5 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Concussion sub seems like a no brainer to me.

**no pun intended.

i think it's a bad idea. what makes a concussion so much more important than an acl or a shoulder or hammy that it requires a 23rd man. same deal with any other injury imo if u get a concussion bad luck ur out for the game and u can't be replaced otherwise replace all injuries and if thats the case it should only be valid for injuries in the first quarter because after that it is a big difference having an extra set of wheels just join in the action

6 minutes ago, Turner said:

i think it's a bad idea. what makes a concussion so much more important than an acl or a shoulder or hammy that it requires a 23rd man. same deal with any other injury imo if u get a concussion bad luck ur out for the game and u can't be replaced otherwise replace all injuries and if thats the case it should only be valid for injuries in the first quarter because after that it is a big difference having an extra set of wheels just join in the action

I agree.  it is bad luck for the team and the player for any injury that stops them taking the field.  That's why overtime we have risen to 4 interchange players.  The flexibility is already in the system.

In addition you potentially have a player who effectively sits out for a week and does not get Match practice/fitness by not playing in the 2s. 

I’m not a fan of subs for the reason they have to warm up and then just sit and watch. With the limited interchange and longer game, I think the disadvantage when a concussion occurs is actually reduced. 

7 hours ago, Turner said:

i think it's a bad idea. what makes a concussion so much more important than an acl or a shoulder or hammy that it requires a 23rd man. same deal with any other injury imo if u get a concussion bad luck ur out for the game and u can't be replaced otherwise replace all injuries and if thats the case it should only be valid for injuries in the first quarter because after that it is a big difference having an extra set of wheels just join in the action

Presumably the AFL's thinking is that players/clubs need an incentive to ensure a concussed player does not play on, whereas they don't see any long term legal suits over a hammy etc. So they don't care if the player comes back on with those injuries.  But given some of the arguments against it other have posted, perhaps penalties rather than incentives is the way to go. Though not sure how to manage penalties.

I assume they are considering this as the the first 'Sub' works so well??!!

oh dear

dont overthink the game AFL, player gets knocked out, they come off.  the game keeps going

Would be just like the AFL to bring back a sub rule.... [censored] me

Number of rotations is spread over fewer players.  Concussion leads to more opportunities to rest the remaining players!  
 

some issues:  what if you get 2 concussions?  Why is concussion worse than an ACL?  What if your player is [censored]- drag him, give him a concussion test and sub in someone for fresh legs in the second half...

Pandora’s box this one.  And Pandora hasn’t bathed in a while...

Surprised by this AFL kite.

Another nail in the VFL coffin 

Of course coaches want it, they want to be able to have total control and losing players limits their capacity to make moves.

How about this - instead of the interchange we revert back to subs only. They can have 4, 6 or even 8 players sitting on the bench - hell why not the whole squad? But they can only come on as a sub, interchange is out. I'm sure the coaches will love that idea.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Of course coaches want it, they want to be able to have total control and losing players limits their capacity to make moves.

How about this - instead of the interchange we revert back to subs only. They can have 4, 6 or even 8 players sitting on the bench - hell why not the whole squad? But they can only come on as a sub, interchange is out. I'm sure the coaches will love that idea.

You beat me to it Dr. 

It would seem to me that if you subbed off a player due to the concussion rule, they would be excluded from next weeks game. So you’d only be using it if necessary rather than tactical or to address a specific players poor performance.

I agree though with the points made above and don’t think it’s a great idea.

What a ridiculous idea. 
Subs do not work, we already know this

They are really not that smart at HQ

Concussion is the same as an injury 

The team is a man down 

It’s not about being a man down, it’s about acting in the abundance of caution for an injury you can’t see and can’t easily detect at the time.

So I’m supportive of the rationale but I don’t think it’s the best solution. I think the best solution is independent doctors. Thats the best way to be cautious, take out any risk and take out any incentive for subbing someone on. 

The impact of a man down depends on whether you think teams play with 18 and a bench or if you think they play with 22 who are constantly rotating through the bench. 

 Coaches clearly think it’s the latter. They see 21 as a disadvantage, and 20 as a major disadvantage. 

It’s hard to argue against that but I think it’s fair to say if we manage concussions perfectly then they can be treated like any other injury. It all comes down to how concussions are managed. 

46 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It’s not about being a man down, it’s about acting in the abundance of caution for an injury you can’t see and can’t easily detect at the time.

So I’m supportive of the rationale but I don’t think it’s the best solution. I think the best solution is independent doctors. Thats the best way to be cautious, take out any risk and take out any incentive for subbing someone on. 

If a player is concussed during play. They are off for the day. Man down. 
subs don’t work we already know this

subs sitting on the bench waiting for a concussion will not work. They are not match fit and therefore are disadvantaged 

 

54 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It’s not about being a man down, it’s about acting in the abundance of caution for an injury you can’t see and can’t easily detect at the time.

So I’m supportive of the rationale but I don’t think it’s the best solution. I think the best solution is independent doctors. Thats the best way to be cautious, take out any risk and take out any incentive for subbing someone on. 

So Oliver goes down with potential concussion. Are we more likely to think "ah let's just sub him off, we've got James Jordon to replace him"

Also, re the player subbed off being unable to play the following week how does that work for the GF? Effectively you'll have a 23rd man you can sub on at anytime.

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So Oliver goes down with potential concussion. Are we more likely to think "ah let's just sub him off, we've got James Jordon to replace him"

Also, re the player subbed off being unable to play the following week how does that work for the GF? Effectively you'll have a 23rd man you can sub on at anytime.

If you really trying to get an advantage I think you could instruct one of your lesser players to stay down after a tackle to be subbed for fresh legs. Unlikely but it’s a factor to consider. 

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

If a player is concussed during play. They are off for the day. Man down. 
subs don’t work we already know this

subs sitting on the bench waiting for a concussion will not work. They are not match fit and therefore are disadvantaged 

 

Not sure what you mean by ‘subs don’t work’. Some teams got good use out of the sub rule. Gia was the super sub for the dogs I believe.

For home games it’s pretty much just having your first emergency a little more warmed up and ready to play. It really disadvantages travelling sides but if Adam Simpson is calling for it that shows how keen they are to not be a man down. And given how regularly guys get injured it’s more 2-3 men down that really worries them. 

Good teams won’t use the same player too often and will factor in development. That’s what happens now with emergencies.

I’m actually more concerned by the 23rd player than the sub. I’m in favour of less players (16 on field) than keeping on adding players. 

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m actually more concerned by the 23rd player than the sub. I’m in favour of less players (16 on field) than keeping on adding players. 

Lateral thinking but why not reduce both teams by one if there is a concussion.

Won't happen but it evens up the teams and could make for a more interesting outcome.

53 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So Oliver goes down with potential concussion. Are we more likely to think "ah let's just sub him off, we've got James Jordon to replace him"

Also, re the player subbed off being unable to play the following week how does that work for the GF? Effectively you'll have a 23rd man you can sub on at anytime.

I would assume the sub could only be activated after a player has failed the concussion test with a Dr ruling them out. Wouldn't be an immediate sub and they would have to go through the protocols. 

21 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Lateral thinking but why not reduce both teams by one if there is a concussion.

Won't happen but it evens up the teams and could make for a more interesting outcome.

I'd love the hear the arguments about who gets removed from the ground in the non-concussed side. ?

48 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Not sure what you mean by ‘subs don’t work’. Some teams got good use out of the sub rule. Gia was the super sub for the dogs I believe.

For home games it’s pretty much just having your first emergency a little more warmed up and ready to play. It really disadvantages travelling sides but if Adam Simpson is calling for it that shows how keen they are to not be a man down. And given how regularly guys get injured it’s more 2-3 men down that really worries them. 

Good teams won’t use the same player too often and will factor in development. That’s what happens now with emergencies.

I’m actually more concerned by the 23rd player than the sub. I’m in favour of less players (16 on field) than keeping on adding players. 

It’s a major disruption to certain players career. Certain players will be “Subs” It has already been tried. The Players said NO

Do we have subs if Players do an ACL?

Concussion is a by-product of a very brutal sport