According to a news report, the sub rule will apply to more than concussion injuries but until detailed rules of operation are released, it will almost certainly be a system open to rorting.

Let's wait and see..

Still plenty of time for the AFL to change this rule before the season starts

There are many easy ways of doing this. The AFL will choose the worst option.

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Coaches have argued that losing a Player puts more load back on the 17 21 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

 

fixed it for ya :)

additionally sub if not used gets full match payment, game credited and gf medallion (if winning side)

will be interesting to see % of games where sub is utilized, i'm betting it will be high, especially in last qtr if close (or % important) 

this is just too rushed, 1 day before 1st game.

loophole to combat reduced interchanges didn't take very long.....coach influence again

Edited March 17, 20214 yr by daisycutter

 

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Those vests were so popular 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

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. 

What a horrible way to bring up your 300

Sorry, posted this after I saw you get a game played even if you don't step on the field. Deespencer probably assumed you'd only be credited if you get used. But afl

Edited March 17, 20214 yr by Deefiant
Clarification

6 minutes ago, Deefiant said:

What a horrible way to bring up your 300

Sorry, posted this after I saw you get a game played even if you don't step on the field. Deespencer probably assumed you'd only be credited if you get used. But afl

Jones could be the perfect sub - acts as a coach on the bench, and if needed adds his skill and experience.  If he struggles with playing out the game in the longer/less rotation era, he could be exactly the player to have as a sub in critical games.

25 minutes ago, Deefiant said:

What a horrible way to bring up your 300

Sorry, posted this after I saw you get a game played even if you don't step on the field. Deespencer probably assumed you'd only be credited if you get used. But afl

There's no way I'd have Jones as the sub for his 300th when on 299, that's the same situation as a debutant. No milestone should be achieved as the sub - used or unused.

What I'm saying is if Jones struggles early we shouldn't be afraid to use him as the sub for games 296-298. Or even plays a full game for 298, has a light week as the sub for 299, plays a full game for 300.

Decision to be made by club doctors to avoid exploitation.

I can just see club doctors being encouraged to decide on whether or not an injury, no matter how it was acquired, would impact not only on this game but also on the next and subsequent games.

The introduction of this rule is laughable. It will be rorted and gamed without end because no one will be prepared to challenge the doctors "clinical judgement".

I posted earlier on how gaming and rorting can be reduced. I stick to my prescription over the AFL's invitation to cheat.

 

Putting the 300 mark aside, Jones is the perfect candidate for a sub position like this.

Able to play a majority of the roles likely to require a sub and not someone who is likely to benefit a game below to find form.  

 

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

There's no way I'd have Jones as the sub for his 300th when on 299, that's the same situation as a debutant. No milestone should be achieved as the sub - used or unused.

What I'm saying is if Jones struggles early we shouldn't be afraid to use him as the sub for games 296-298. Or even plays a full game for 298, has a light week as the sub for 299, plays a full game for 300.

I was referring to this bit of the substitute player:

If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally. 

For me it would be hollow getting awarded 300 games if I only stepped onto the field for 297 or 298 games. 

1 minute ago, Deefiant said:

I was referring to this bit of the substitute player:

If the 23rd 'medical substitute' player doesn't take the field, they will still have a senior game credited to their career tally. 

For me it would be hollow getting awarded 300 games if I only stepped onto the field for 297 or 298 games. 

Isn't that true of every player until the 90's when the bench started to become something that was used frequently?

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Isn't that true of every player until the 90's when the bench started to become something that was used frequently?

I don't clearly remember...was knocked around the head a bit in my early days of football but I think if you were 19th or 20th and didn't get on the ground it didn't get counted to your games tally...

Usually they would give you a run at the end even if it was only for 5 mins but not always.

Was listening to the most level headed person in footy at AFL level (in my opinion), Neil Balme.

About the sub he said he didn't see the need for it and if it was his decision he wouldn't have brought it in.

You get credited with a game including a premiership medal, even if no sub activated. So a bloke that’s never played one minute of AFL could have 3 games to his name for example. What is going on??

this is a professional sport FFS!

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

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

 

Not 17 fit but 21!!!!

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

You get credited with a game including a premiership medal, even if no sub activated. So a bloke that’s never played one minute of AFL could have 3 games to his name for example. What is going on??

this is a professional sport FFS!

I guess it balances with the player who gets injured immediately after the ball is bounced to start the game but before he has any stats himself or any influence over the game (other than making his team one short for the whole match).

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I guess it balances with the player who gets injured immediately after the ball is bounced to start the game but before he has any stats himself or any influence over the game (other than making his team one short for the whole match).

the increase to 21/22 players were justified by injuries. Now we have an increase to 23. Why stop there. How about a panel of potential subs like soccer where you can have forwards, midfielders and even a reserve goalkeeper to choose from.

After all a team should never be disadvantaged.

Seriously though with the man on the mark rule and this one how many more untrialled changes are we going to see.

 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

should give out medals to everyone able to secure a ticket that's not a corporate too

Now let's see how many rule changes the AFL can make during the actual season.  Not counting new interpretation of the week.

As usual the AFL fails to provide full details. https://www.afl.com.au/news/563046/new-rule-reveal-afl-brings-in-medical-sub-ahead-of-r1

Quote

 

To be eligible for a medical substitution, the club doctor must decide that an injured player will be unable to play a game in the next 12 days.

....

Club doctors must provide the AFL with a medical certificate on the first working day after the match as evidence the substituted player sustained the injury.

Any club found to be breaking the medical substitute rule can be sanctioned "for conduct unbecoming, or prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the AFL, or to bring the game of football into disrepute".

 

So, can  the doc's assessment at the game (or even the next day) that the injured player won't be able to play for 12 days be overturned by a miraculous recovery and the player allowed play next week?  (for non-concussion injuries).   There will be lots of cases where the time on the sidelines is initially unclear and the player gets better quicker than expected. 

If so, I can just see some clubs and 'special' players getting away with this without being subject to being sent to the naughty corner by the AFL.  But is it so, or once subbed,  are you out for 12 days regarless of what happens next? No idea from that press release.

Edit to add: And just in case anyone thinks there is no ambiguity, try their opening  line:

but that extra 23rd player will only be able to take the field after club doctors have assessed an injured or concussed player as 'medically unfit' to continue in the match.   

Edited March 17, 20214 yr by sue