11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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. 

Robbo completely forgets what he was saying mid sentence 

i saw the show last night. He is an embarrassment to all of us who enjoy the game

If it is to be introduced it must be simple to administer and verify.

It should apply to all types of contact injuries that have occurred in the game ie. not soft tissue type injuries that will take a player permanently out of the game in any of the first three quarters. No last quarter substitutions to be allowed. One quarter with a reduced bench should be considered normal.

Substitute player is restricted to playing in the last quarter only to prevent coaches gaming the system ie. must be on the bench during the first three quarters and only join the 22 at 3qt.

The injured subbed player must not be allowed to play the next match (not next week because could be gamed by the bye or finals).

The 23rd is a to be real substitute ie. capable of playing a whole game and not a player recovering from injury who needs limited time.

Substitute players must be selected in the 22 for the next match and no substitute player can be a substitute more than 2 times a season.

The same strict liability approach that applies to man on the mark breaches should apply to any coach who transgresses who should be substituted for at least 2 games ie not on the bench, on the ground or in the box. No defences accepted.

Seems fair and restricts opportunities to game the system.

I commend it to the AFL

 

15 minutes ago, tiers said:

If it is to be introduced it must be simple to administer and verify.

It should apply to all types of contact injuries that have occurred in the game ie. not soft tissue type injuries that will take a player permanently out of the game in any of the first three quarters. No last quarter substitutions to be allowed. One quarter with a reduced bench should be considered normal.

Substitute player is restricted to playing in the last quarter only to prevent coaches gaming the system ie. must be on the bench during the first three quarters and only join the 22 at 3qt.

The injured subbed player must not be allowed to play the next match (not next week because could be gamed by the bye or finals).

The 23rd is a to be real substitute ie. capable of playing a whole game and not a player recovering from injury who needs limited time.

Substitute players must be selected in the 22 for the next match and no substitute player can be a substitute more than 2 times a season.

The same strict liability approach that applies to man on the mark breaches should apply to any coach who transgresses who should be substituted for at least 2 games ie not on the bench, on the ground or in the box. No defences accepted.

Seems fair and restricts opportunities to game the system.

I commend it to the AFL

 

Some good points here. I particularly favour the idea that the player "subbed out" cannot play in the team's next game rather than missing a period of days. I agree that otherwise the system will be gamed prior to byes and finals. (I'm prepared to make an exception if the next game for the team is the next season.)

However, I don't think you can require that the substitute player be selected for the next match as the sub himself may be injured either in the part of the game he plays or at training (or he could be ill, have a car accident, have personal problems, etc)

44 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Some good points here. I particularly favour the idea that the player "subbed out" cannot play in the team's next game rather than missing a period of days. I agree that otherwise the system will be gamed prior to byes and finals. (I'm prepared to make an exception if the next game for the team is the next season.)

However, I don't think you can require that the substitute player be selected for the next match as the sub himself may be injured either in the part of the game he plays or at training (or he could be ill, have a car accident, have personal problems, etc)

No exceptions for next season. Too easy to game.

Let's not find "outs". If this is to work it must be tough and strict  or it will be gamed. If the substitute player cannot play the next match, for any reason, then the team does not get a substitute.

Simple. Tough. Fair. Just. Equal. Sensible.

On 3/15/2021 at 8:14 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

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!!!

Pretty sure it is happening,  just make sure it's always a young kid like Bowie or Rosman haha.  Not Jones!!

25 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Pretty sure it is happening,  just make sure it's always a young kid like Bowie or Rosman haha.  Not Jones!!

I saw Gill speak last night. It is a joke

The interchange bench was increased to 4 to cover injuries 

This rule will be rorted within this season 

 

can't trust coaches when it comes to laws of the game and gill just wants to mitigate potential future payouts for negligence related to cte ... supporters are the last consideration on this one just managing our expectations

33 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I saw Gill speak last night. It is a joke

The interchange bench was increased to 4 to cover injuries 

This rule will be rorted within this season 

 

Gil too scared to upset Clarkson and Simpson, too busy trying to please everyone

clarko and simpson must have some lovely pictures of gil in their top drawers.

this is all bs

1 hour ago, Demons1858 said:

can't trust coaches when it comes to laws of the game and gill just wants to mitigate potential future payouts for negligence related to cte ... supporters are the last consideration on this one just managing our expectations

Honestly, a concussion sub is not going to make one iota of difference to future claims.

The player is either concussed or not.

If he suffers as a result down the track then he will have a claim.

His lawyer won't say, "Hang on Henry, you don't have a claim...you had a concussion sub".

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Gil too scared to upset Clarkson and Simpson, too busy trying to please everyone

It’s more to do with the Medical  Insurance, i have no doubt. 
i get that, but adding a sub is not the answer. Coaches will exploit this rule this year and Players will dislike it big time, because they don’t always get a run. 
i hope the AFL are realizing all this, which is why a decision hasn’t been given yet. It is a huge can of worms 

Edited March 16, 20214 yr by Sir Why You Little

2 hours ago, rjay said:

Honestly, a concussion sub is not going to make one iota of difference to future claims.

The player is either concussed or not.

If he suffers as a result down the track then he will have a claim.

His lawyer won't say, "Hang on Henry, you don't have a claim...you had a concussion sub".

you miss the point, players still go back on the field because they mostly don't want to let the team down by leaving them 1 short ... they fudge the initial benchmark tests deliberately as admitted by McCartin just last year

I don't agree with this rule but I can live with it. Not having it in place two days before the season starts is farcical. How can this not have been addressed earlier in the off-season, did somebody read a book about concussion last week and think "christ, we better do something"?

4 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

you miss the point, players still go back on the field because they mostly don't want to let the team down by leaving them 1 short ... they fudge the initial benchmark tests deliberately as admitted by McCartin just last year

No, I'm not missing the point...a concussion sub is not going to change players fudging their tests.

Players want to play no matter the consequences.

You can't help stupid.

Lets call this out for what it really is...

It's a grab by the coaches to get some of their precious rotations back even if through the back door.

...and the AFL have blinked because of the preseason injury list and a belief they've solved congestion with their new manning the mark rule. On a sample size of one round of preseason games and a few scratch matches that's a real stretch.

Everything else re concussion and that other classic Clarkson furphy about blooding players under 23 is all smoke and mirrors.

Every single game teams have a carry over emergency who is ready to play right up to the warm up... This player usually misses the 2nds game and doesn't play at all, unless the stars align and the 2s are playing the next day.

Having them sit at the back of the bench just in case of injury at any time instead of in the stands makes a lot of sense to me... It's actually a wonder it hasn't happened sooner.

I just hope that the subbed out player has a forced 1 week layover regardless of the injury to prevent the aforementioned gaming of the system.

Call it what bending over all you want but it'd actually be one of the more logical rule changes in recent times

“Injury Sub” it will be

SEN Whately

How long till this is exploited and made to look silly....?

The Sub rule has already been with us and it was thrown out by the players

 

12 hours ago, rjay said:

Honestly, a concussion sub is not going to make one iota of difference to future claims.

The player is either concussed or not.

If he suffers as a result down the track then he will have a claim.

His lawyer won't say, "Hang on Henry, you don't have a claim...you had a concussion sub".

For an insurance scheme guys should get looked after no matter what happens.

For a claim of negligence the league is now doing the best practice of the times and can now point to that.

Players sign their rights away when they agree to play, and hopefully are covered by a good insurance policy going forward. But the league (and the insurers) will be protected by adopting these measures. They players will be able to access what they agreed to and not additional.

2 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Every single game teams have a carry over emergency who is ready to play right up to the warm up... This player usually misses the 2nds game and doesn't play at all, unless the stars align and the 2s are playing the next day.

Having them sit at the back of the bench just in case of injury at any time instead of in the stands makes a lot of sense to me... It's actually a wonder it hasn't happened sooner.

I just hope that the subbed out player has a forced 1 week layover regardless of the injury to prevent the aforementioned gaming of the system.

Call it what bending over all you want but it'd actually be one of the more logical rule changes in recent times

12 day lay over for the subbed out player unless CMO allows him.

I'm thinking of Harmes breaking a finger and not missing a game as the kind of scenario where you'd be allowed to sub a player out then play them the next match.

Concussion is clearly a no.

Guys come back the next week from tightness/corks/rolled ankles all the time. Should they not be subbed and then be allowed back?

Also we don't want the system manipulated but why should 1 team benefit from injury? That makes no sense that one team actually gets an advantage if they have the misfortune of a fringe player going down late in the third. 

14 hours ago, Travy14 said:

Pretty sure it is happening,  just make sure it's always a young kid like Bowie or Rosman haha.  Not Jones!!

One thing we should never do is have a kid who could be on debut as the sub. That's a terrible way to debut.

In contrast the sub is actually the best for us to nurse Jones through to 300. Not for 6 games straight but if he plays 3 of the 6 as the sub that works for me. 

34 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

“Injury Sub” it will be

SEN Whately

How long till this is exploited and made to look silly....?

The Sub rule has already been with us and it was thrown out by the players

 

This is the part I don't understand.  We have tried this and everyone hated it.  What's changed?

Just now, deelusions from afar said:

This is the part I don't understand.  We have tried this and everyone hated it.  What's changed?

Medical Insurance Bills i am guessing 

But the Sub aint the answer

Sit back and watch

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Medical Insurance Bills i am guessing 

But the Sub aint the answer

Sit back and watch

Yeah I think with all the research happening into concussion, the AFL definitely don't want to be on the wrong side of history.  But I don't see how a sub has anything to do with that?

Interestingly coaches eg Goody was saying how with the change in the number of rotations it's important that the rule apply to all injuries (not just concussion).  But I would have thought with less rotations the disadvantage of having a player out for the game would actually impact the game less - would still be a factor but less than a few years back when teams would exploit this by upping the rotations.

17 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Yeah I think with all the research happening into concussion, the AFL definitely don't want to be on the wrong side of history.  But I don't see how a sub has anything to do with that?

Interestingly coaches eg Goody was saying how with the change in the number of rotations it's important that the rule apply to all injuries (not just concussion).  But I would have thought with less rotations the disadvantage of having a player out for the game would actually impact the game less - would still be a factor but less than a few years back when teams would exploit this by upping the rotations.

Coaches have argued that losing a Player puts more load back on the 17 uninjured players

This is their rule. Make no mistake. We have bought back a rule that was thrown out, because it was ineffective and the players hated it

 

14 hours ago, Demons1858 said:

can't trust coaches when it comes to laws of the game 

I very much doubt the coaches will try to turn it into a tactic.  Morally it's the wrong thing to do.