He might be picked as the 23rd man, as the AFL has just introduced a medical substitute. Essentially, if a player fails a concussion test, or picks up an injury serious enough for them to be unable to continue, then the 23rd man can take their place.Originally Posted by stevoswan
But as we fervently hope there are no serious injuries it means the 23rd player sits on sidelines twiddling their thumbs. Might not matter for first match but once reserves matches are under way that’s a waste of playing and development time for an up-and-coming player.
I reckon (if AFL were going to do anything) they should have just brought back the old sub rule but made it a 23rd player. There is some justification for it with return to 20 min quarters. That was the way a few developing players got their AFL introduction, coming on late in match.
It's weird that the 23rd player will be credited as having played the match for their career tally, and get a premiership medallion in the GF, even if they don't take the field. I presume they would not "debut" a player in this manner. I don't want a return to the old substitute players. That was a crap situation for players and distracting for coaches. The 23rd player will only be twiddling their thumbs in the same way that travelling emergencies do, except from the bench instead of the stands. Not necessarily for this game in the wet, but I would think there will be a bias towards picking an extra tall as the emergency because they will be harder to replace if they go down.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Isn’t 23rd man the same as an emergency that can be called on to play after the game has started?
True.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
Wow, will this be rorted! Bring on a fresh player after half time and take someone off who is "unable to continue" but that player makes a miraculous recovery during the week and is right for next game.
Very excited by the three debutants and what a great way to tell them, well done to Horse. Noted that McDonald was named as a best mate by the other two - and vice versa (I think) Perth boy settling in well.
I probably should have mentioned, that player has to be assessed by the club doctor before being replaced. Then once they are replaced, they can't play for a minimum of twelve days. That should cut down on the rorting.
New rule reveal: AFL brings in 'medical sub' ahead of R1
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.
Sorry, can someone explain to me the logic of crediting an unused injury sub with a game on their career tally? Ugh.
Also, surely an independent AFL commissioned doctor is required.
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
Wait, it's an *injury* substitution, not a concussion substitution?! WTAF?! And it looks like the 12 day break thing is open for negotiation. Shocker.
https://twitter.com/agerealfooty/sta...017199621?s=19
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks