I wonder if anyone pulling a 4 week hamstring will hit their head on the way down and be out with concussion?

9 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

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

But we have already had Subs, and it was a situation the Players hated. The AFL got rid of it...

As someone posted earlier - what if there's more than one? How many subs can you have? 

14 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

I wonder if anyone pulling a 4 week hamstring will hit their head on the way down and be out with concussion?

or any player the week before a bye (assuming 12 days to next match of the team).

33 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

But we have already had Subs, and it was a situation the Players hated. The AFL got rid of it...

Very different circumstances.  Recon the players might hate less rotations when they lose someone too.

 

It might look rushed, but let's not forget that the long term ramifications of concussion and potential lawsuits against the AFL, they need to be more proactive on the issue. Changing the return to play protocol for concussion was a positive step tho.

"How it different to broken arm/leg/other injury" - you go a player down either way - no denying that. It's an interesting question, but also need to remember that concussion on the whole is a different beast to a soft tissue/bone injury in terms of effect both short and long term. 

Ultimately it comes down to a question on whether a team should be disadvantaged by prioritizing player's welfare and having a cautious approach. Agree with @Pollyanna that having a replacement available during the testing makes some sense - a team isn't disadvantaged for being cautious.

But the next question pops up - if that player is ruled out from concussion, should the replacement be taken out of the game and it be treated the same as any other injury? This way it's cautious approach meets tough luck, just means the poor sub is jerked around a bit. You'd need to put some other rules in place to safeguard it being manipulated against and it opens up a lot more questions.

I don't know the answer, I am not against a concussion-sub either and can see both sides of the argument but does feel like they're trying to sneak it in just before Round 1, more discourse could help iron it out. 

 

 

1 hour ago, GM11 said:

As someone posted earlier - what if there's more than one? How many subs can you have? 

Hopefully someone has softened the turf at Optus Stadium!

1 hour ago, Travy14 said:

Very different circumstances.  Recon the players might hate less rotations when they lose someone too.

 

No it isn’t. Players will sit there for the whole game if there are no concussions. 
 

and how many players will sit on the bench for 95% of the game. Get subbed on and injure themselves because they were stagnant sitting for too long. 
it will happen 

the Game had 2 Reserve Players for 100 years  and now has 4. 
We have already had Subs and it was halted 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No it isn’t. Players will sit there for the whole game if there are no concussions. 
 

and how many players will sit on the bench for 95% of the game. Get subbed on and injure themselves because they were stagnant sitting for too long. 
it will happen 

the Game had 2 Reserve Players for 100 years  and now has 4. 
We have already had Subs and it was halted 

How many subs were injured when it was in?

I would suggest the sub would be on the bike and doing drills at the breaks to be physically ready if needed.

I dont agree with it coming in, but can't see how any side is disadvantaged by it.

On 3/13/2021 at 2:38 PM, 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.

and what happens if a team mate knocks out of his own team mates? 

31 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

How many subs were injured when it was in?

I would suggest the sub would be on the bike and doing drills at the breaks to be physically ready if needed.

I dont agree with it coming in, but can't see how any side is disadvantaged by it.

I am talking about individual players. Soft tissue injuries will happen to these subs and then the Players Union will cherp up

why i say this is because we have already had the subs before, it’s not as if we are trying this for the first time. 
it failed once already. 
 

Has the AFL made a decision today? I haven’t seen anything, it’s been a fairly big news day!!!

3 hours ago, roy11 said:

"How it different to broken arm/leg/other injury" - you go a player down either way - no denying that. It's an interesting question, but also need to remember that concussion on the whole is a different beast to a soft tissue/bone injury in terms of effect both short and long term. 

Ultimately it comes down to a question on whether a team should be disadvantaged by prioritizing player's welfare and having a cautious approach. Agree with @Pollyanna that having a replacement available during the testing makes some sense - a team isn't disadvantaged for being cautious.

But the next question pops up - if that player is ruled out from concussion, should the replacement be taken out of the game and it be treated the same as any other injury? This way it's cautious approach meets tough luck, just means the poor sub is jerked around a bit. You'd need to put some other rules in place to safeguard it being manipulated against and it opens up a lot more questions.

 

That's the problem with this proposal.  It isn't any different to any other injury.  And we don't have subs while potential knee testing is done by the doctors. 

Just watch the player with a knee, leg, hamstring suddenly doing a concussion test as well, so that the sub can be used.

On 3/14/2021 at 12:05 AM, rjay said:

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.

Gil is a squib, terrible leader. Too busy trying to please everyone, no vision or direction.

13 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

That's the problem with this proposal.  It isn't any different to any other injury.  And we don't have subs while potential knee testing is done by the doctors. 

Just watch the player with a knee, leg, hamstring suddenly doing a concussion test as well, so that the sub can be used.

It has been suggested in the media that the re-introduced sub might be for all injuries where a player may miss the next week. Makes sense to me. Otherwise a crafty coach will say that a player who tweaked his hamstring also had a "touch of concussion" allowing the sub to be activated. That would have the impact of delegitimising concerns about concussion which is not what the AFL or the players want.  

On 3/14/2021 at 1:00 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Next we will have a Hammy Sub...

what about a sub sub Sir?

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It has been suggested in the media that the re-introduced sub might be for all injuries where a player may miss the next week. Makes sense to me. Otherwise a crafty coach will say that a player who tweaked his hamstring also had a "touch of concussion" allowing the sub to be activated. That would have the impact of delegitimising concerns about concussion which is not what the AFL or the players want.  

I'll live with that if it's a compulsory week off for the subbed player. The opportuntiy to game it otherwise is obvious

46 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I'll live with that if it's a compulsory week off for the subbed player. The opportuntiy to game it otherwise is obvious

yep. I agree with you here. 

Media reports suggest than the sub may be used for any type of injury that rules a player out of the rest of the match.  AFL expected to make an announcement about this today.

7 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Media reports suggest than the sub may be used for any type of injury that rules a player out of the rest of the match.  AFL expected to make an announcement about this today.

Rest of the match? .   I can gaurantee an injury about half way through Q4 every week.  So silly it can't be true.

I believe it would be subject to a doctor's report and that the 12-day break would also apply as outlined in the concussion sub rules.  It's not as if the AFL would do anything silly is it?  

 

It’s a worry when I agree with Robbo

i feel very uneasy

The real worry about that Robbo clip was Gil's pathetic arm-waving response.  The true response should be "we don't trust clubs to take off concussed players properly, so we've introduced this as an incentive for them to do so".

4 hours ago, demonstone said:

Media reports suggest than the sub may be used for any type of injury that rules a player out of the rest of the match.  AFL expected to make an announcement about this today.

 

4 hours ago, sue said:

Rest of the match? .   I can gaurantee an injury about half way through Q4 every week.  So silly it can't be true.

Oh yes it can. Remember it is up to Gil and SHocking..

I know it's just a clip and therefore perhaps out of context, but was Robbo more concerned that a rule is changing a few days before the season begins than he is for the mental health of players? 

Reasonably poor response from McLaughlin, too, claiming it's not a rule change because it's not actually a change to the way the game is being played.