4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'd be happy to get rid of the medi-sub if we could be confident that clubs will bench a concussed player for the rest of that game. Do we have sufficient confidence in the integrity of every coach and medical staff that they will keep a concussed player off the field if there isn't a replacement player available? 

Could we have a specific 'Concussion Sub' the way the discussion is going right now? Only allowed to be used for that purpose, none other?

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'd be happy to get rid of the medi-sub if we could be confident that clubs will bench a concussed player for the rest of that game. Do we have sufficient confidence in the integrity of every coach and medical staff that they will keep a concussed player off the field if there isn't a replacement player available? 

I absolutely have confidence in that. you cannot make rules based on a lack of trust of medical professionals and coaches.

these guys would open themselves up to be sued millions in the future

35 minutes ago, Demonised said:

Could we have a specific 'Concussion Sub' the way the discussion is going right now? Only allowed to be used for that purpose, none other?

That was the original intention. However, I assume it was changed because the AFL realised it could be abused by clubs who had to take off an injured player, perhaps with a hamstring strain, for example, claiming that the said player also had concussion. 

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

Could we have a specific 'Concussion Sub' the way the discussion is going right now? Only allowed to be used for that purpose, none other?

So why only concussion and not for, say, a dislocated shoulder or an ACL? 

Anything involving a vest doesn't belong in our sport. I get why it's there and see the thinking behind it but it's always been an ugly look. 

 

I don't get why people are up in arms about the medical sub?

I think it has been a decent initiative to try not disadvantage a side as best as possible on game day, especially if you lose someone in the early parts of the game.

The media seem to be obsessed with it and think teams are manipulating the rule, when the evidence suggests that isn't the case. I remember listening back to commentary from the grand final of Healy and Cornes talking about how Melbourne should use the sub to bring on a runner and that's why the rule is stupid. Well the outcome was neither team used the sub as it isn't in the spirit of the game, proving that media people are actually out of touch on this issue.

I think one tweak they could make to help clear up any thought of manipulation is making someone who is subbed out ineligible to play the following week. Pretty easy fix in my mind.

 

Back when this started there was a suggestion on this site that any player subbed out was definitely not available for the following game (allows for byes) and the player subbed in must be selected in the 22 for the following game. Teams will think twice before they try to game the system.

Otherwise the system makes sense to try and ensure a fair contest of 22 v 22. Although it should only apply to match day injuries, not injuries (mostly soft tissue) that have not healed or are aggravated. Similar to cricket.

What about, if one team activates their sub the other team can do the same (with no injury) within one quarter. That way both teams get fresh legs.

 

I agree with the 2 suggestions above. If a player is subbed off they should not be able to play in the next match (excluding bye rounds). Also once a sub is activated the other team can choose to activate theirs perhaps with no "next game" penalty if it's late in the game.

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

I agree with the 2 suggestions above. If a player is subbed off they should not be able to play in the next match (excluding bye rounds). Also once a sub is activated the other team can choose to activate theirs perhaps with no "next game" penalty if it's late in the game.

The second subbed player should also have to miss the next game? Too much potential for conflicts and gaming.

Another alternative is to have a rotating floating sub  where a different player sits out each quarter so that there are still only 22 active players. Better than sitting on the bench for a whole game. Same rules to apply for activation of sub.

2 hours ago, tiers said:

The second subbed player should also have to miss the next game? Too much potential for conflicts and gaming.

Another alternative is to have a rotating floating sub  where a different player sits out each quarter so that there are still only 22 active players. Better than sitting on the bench for a whole game. Same rules to apply for activation of sub.

conflicts and gaming - just what the AFL seem to thrive in. 

I'm sick of talking about the sub and all the crappy situations it causes like the Shiel on. It's annoying.

New idea:

Sub can be used for any injury, with no penalty (ie doesn't need to miss a week), BUT can only be activated in the first half (ie sub needs to enter the field before half time).

 

The complaint is often that if you get an injury it gets very hard to compete as you lose rotations and the players get tired. Meaning the game is unbalanced and not fair. But obviously an injury in the last quarter isn't a big impact on rotations, but an injury in the first quarter is.

So replacing an injured player in the first half helps take the "luck" or unfortunate random occurance out of injury affecting results. Of course you could still lose a key positional player, but you have 3 other interchange players to cover that.

Edited May 2, 20223 yr by deanox

I think keeping it simple in saying the player misses the following week if they are subbed out is the way to go. It means that players who cop a corky/cramp/or a light niggle aren’t utilised, it should be there for players who have zero chance of returning to the field and are extremely unlikely for the following week. It’s also there to ensure if a player gets a head knock they are taken off the ground immediately without impact on the club (at least in the rotations). 

Clubs should be deducted future cap space for misuse of the sub, fines won’t suffice as to win the game clubs might take the hit. Cap space threatens the ability to retain or recruit future players. 

 

On 4/29/2022 at 11:30 AM, mauriesy said:

So why only concussion and not for, say, a dislocated shoulder or an ACL? 

Concussion can be hidden and a player can continue to play. A dislocated shoulder or ACL can’t be hidden and the injured party can’t continue to play.