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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks