sue

Ridiculous that a player on the mark can't run directly backwards. We've seen a Richmond player on the mark swap by running backwards and being replaced without penalty. Was that because the umpire has not yet called stand to the first player? If so, as long as you immediately get a bit back from the actual mark, you can run backwards because surely the umpire can't call stand if you are not on the mark. Confused.

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 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.

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

Reality is you have no way of knowing and you can't resist making the most negative comments whenever you get half a chance.

Well that would ensure there will be an injury in Q4 or earlier if the coach wants to pull an underperforming player. Doesn't Goodwin have enough to think about now without having to have another decision option.

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".

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

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

I see there is a fuss about the need for goal line cameras after that dubious call in the match. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/15/calls-intensify-for-aflw-to-follow-men-and-implement-score-review-technology While there is a lot to argue about cameas, their quality and placement, this quote strikes me as ridiculous: Leaving aside the numerous occasions when players are themselves grazing the post as the ball gos through, why not rule if the ball does not deviate it should be a goal. Much easier to change the rule to 'if the ball does not deviate, it's a goal' than introduce yet more shonky technology.

I'd say about 17 other teams. Though your wording is a bit incomplete. I expect players in all 18 teams are told the scoreboard doesn't matter for you, the individual player - if you and your mates all play your roles the scoreboard will take care of itself. If you don't play your role you will be assessed poorly.

While this may well work, I just wish the AFL would consider all the possibe unintended consequences of a new rule before they implement it. But a week before the season starts is a new low. The CEO of the AFLPA sounds like he has run out of hair to pull. As for the difference between a hammy and concussion as it affects the game, there is none. But clearly the AFL is nervous about the long term effects of concussion and wants to treat it differently. A sub rule is clearly meant to be an incentive for a coach to remove a marginally concussed player by giving the coach the possibility of a sub. An independent doctor making decisions seems better to me, though I guess that costs more.

ah yes, that makes more sense than my misinterpretation.

Well that wouldn't work since clubs would nominate the most damaging opponent. And if he went off with concussion before one of your teams was concussed..... It would really have to be drawn at random. Whole sub thing is ridiculous. Since the AFL's motivation is presumably to encourage teams not to continue with a concussed playe, the best solution is to use Independent doctors. Of course finding an unbiased one in Melbourne may be a tad dfficult.

I'd love the hear the arguments about who gets removed from the ground in the non-concussed side. ?

Presumably the AFL's thinking is that players/clubs need an incentive to ensure a concussed player does not play on, whereas they don't see any long term legal suits over a hammy etc. So they don't care if the player comes back on with those injuries. But given some of the arguments against it other have posted, perhaps penalties rather than incentives is the way to go. Though not sure how to manage penalties.

Anyone look at the hawthorn website for info about the match? The only vfl match I saw there was 3 days ago. Perhaps I missed something. Or their PR dept is as bad as ours or both clubs were Keeping quiet for some reason.

I think you’ll find you were the first to mention hugs. And why are premiership coaches exempt from your anti hugging policy?

And who is the boss? Anyone slightly up the heirarchy. So no hugging by Gawn or leadership group after a goal is kicked. Let's not get too joyless.

Gosh, I hope we don't kick any goals this year then.

Agree. This has to be said too often. We should curb our desire to know everything and criticising the club for not being open when it is in the club's interest to keep some things underwraps. I assume when such info is released publicly by the club, that they are aware other clubs will know anyway.

Thanks QB for being the only one to respond to my request and for your thoughful 'press release'. There is not much there that I disagree with and I can well imagine Gawn making that sarcastic dig at Viney. However, have you ever heard the captain of any club make such a detailed statement? And many of the things you say have been dribbled out by Gawn in various statements over the last couple of years (though perhaps not as elegantly as you did). We have been apologised to (too many times), we have heard statements about what we need to work on etc. I expect if Gawn published your statement there would still be a loud chorus from many here saying 'words, words, words, I want action'.

get lost. I don't spend every minute of the day here. My response will be sent shortly and you may be embarrassed about it. I'd rather be happy go lucky than a misery guts.

I really don't know what some people expect Gawn to say. Of course it means little. Given that he has to say something in this modern era, I'd like to see critical posters post some press releases here that are significantly better.

The minor error was AAMI's or the AFL's. Who ever heard of a series with 1 round? Perfectly reasonable to wonder where the rest of the rounds had vanished to.

ditto OD