Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 39

Thread: AFL introduces medical substitute

  1. #13
    Senior Player Rod_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,179
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    Critical game to make the finals/win a final/GF there will be a fringe player sacrificable to the cause and just pay any AFL fine, money means nothing to clubs on $35 mill annual budgets.

    Clubs will know whether 12 days will cost the player 1 game or 2 and fringies are not important in the big scheme.

    Mark my words - this will be rorted! AFL are idiots
    I feel a tightening of a players calf with 20 min to go... poor player was taken off on a stretcher.... I hear you and have marked your words as most likely!

  2. #14
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I really hate the 23rd man the way it's been structured. We will have to rotate players through this spot if we want to ensure that the selected players get enough game experience.
    From the AFL explanations at New rule reveal: AFL brings in 'medical sub' ahead of R1 :

    "The medical substitute player will receive a full match payment regardless of whether they are used in the match, with the payment to fall outside the club's salary cap.

    The player will also be able to participate in that weekend's State League match regardless of whether they take part in the AFL match."

  3. #15
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,159
    Why do the AFL constantly stuff up in this way. When I first heard about the sub, I took it that it was strictly a concussion sub and liked the idea. Have they added the 'other injuries' caveat since that announcement? It smacks of more Hocking madness and goes against his late 2020 pledge not to introduce new rules in Jan/Feb! This is March FFS, two days before the start of the season. Surely the AFL know that by adding 'other injuries', this will be rorted to the hilt. Geeze they are dumb morons!

    MattW, where did you get that the 12 day rule is not set in concrete? I'm sure in regard to concussions, it's not up for negotiation but if it is just for 'other injuries', it will be rorted for sure. 'Injured' but not concussed players won't even miss a game. FFS!

  4. #16
    The disadvantage happens when you have an injured player in the first term. Why cant the AFL say that injury in the last quarter cannot be subbed out except if it is concussion. As this is when the rorting is likely to happen and the results of close games will change. So it would be fair to teams that have injury within the first few minutes. And make it strong through the season as more evidence is gathered of how this is being rorted.

  5. #17
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Quote Originally Posted by SwanSand View Post
    The disadvantage happens when you have an injured player in the first term. Why cant the AFL say that injury in the last quarter cannot be subbed out except if it is concussion. As this is when the rorting is likely to happen and the results of close games will change. So it would be fair to teams that have injury within the first few minutes. And make it strong through the season as more evidence is gathered of how this is being rorted.
    I don't see why that exception needs to be made even for concussion. The supposed disadvantage of losing a player lessens as the game goes on. I don't see the need for this change at all - teams have been suffering injuries for as long as the game has been played. But if there is some wisdom to introducing it, I'd apply it only for players injured in the first half.

    As far as Stevo's question of why not just for concussion, that makes complete sense to me. It's meant to be about fairness. If one team loses a player to concussion at the same time the other team loses a player to a knee injury, or a hamstring, why should only one of those teams be allowed a replacement and not the other?

    I do think the 12 day sit-out rule should be applied to any player subbed out, even if they subsequently make a "miraculous" recovery. It will lessen the scope for rorting the rule, though not eliminate it entirely, especially in, say, the Grand Final.

    I'm waiting for the game when a side loses three or four players to injury, something that seems to happen to a side a couple of times a season. Which will be the first coach to demand multiple injury subs? (Or actually the second coach, as Hardwick has already argued he should have access to all his emergencies.)

  6. #18
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,954
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Why do the AFL constantly stuff up in this way. When I first heard about the sub, I took it that it was strictly a concussion sub and liked the idea. Have they added the 'other injuries' caveat since that announcement? It smacks of more Hocking madness and goes against his late 2020 pledge not to introduce new rules in Jan/Feb! This is March FFS, two days before the start of the season. Surely the AFL know that by adding 'other injuries', this will be rorted to the hilt. Geeze they are dumb morons!

    MattW, where did you get that the 12 day rule is not set in concrete? I'm sure in regard to concussions, it's not up for negotiation but if it is just for 'other injuries', it will be rorted for sure. 'Injured' but not concussed players won't even miss a game. FFS!
    Jake Niall's piece:

    "Under the rule, the AFL says it will be “reasonably determined” that the player subbed out hurt will be unable to play within 12 days (same as the concussed player); the relevant phrase, obviously, offers some wriggle room if a player is hurt then recovers before the 12-day recuperation period."

    AFL 2021: League breaks its own rules to bring in medical substitutes

  7. #19
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,833
    Quote Originally Posted by chalbilto View Post
    I am pleased that they have made it compulsory that any medical substitute is not permitted to play within 12 days and that a medical certificate has to be provided regarding the injury of that player. This should stop teams manipulating the system.
    We would hope so. However, I can see this being abused at some point.

    Firstly that 12 days is rubbery. It's one match or two depending on the fixture.

    Secondly, it will be abused. First it will just be concussion. Then it will be broken bones, then a ruptured knee tendon, then a dislocated shoulder, then a hamstring tear, and so on, with the severity of the injury steadily declining over time.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  8. #20
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    I think the suggestion I made in the game thread solves the rorting problem. The team is expanded to 23 players (5 interchange), but 1 designated player can only come into the game in the 1st half as a medical substitute. If 1 side has a medical sub in the first half, they have equal numbers until the 2nd half, where 1 team would have 23 players against 22 available players for the other team, which is not so onerous.

    I agree with those who think it's really unnecessary as there have always been injuries in the game. I wouldn't mind having a straight up 23 man team, which should reduce the injuries due to fatigue, which could increase because of the interchange reduction to 75.

  9. #21
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,954
    As a concussion rule, I had understood it as a risk management measure to ensure teams weren't tempted to keep playing players with head injury. It would also double to mitigate loss to teams whose player is concussed due to foul play. Also the concussion test is an objective measure, as I understand it.

    Extending it to other injuries introduces subjectivity and the possibility of tactical 'injury' substitutions, and a greater likelihood of farce.

  10. #22
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    As a concussion rule, I had understood it as a risk management measure to ensure teams weren't tempted to keep playing players with head injury. It would also double to mitigate loss to teams whose player is concussed due to foul play. Also the concussion test is an objective measure, as I understand it.

    Extending it to other injuries introduces subjectivity and the possibility of tactical 'injury' substitutions, and a greater likelihood of farce.
    I don't think the concussion test is a more objective measure than, say, a test for a ligament problem or a broken bone or a hamstring strain/tear. If anything it is probably less objective, and (somewhat) easier for a player to "fake".

    If the game wants to stop teams sending back players who are concussed, they can come up with other measures. Indeed, they already have. Clubs are fined for doing so.

    I don't think a player's inclination to try and con a doctor into assessing they are not concussed will be affected by their knowing that a player can come on to replace them. Players want to play regardless. They won't willingly sit out if they can avoid it.

    I don't, therefore, see this sub rule as likely to have any effect on players playing on when they are concussed and should be sitting the game out.

  11. #23
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder Shaker View Post
    Secondly, it will be abused. First it will just be concussion. Then it will be broken bones, then a ruptured knee tendon, then a dislocated shoulder, then a hamstring tear, and so on, with the severity of the injury steadily declining over time.
    I'm not sure why that would represent abuse of the rule. A player is just as incapacitated (or more so) by a ruptured tendon or dislocated shoulder as by concussion. And teams are equally disadvantaged by a player being unable to keep playing whatever the cause of their incapacitation.

    It only becomes open to abuse if tired (or ineffective on the day, or structurally inconvenient - ie too many talls on a wet day) players start to be subbed out. A no-exceptions application of a 12 day sit-out period following substitution would go some way towards discouraging that.

  12. #24
    Senior Player sharp9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cust, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,499
    I honestly don’t understand anyone fussing. Injury only subs were used for decades in rugby with no problems that I can recall (and I’m a Kiwi so I’d know). And wasn’t the 19th man an injury sub? Before my time but I always assumed he was. Judging by the fuss I guess not. IMHO they should have 3 emergencies available as subs to cover like for like (and more injuries). This is only sport in the world that penalizes teams for having injuries. Effectively an injured player is getting sent off (Red carded) which is ridiculous

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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