I'd be interested in the views of anyone appropriately qualified but you hear players - possibly joking - say they act dumb during their baseline testing to make it less likely they will be assessed as impaired.
Some of the subjectivity comes in whether a player is even assessed for concussion, or in how long it takes to set in. That last observation baffles or intrigues me, as it indicates that concussion isn't a switch - you're not either concussed or not concussed. Mills was apparently concussed in our last practice match yet played out the game. He was assessed after the game as suffering from "delayed concussion." Was he even tested during the match? (I honestly can't remember whether he was off the ground for a while or not - I think not.) And early in the game Chad Warner was involved in what looking like a heavy contest and stood up looking like he wasn't sure where he was. But he wasn't taken off to be assessed for concussion.
So the sub's match payments don't count toward the salary cap....
Let's have buddy as the sub every game. He should get 1/2 a game every week which will suit him perfectly,. And think of the cap space freed up!
Why is everyone jumping straight to the "someone's gonna rort it" line? 99% of the time it'll work as intended and help ensure teams aren't disadvantaged when they lose a player to a serious injury.
Who was the Swans ruckman who was taken off on a stretcher (v Brisbane I seem to remember) only to make a Lazarus-esque recovery and return to the game shortly afterwards?
One of the most hated people on RWO (Barratt) blames the other most hated (Clarko) for the medical sub and believes that the rule will be rorted.
BARRETT: How Clarko's rant sparked AFL rule change
It will be very cruel for Hewett IF he is selected as the sub as it will be officially his 100th game, particularly if a medical sub is not required at the end. A record of playing 0 miniutes in his 100th game?
Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk
So called Stretchergate. It was Sinclair in the dying minutes of the game when Brisbane came back from a huge deficit and were close to overhauling us, with the ball in their forward line.
Sinclair didn’t come back on but the delay while the stretcher was on the ground did allow our players time to flood the defence line. And run out winners by a very small margin.
Looked as if Sinclair had done his ACL. But instead he did make a Lazarus-type recovery and played the following week.
Brisbane were ropable and the then coach effectively accused Longmire of cheating in the subsequent media conference. I didn’t believe then (or now) that Longmire would do such a thing. Nevertheless I can understand the suspicion.
I absolutely agree. How many times do we see one team dangerously hit a player causing a concussion and then the offending team gets the advantage of an extra player when they are taken off the field due to the concussion rule? Sure they might be reported for high contact but during the game you actually get an advantage for the illegal hit. It’s really just using the travelling emergency who was required to be there anyway.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That’s why I am massively in favour of a send off rule. And I think that it should be 17 on the field. If it’s good enough for rugby, soccer and ice hockey....
My minor tweak would be that the rules are enforced for the first 3 quarters only. Then a coach could be able to introduce the sub if needed as a replacement in the last quarter.. No rotations just on and play in the 4th quarter. Or any part there of!
A super sub as they were not needed for the first 3/4 of the match
Bookmarks