Tweet
The disadvantage happens when you have an injured player in the first term. Why cant the AFL say that injury in the last quarter cannot be subbed out except if it is concussion. As this is when the rorting is likely to happen and the results of close games will change. So it would be fair to teams that have injury within the first few minutes. And make it strong through the season as more evidence is gathered of how this is being rorted.
-
-
I don't see why that exception needs to be made even for concussion. The supposed disadvantage of losing a player lessens as the game goes on. I don't see the need for this change at all - teams have been suffering injuries for as long as the game has been played. But if there is some wisdom to introducing it, I'd apply it only for players injured in the first half.
As far as Stevo's question of why not just for concussion, that makes complete sense to me. It's meant to be about fairness. If one team loses a player to concussion at the same time the other team loses a player to a knee injury, or a hamstring, why should only one of those teams be allowed a replacement and not the other?
I do think the 12 day sit-out rule should be applied to any player subbed out, even if they subsequently make a "miraculous" recovery. It will lessen the scope for rorting the rule, though not eliminate it entirely, especially in, say, the Grand Final.
I'm waiting for the game when a side loses three or four players to injury, something that seems to happen to a side a couple of times a season. Which will be the first coach to demand multiple injury subs? (Or actually the second coach, as Hardwick has already argued he should have access to all his emergencies.)Comment
-
Jake Niall's piece:
"Under the rule, the AFL says it will be “reasonably determined” that the player subbed out hurt will be unable to play within 12 days (same as the concussed player); the relevant phrase, obviously, offers some wriggle room if a player is hurt then recovers before the 12-day recuperation period."
AFL 2021: League breaks its own rules to bring in medical substitutesComment
-
We would hope so. However, I can see this being abused at some point.
Firstly that 12 days is rubbery. It's one match or two depending on the fixture.
Secondly, it will be abused. First it will just be concussion. Then it will be broken bones, then a ruptured knee tendon, then a dislocated shoulder, then a hamstring tear, and so on, with the severity of the injury steadily declining over time."Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
I think the suggestion I made in the game thread solves the rorting problem. The team is expanded to 23 players (5 interchange), but 1 designated player can only come into the game in the 1st half as a medical substitute. If 1 side has a medical sub in the first half, they have equal numbers until the 2nd half, where 1 team would have 23 players against 22 available players for the other team, which is not so onerous.
I agree with those who think it's really unnecessary as there have always been injuries in the game. I wouldn't mind having a straight up 23 man team, which should reduce the injuries due to fatigue, which could increase because of the interchange reduction to 75.Comment
-
As a concussion rule, I had understood it as a risk management measure to ensure teams weren't tempted to keep playing players with head injury. It would also double to mitigate loss to teams whose player is concussed due to foul play. Also the concussion test is an objective measure, as I understand it.
Extending it to other injuries introduces subjectivity and the possibility of tactical 'injury' substitutions, and a greater likelihood of farce.Comment
-
I don't think the concussion test is a more objective measure than, say, a test for a ligament problem or a broken bone or a hamstring strain/tear. If anything it is probably less objective, and (somewhat) easier for a player to "fake".
If the game wants to stop teams sending back players who are concussed, they can come up with other measures. Indeed, they already have. Clubs are fined for doing so.
I don't think a player's inclination to try and con a doctor into assessing they are not concussed will be affected by their knowing that a player can come on to replace them. Players want to play regardless. They won't willingly sit out if they can avoid it.
I don't, therefore, see this sub rule as likely to have any effect on players playing on when they are concussed and should be sitting the game out.Comment
-
I'm not sure why that would represent abuse of the rule. A player is just as incapacitated (or more so) by a ruptured tendon or dislocated shoulder as by concussion. And teams are equally disadvantaged by a player being unable to keep playing whatever the cause of their incapacitation.
It only becomes open to abuse if tired (or ineffective on the day, or structurally inconvenient - ie too many talls on a wet day) players start to be subbed out. A no-exceptions application of a 12 day sit-out period following substitution would go some way towards discouraging that.Comment
-
I honestly don’t understand anyone fussing. Injury only subs were used for decades in rugby with no problems that I can recall (and I’m a Kiwi so I’d know). And wasn’t the 19th man an injury sub? Before my time but I always assumed he was. Judging by the fuss I guess not. IMHO they should have 3 emergencies available as subs to cover like for like (and more injuries). This is only sport in the world that penalizes teams for having injuries. Effectively an injured player is getting sent off (Red carded) which is ridiculous"I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005Comment
-
I'd be interested in the views of anyone appropriately qualified but you hear players - possibly joking - say they act dumb during their baseline testing to make it less likely they will be assessed as impaired.
Some of the subjectivity comes in whether a player is even assessed for concussion, or in how long it takes to set in. That last observation baffles or intrigues me, as it indicates that concussion isn't a switch - you're not either concussed or not concussed. Mills was apparently concussed in our last practice match yet played out the game. He was assessed after the game as suffering from "delayed concussion." Was he even tested during the match? (I honestly can't remember whether he was off the ground for a while or not - I think not.) And early in the game Chad Warner was involved in what looking like a heavy contest and stood up looking like he wasn't sure where he was. But he wasn't taken off to be assessed for concussion.Comment
-
So the sub's match payments don't count toward the salary cap....
Let's have buddy as the sub every game. He should get 1/2 a game every week which will suit him perfectly,. And think of the cap space freed up!Comment
-
Why is everyone jumping straight to the "someone's gonna rort it" line? 99% of the time it'll work as intended and help ensure teams aren't disadvantaged when they lose a player to a serious injury.Comment
-
Who was the Swans ruckman who was taken off on a stretcher (v Brisbane I seem to remember) only to make a Lazarus-esque recovery and return to the game shortly afterwards?
One of the most hated people on RWO (Barratt) blames the other most hated (Clarko) for the medical sub and believes that the rule will be rorted.
BARRETT: How Clarko's rant sparked AFL rule changeComment
-
It will be very cruel for Hewett IF he is selected as the sub as it will be officially his 100th game, particularly if a medical sub is not required at the end. A record of playing 0 miniutes in his 100th game?
Sent from my SM-T813 using TapatalkComment
Comment