Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2228293031323334 LastLast
Results 373 to 384 of 403

Thread: Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

  1. #373
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    Newman's handy too
    Yes, don't know why I forgot him?

  2. #374
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by aguy View Post
    I'm not so sue that the concussion replacement by an emergency player is the way to go. It is basically a return to the sub rule with a subtle difference.

    Myself I do like the idea of a red card. Only to be used if a player is ruled out of a game as a result of the reportable Action of another player. Clearly no answer if perfect and without failings. By that is my preferred option. Leave both teams with 21 players and both can still have 18 on field.
    For me, if a player is concussed, and this is documented by a doctor, then I have no issue of an emergency being brought on, at the start of the following quarter.
    This would have to apply to any concussion, regardless of how it happened, and any infringing player follows the current process.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  3. #375
    RWOs Black Sheep AnnieH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    At Goodesy's Place
    Posts
    11,332
    Quote Originally Posted by aguy View Post
    No I think the aim of the red card should be to bring back the teams to even in terms of interchange. At the moment the offending team are actually advantaged for example when mills was out was it leaves the Swans down one rotation. I think the aim of the red card should be to bring them back to the same rotations. The critics of the red card system have always said it may unfairly penalise a team if it is later decided on review that the offence wasn't worthy of a send off. As I see it the player should only be red carded after the opposition player fails the concussion test and therefore is a way of evening the contest again.

    Further penalty for the offending player can still then go through the Normal MRP / tribunal system.
    What if, we had a red card, gave it to the dirty little Bugg, he got sent off - then one of their players gets injured (for example, Viney).
    Then they'd be two off the field.
    Would you let the dirty little Bugg back on to even things up again?
    Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
    Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

  4. #376
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    For me, if a player is concussed, and this is documented by a doctor, then I have no issue of an emergency being brought on, at the start of the following quarter.
    This would have to apply to any concussion, regardless of how it happened, and any infringing player follows the current process.
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.

  5. #377
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.
    I'm ambivalent about the emergency player issue but I can see there is an argument that concussion is a special case.

    The AFL has mandated a concussion protocol with set medical tests a player who has suffered a head knock must pass before he is allowed to continue playing. That doesn't apply to other injuries - it is up to the individual player, his pain threshold and the medical staff whether one player continues while another with the same injury does not (Fyfe, broken leg; Goodes, torn PCL; Tippett, fractured jaw; etc.).

    And associated with the latter is the possibility of exaggerating an injury to bring on a fresh player. The concussion test is a clear-cut decision factor.

  6. #378
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I'm ambivalent about the emergency player issue but I can see there is an argument that concussion is a special case.

    The AFL has mandated a concussion protocol with set medical tests a player who has suffered a head knock must pass before he is allowed to continue playing. That doesn't apply to other injuries - it is up to the individual player, his pain threshold and the medical staff whether one player continues while another with the same injury does not (Fyfe, broken leg; Goodes, torn PCL; Tippett, fractured jaw; etc.).

    And associated with the latter is the possibility of exaggerating an injury to bring on a fresh player. The concussion test is a clear-cut decision factor.
    But there are some injuries that no-one can play through. Not sure why an injury to the head is different.

    For example, Gary Rohan broke his leg in the opening minutes of a game. Jake Lloyd (and Callum Mills) were concussed in the opening minutes of a game. Putting aside the fact that the sub rule might have been in place when Rohan broke his leg (I can't remember and can't be bothered to check when it came in), the effect of the injuries was the same in terms of the team being a player down for the rest of the game. I don't think anyone would suggest Rohan had a low pain threshold that prevented him playing on with his broken leg.

  7. #379
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    5,032
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.
    It's not. I only used the word concussion as it was the context of the discussion.
    I would advocate it for any game ending injury that could be proven.
    ie: if it's a rolled ankle, the player shouldn't be able to be available the following week, just to make sure that it wasn't a strategic substitute.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  8. #380
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    But there are some injuries that no-one can play through. Not sure why an injury to the head is different.
    Liz, I agree with you that there are some injuries (Rohan a good example) where it is obvious the player can't keep playing. And I agree that from that perspective a head injury is no different.

    But the AFL protocol relates only to concussion. For other injuries there would always be the 'where do you draw the line' question.

    It is for this reason that I am ambivalent on the emergency player issue. All things considered, leaving the rules as they are now may be the better answer.

  9. #381
    I agree on keeping the rules as they are.

    I think the "1 player down" impact is overstated when you have 4 subs already. I would love to see the statistical analysis of how many games are influenced by significant injuries. I wouldnt think it would be much, and on a sample size of this year of the games I have seen (Swans v Melbourne, and Giants v someone(?)), both times the team with the injury still won.

  10. #382
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Barry, Swans lost the Hawthorn match by 6 points when they were two players down with concussion (and Lloyd a very early loss). I think that match is probably one that could be used by those who support the injury/concussion emergency sub.

  11. #383
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury?
    When they're caused by a coward punch, they are very different from any other game ending injury. While I am in two minds re: a red card system, it would render GF thuggery ineffective and probably eliminate it.

  12. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.
    Because it is a different injury.1.The player has no choice. They may want to continue playing, and feel able to play, but the AFL (rightly) has made an arbitrary rule, and 2. concussion can be brought about by a deliberate act (punch, sling) more predictably than most other injuries.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO