My favourite part of the story on the AFL website is the line which says, "As reported first by AFL.com.au on Friday..." Great investigative reporting!

My take is that the AFL wanted a "concussion sub" for legal mitigation reasons and decided that a player subbed out must not play for another 12 days. However, the AFL (quickly for them) recognised that coaches would abuse the rule and use the sub for any player with an injury likely to keep them out for 12 or more days by claiming that player also had concussion. So, to avoid the rorting - or more correctly, to accept the rorting -  the AFL went with an "injury sub" instead.

I like the concept, but don't like the rushed introduction.  

5 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. 

Totally agree,  once they have debut!  100% great for Jones, but would be poor if we used the rule just to sub him off.

Only way it works is if the coaches use it properly, which is why it will probs only be in for 1year

4 hours ago, 58er said:

Not 17 fit but 21!!!!

No it puts loads on the 17 on the field 

the other 4 players are resting and recharging 

I don't get your point, SWYL.  If a team of 22 loses a player to a match-ending injury, they would still have 18 on the field but the bench would reduce from four to three.  Ergo, the load is spread among 21 players.

A team would usually have a carry over emergency who would play if someone got injured in warmup.  Now that player is on notice for the whole game, rather than just until the first bounce.

1 hour ago, demonstone said:

I don't get your point, SWYL.  If a team of 22 loses a player to a match-ending injury, they would still have 18 on the field but the bench would reduce from four to three.  Ergo, the load is spread among 21 players.

With less Rotation Choices. So the 18 on the field take more load

I was confused because you alluded to "17 on the field".

As far as the new sub rule goes, I've yet to hear a convincing argument in favour of it and I believe it to be totally unnecessary and yet another example of the AFL feeling the urge to tinker with the game.

2 hours ago, demonstone said:

I was confused because you alluded to "17 on the field".

As far as the new sub rule goes, I've yet to hear a convincing argument in favour of it and I believe it to be totally unnecessary and yet another example of the AFL feeling the urge to tinker with the game.

17 players remain on the field once the injured player is removed. 

My point is though. Only 18 players at any given time are “working” The other 1-5 players are watching and waiting 

I agree, it js a massive knee jerk reaction, but i bet insurance hikes are the reason the AFL have acted so quickly 

Is it true that if you are subbed off you can’t play for 12 days??

so you have a bad knock or corky you have to miss a game you don’t need to? This could lead to players playing on injured

In 2011 there was a sub introduced for the same reason. Then in 2016 the argument to simply allow the sub to be a normal I/C and have 4 on bench prevailed... Is this not just history repeating?

Why not return to 3 + 1?

So they brought in an interchange cap to make the players more tired, but then brought in a sub to reduce the impact of having less players.... Rightio.

 

Can we expect the hamstring sub next season ?

 

 

Oscar is LOVING the sub rule.?

29 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Can we expect the hamstring sub next season ?

sounds like lunch

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Is it true that if you are subbed off you can’t play for 12 days??

so you have a bad knock or corky you have to miss a game you don’t need to? This could lead to players playing on injured

No, only from concussion the way I understand it!

Both players could play next week as they were not concussed which I don’t agree with. 

1 minute ago, Hell Bent said:

No, only from concussion the way I understand it!

Both players could play next week as they were not concussed which I don’t agree with. 

How the AFL allowed themselves to be gamed by the coaches is just a joke.

Concussion... wait a minute .. what about a corky !

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

How the AFL allowed themselves to be gamed by the coaches is just a joke.

Concussion... wait a minute .. what about a corky !

Should have all been trialled in the VFL

If Vlaustin plays in Richmond's next game, we can officially declare Stephen Hocking a loser and the coaches the winners. They will have got their way with, effectively, an extended interchange bench. The concept of the injury sub only works properly if the player subbed off misses 11 days AND at least one game (to stop clubs gaming the system - which they will - when the club has a bye).

Gee who would have thought that the injury sub would be scammed? EVERYONE except the idiots running  the AFL.  I am staggered at the level of incompetence at the top level of the AFL. They are ruining our game.

If you want to see how easy it is for the coaches to play the AFL, read this, particularly Clarkson's comments:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/19/afl-happy-with-fair-use-of-medical-substitute-as-new-rule-makes-debut

5 hours ago, ManDee said:

Gee who would have thought that the injury sub would be scammed? EVERYONE except the idiots running  the AFL.  I am staggered at the level of incompetence at the top level of the AFL. They are ruining our game.

Exactly.....and what would have happened if a genuine concussion had happened after Silvagni or Vlaustin had been subbed?  No replacement then....which was the whole point of a concussion sub. 

Hocking and Gil should be ashamed and it only took the first game to show how it would be scammed. 

But then Clarkson with his meagre list needed to find a way to get another player on the ground when they run out of legs in the final quarter.

The Interchange is used when teams get injuries,that's what it's there for,4 EXTRA players to cover injuries,it was not designed 150 odd years ago for Player rotations as coaches have used it for the last 20 years.

 

This sub rule should never have been brought in,it's a game of attrition and teams gets injuries and players get tired,if a team gets a concussion or injury,that's bad luck,it's still 18 v 18 on field and the 4 v 3 on the bench is just tough luck,all teams will cop it.

and clarkson advising their doctors to ignore the afl 12 day indicator and replace it with a "not fit enough to see out game" alternative.

he's doubly arrogant in saying so publicly

his only sop to the afl is telling the doctor to let the afl work it out after the game

the afl need to provide precise instructions directly to club doctors consistent with what the afl has said publicly

i won't be holding my breath.....

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and clarkson advising their doctors to ignore the afl 12 day indicator and replace it with a "not fit enough to see out game" alternative.

he's doubly arrogant in saying so publicly

his only sop to the afl is telling the doctor to let the afl work it out after the game

the afl need to provide precise instructions directly to club doctors consistent with what the afl has said publicly

i won't be holding my breath.....

This is what I meant when I posted a few days ago that the AFL did not detail exactly how this would work.  Possibly they were too embarrassed by having been played like a fish by Clarkson et al (minus Beveridge).

Here'

54 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly.....and what would have happened if a genuine concussion had happened after Silvagni or Vlaustin had been subbed?  No replacement then....which was the whole point of a concussion sub. 

Hocking and Gil should be ashamed and it only took the first game to show how it would be scammed. 

But then Clarkson with his meagre list needed to find a way to get another player on the ground when they run out of legs in the final quarter.

Here's one for the stats experts.  What percentage of the time when a player has been injured and sat out the rest of the game was there a subsequent concussion (which then could not be subbed)?  I expect a considerable fraction of the time. So for a good deal of the time, the whole rationale for the concussion/sub rule vanishes like a puff of smoke.  Idiots in charge.

Edited March 19, 20214 yr by sue