Just now, sue said:

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

agree but every time there's an issue we add another player. We only got to 22 because Sheedy complained about having one less on the bench.

Now we effectively have 23 at a time when the salary caps are strained to their max

You could nominate the player to be removed before the game to avoid argument.

28 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

agree but every time there's an issue we add another player. We only got to 22 because Sheedy complained about having one less on the bench.

Now we effectively have 23 at a time when the salary caps are strained to their max

You could nominate the player to be removed before the game to avoid argument.

Well that wouldn't work since clubs would nominate the most damaging opponent.  And if he went off with concussion before one of your teams was concussed.....  It would really have to be drawn at random. 

Whole sub thing is ridiculous.  Since the AFL's motivation is presumably to encourage teams not to continue with a concussed playe, the best solution is to use Independent doctors.  Of course finding an unbiased one in Melbourne may be a tad dfficult.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Well that wouldn't work since clubs would nominate the most damaging opponent

Not what I meant... the club nominates its own player to go out. It's a bit like the sub rule in reverse in that you will nominate your 22nd best player whereas the subbed in player under the AFL rule will be the 23rd best player for the other side.

It's not that much difference in outcome but it reduces the number of players required.

32 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Not what I meant... the club nominates its own player to go out. It's a bit like the sub rule in reverse in that you will nominate your 22nd best player whereas the subbed in player under the AFL rule will be the 23rd best player for the other side.

It's not that much difference in outcome but it reduces the number of players required.

ah yes, that makes more sense than my misinterpretation.

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Pathetic 

Just so predictable 

 

The concussion sub is the AFL sucking up to coaches for taking away some of their precious rotations.

I don't like it at all but it's par for the course in a Gill administration.

22 hours ago, Demonland said:

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. 

Presumably it would come from the pool of emergencies that weren’t going to play for the 2nds anyway. They usually carry over at least one player who just sits in the stands, that guy can sit on the pine and warm up with everyone else. 

I had thought of late that the AFL were basically taking away the responsibility of the player and saying if there are even the slightest of symptoms then they come under concussion rules. So if that’s the case then why is that any different to a player pulling a hammy?

I can understand the theory and I think it’s an ok idea, I can just see it being exploited if a player pulls a hamstring then why don’t they just say, “oh and I’m also feeling really dizzy”. 

2 hours ago, Pates said:

Presumably it would come from the pool of emergencies that weren’t going to play for the 2nds anyway. They usually carry over at least one player who just sits in the stands, that guy can sit on the pine and warm up with everyone else. 

I had thought of late that the AFL were basically taking away the responsibility of the player and saying if there are even the slightest of symptoms then they come under concussion rules. So if that’s the case then why is that any different to a player pulling a hammy?

I can understand the theory and I think it’s an ok idea, I can just see it being exploited if a player pulls a hamstring then why don’t they just say, “oh and I’m also feeling really dizzy”. 

While this may well work, I just wish the AFL would consider all the possibe unintended consequences of  a new rule before they implement it.   But a week before the season starts is a new low.  The CEO of the AFLPA sounds like he has run out of hair to pull. 

As for the difference between a hammy and concussion as it affects the game, there is none.  But clearly the AFL is nervous about the long term effects of concussion and wants to treat it differently.  A sub rule is clearly meant to be an incentive for a coach to remove a marginally concussed player by giving the coach the possibility of a sub.     An independent doctor making decisions seems better to me, though I guess that costs more.

It seems like a good idea to me. Because the player subbed out of the game can't play again for 11 days (they can play again on the 12th), it can only be used as a tactical move for fresh legs if the team has a bye the following week. That means virtually all of the time the sub will be used when there's a genuine need. The real benefit is for the borderline concussed player. It will be far easier for the medical assessors to err on the side of caution knowing there's a replacement player. And that makes it a safer game.

Also, the sub will actually give the carry-over emergency a genuine role.  

Next we will have a Hammy Sub...

15 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Wow.   Right on the verge of the season they throw this [censored] at everyone.

 

Edited March 14, 20214 yr by Pickett2Jackson

On 3/13/2021 at 9:17 AM, sue said:

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.

the player is forced to sit out 12 days anyway so they're gonna want to at least get another 30 minutes of football in because they know they are going to miss next week regardless of how they feel so it is no incentive at all to the concussed player. 

I am very surprised that anyone would be against this. They need to remove any pressure to return a player to the field with any form of head knock. You cant feign this to get a competitive advantage because if you sub out you are not just subbing out of the game but the next 12 days. Concussion is completely different to any other form of injury and needs to more seriously addressed and this is another good step in the right direction. 

i think the big q for me is when can you 'activate' the sub - is it for the 20 mins that it takes to go thru the concussion protocol testing or only after that?

14 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i think the big q for me is when can you 'activate' the sub - is it for the 20 mins that it takes to go thru the concussion protocol testing or only after that?

I think there's a good argument for being allowed to use the sub during the 20 mins concussion assessment so this doesn't disadvantage the team.  Then if the player is OK the sub is withdrawn and play on as usual, but if not OK then the sub stays in and the 12 days concussion leave comes in.

I have a concern that we have a 23rd player every week missing a game of football - unless there is a concussion.

Would an alternative be that if someone is outed with concussion, that the affected team is simply allowed to increase interchanges for the remainder of the match as compensation?

Edited March 14, 20214 yr by Neil Crompton

25 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I have a concern that we have a 23rd player every week missing a game of football - unless there is a concussion.

Would an alternative be that if someone is outed with concussion, that the affected team is simply allowed to increase interchanges for the remainder of the match as compensation?

There's an emergency every week that's held over for the match in case there's illness overnight or an injury in warm up.  This is a non issue.

On 3/13/2021 at 1:23 PM, 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 

 

Then don't play them. It's a teams choice

40 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Then don't play them. It's a teams choice

Concussions are not a new injury 

Why the knee jerk reaction 

Teams are also disadvantaged when a Player does a knee, but we don’t have sub for that (yet)

Question? Would the concussion sub coming on count as an AFL game? For example, if Jones was the concussion sub would that get him closer to 300?

25 minutes ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Question? Would the concussion sub coming on count as an AFL game? For example, if Jones was the concussion sub would that get him closer to 300?

Yep, if he plays 

Is this a joke? They are seriously bringing back the sub. One of the most unsuccessful rules the AFL ever brought in. And there is a long list. 
If a player gets knocked out, take him off. Same as any other injury

21 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Next we will have a Hammy Sub...

Sounds like a type of fast food

18 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Concussions are not a new injury 

Why the knee jerk reaction 

Teams are also disadvantaged when a Player does a knee, but we don’t have sub for that (yet)

Don't disagree, just saying having a sub isn't a disadvantage due to them sitting on the bench. If it is coaches won't put them on field