but acts like Bugg's are very very uncommon in the game

This is an important point. I'm not keen on knee-jerk reactions to rare events. There was some headline recently along the lines of "is footy out of control". Based on what, two unfortunate incidents out of hundreds of games played nationwide in a year. There's a really long suspension maybe once every year or two, because most players know the consequences.

It would be easy to slip into a rant about how we live in a world shaped by disproportionate media reaction to rare events so I won't

[aardvark]

Bump up the suspension to something that is a real deterrent, in Buggs case 12 months, and leave the rules alone.

[0918330512]

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

Classy? Seriously? Every club is looking for a legit edge to win every game. Having a player belt another player to take them out is not legit. As the rules currently stand, having the player who belted another player keep playing is legit. No club would disadvantage itself willingly.

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.

The whole premis of football from a club's perspective is unfairness. Every club wants better players, better facilities, better coaches, more members (=more $), bigger sponsors. No individual club wants it even. The AFL sort of does (hence salary caps, wealth taxes, trade bans). And I doubt the fans of clubs want it even either. Perhaps fair and even for 17 [i}other[/i] clubs, but we want our to be above the rest.

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

You don't need to imagine it. Think back to Hall on Staker. Hall wasn't removed from the ground by staff for the rest of the game.

Barry was regularly pulled from the ground - but more to save him from himself than to even things up.

Would Red and White support that style of decision?

They might if we won the game, but look at how we react when we lose usually. Pull a player for a striking charge and if we lost the game the calls for the coaching staff to be sacked would probably rival the length of the Tippett thread.

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.

Tell him he's dreaming

[Markwebbos]

There is an irony to the fact that Bugg's actions clearly affected him and, mentally, he virtually took no further part in the game.

I remember a game where Buddy and I think Tippo were both reported and their minds were clearly elsewhere after that.

I don't remember Bazza's performance after he knocked out Staker, but I would say voluntarily removing the offending player, like Bugg, wouldn't actually make such a huge difference.

[liz]

I don't remember Bazza's performance after he knocked out Staker, but I would say voluntarily removing the offending player, like Bugg, wouldn't actually make such a huge difference.

He broke his wrist not too long after. Can't remember the approximate timings of the punch and the wrist break but I don't think the gap was more than around a quarter or so.

[goswannies]

He broke his wrist not too long after. Can't remember the approximate timings of the punch and the wrist break but I don't think the gap was more than around a quarter or so.

It was when he ran into the fence wasn't it later in the match?

[AnnieH]

It was when he ran into the fence wasn't it later in the match?

Yes.
That's why his suspension didn't hurt so much... he had a broken wrist to sit out anyway.
He's still a dick.