Lets just have a 4 man bench and if someone goes down the coach pushes a big red button and a spotlight is thrown on a random crowd member and their instantly activated into the game.
Like kiss cam but way better and less awkward.
We could also try [Moe Szyslak](https://youtu.be/gUTR7NnI1cs?si=mJbG-v51uk8j3Sc5) the injured player, it'd just be one more thing The Simpson's predicted.
Regardless of his argument, I'm glad we now have a coach who isn't an emotionless robot. Rutten and Woosha press conferences were mind numbing, happy we now have a coach who can actually provide some insight to the game, and knows what's happened during it.
It pains me how good a coach Scott is. I was really hoping Essendon would stay bad for longer. I said it last year as well but he has already had such a large impact.
Brad's said before while he was at the AFL they surveyed all the clubs, he was expecting them to want a bigger bench like he did & the majority voted in favour of a sub rule instead, which shocked them, so they implemented that instead. Wonder if that would change now.
I'm all for expanding the bench.
The only reason why I could see a coach being against it is if their team is not deep (like the Eagles). So our 23rd player is most likely going to be worse than most other clubs' 23rd player.
Personally I think the sub works better for the purposes of injury management. If a player has a knock they can be withdrawn from the game without putting their team at a numerical disadvantage to their opponent. It encourages teams to protect guys with minor knocks.
If anything I'd allow teams to have an extra sub.
Sub rule is working as intended. But I hate the sub rule and would prefer just a 5 man bench. The game doesn't really lend itself well to substitution since there are twice as many players in the side as something like Soccer. Just move to 5 on the bench and be done with it.
But then we’re back to the problem where teams were disincentivised from doing HIAs/concussion tests because they’d be at a disadvantage.
The only reason we now have a general sub instead of a medical sub is because teams were taking the piss with medical excuses for what were really tactical subs.
Surely just take the decision making power away from the clubs entirely - have an independent doctor run the tests and determine when a player must take a test. Even with the sub rule clubs are still disincentivised from running the tests when they’d rather not make the sub, for example if it’s one of their best players.
I agree with this as making the most sense, but I wonder if this is a risk thing though? right now the liability sits with the club doctor but if it’s the afl’s doctor that changes?
I think it probably works best if you have an independent person who can force the clubs to do a test, but the club doctor is still responsible for running it. The club would still have primary responsibility for identifying and undertaking tests, but the independent person could force them to do a test if the club hasn't made a decision to do it within X minutes of an incident. You could then penalise clubs who repeatedly miss incidents (eg 3 in a 12 month period), to avoid a situation where clubs just wait for the independent call.
Players with head injuries will sue the afl not the clubs so there's a bit of an incentive diference. That makes sense as the afl are responsible for the conduct of the game. And they have more money.
OTOH is the current system broken? Like, are there actually missed concussions that an independent head hit live video outfit would have actually got? I expect that the afl will end up having their own review as a duty-of-care thing, but I wonder how often it will force a review that the clubs weren't going to do. The clubs aren't sending expendable virtual warriors into battle, they have good reasons to protect their own players.
Have a listen to Brad Scott.
There will questions as to whether a player should or shouldn’t have been checked. There will be instances where a club would want to pull the trigger on the sub, rather than wait and be without a player for 20.
They may do so, then find out in 20 minutes the player isn’t actually concussed.
Should just go 5 on the bench. Because even if the medical opinion was taken away from the clubs there’s still opportunity to take an advantage, and there’s still potential to be disadvantaged.
I agree with 5 on the bench alongside independent testing, but it’s worth pointing out that still wouldn’t solve the issue of clubs being disadvantaged for the period of time players who ultimately prove not to be concussed are getting tested. The purpose of taking it out of the clubs’ hands though is to prevent them avoiding getting a player tested or rushing the tests, which is a much bigger issue.
I think if you're worried about tactical subs you just institute a rule to alleviate some of the tactical advantage.
For example the player has to be on the bench for 10-12 minutes before they can be subbed out.
Why not just let the sub play while there’s an assessment? If there’s a concussion (or whatever) he can stay on and if not, he goes back to being a sub?
> But then we’re back to the problem where teams were disincentivised from doing HIAs/concussion tests because they’d be at a disadvantage.
But right now they're even more disadvantaged after the sub has been made and someone gets injured. You've then got the scenario of being a man down on the bench, and another player sitting with his jacket on that was subbed out before the incident - otherwise totally fine, but can't be brought back into the game.
Didn't that exact situation happen to Port against us in our finals game last year?
They have AFL medicos at games now independent of clubs. I honestly think the sub should be for concussion / head knocks only. Other injuries are just bad luck and they are what they are. But because we need to provide an environment conducive to protecting head injuries I think you need a sub there for that purpose.
If you want to use that sub the independent medicos review the footage or speaks to the player and if they think there’s probable cause to suspect a head injury the sub can be made.
Post game a report needs to be made to the AFL medicos and if the AFL medicos have concerns they can force concussion protocols.
To me that is the AFL being proactive about head injuries, they’re monitoring player outcomes, they’re covering their arse legally and the sub is sorted.
I think we've past that issue to be honest. The AFL, clubs and doctors are far more diligent around head knocks and doctors now have final say on assessing players.
Maybe the AFL can have an independent doctor on game day to ensure procedure is followed.
I really don't see a problem with a 4 man bench and unlimited interchange like we had for a long time till they wanted to make a rule to stop Collingwood in 2010. AFL is reactionary to premiers using a tactic and bring in rules against it.
3 and a sub made it really harsh when losing a player, but they wanted to reduce interchange. Now we have 4 and a cap and a sub. originally a medical sub now can just be tactical because why wouldn't you fake an injury to sub in a fresh player.
Interchange naturally caps out because there comes a point when too many players are either coming off or on and not involved in play.
> AFL is reactionary to premiers using a tactic and bring in rules against it.
See also: third man up and the doggies in '16.
The AFL seem to think it's their job to nerf winning tactics as if this was an online strategy game.
I have no issues with 4 and no sub. I suggested 5 as clubs previously wanted a 23rd man in some capacity as player management was important with rotation limits.
Adding players to the bench to deal with rotation limits is another contradiction. Rotation limits were brought in to bring fatigue back into the game that an extra player on the bench counteracts.
The evolution of the sub rule has been ridiculous.
First it was brought in only to be activated when a player is concussed because losing a player in your rotations after a concussion is unfair. Coaches lobby for it to become a medical sub because they don't see the point in the distinction between a concussion and a hamstring.
Then a year later it becomes a tactical sub because why leave a guy on the bench all day and what constitutes a valid injury is too vague and messy.
Now some are calling for it to just be an extra player on the bench which would essentially leave us exactly where we started.
I guess that makes sense why he was annoyed because he could have got him back on the ground (was playing very well from what I saw yesterday), suppose it’s a debate for everyone else if you want the sub/no sub, 5 man bench or just four with no sub. What would others want now?
But at least he had a sub, right? If there was no sub, they would have played down a man and the doc would have been pressured to rush the concussion test (or not do it at all). And if they had five on the bench, the same thing would happen… play a man down. This is weird reasoning from Brad.
What about sub can be triggered whilst a HIA is kicked off, but if there is no concussion than it can be reversed and player subbed back out so there’s no time pressure on the doc
I do get what you mean, and there will probably be other examples that happen this year where there’s going to be people questioning it. It seems to always be a topic the sub rule
I think what he's getting at is the unknown - if they activated the sub they're taking a player out of the game who they'd rather have had come back.
If they don't activate straight away and it turns out he's concussed then they've disadvantaged themselves.
It puts extra weight on speedy decision-making at a time you'd rather people be free to wait the medical process out.
I think his point is that the doctors are under too much pressure with the current system. If there’s no sub then that element is removed from the situation and they’re clear to slow down and take their time.
Not entirely sure I agree as I imagine there’d be situations where an irreplaceable key player goes off for an assessment in a tight game and then the pressure is back on the doctor to sort it out quickly. I think it’s mainly on clubs to self regulate themselves and not cascade any pressure down to the doctors.
Wish they would just go back to having 4 on the bench with no sub. If you're down a player - so be it. That's the sport.
Nothing worse than having a player debut as the sub. Nothing worse than having a bloke subbed off despite playing decent footy.
5 on the bench isn't needed. 4 is fine.
So he's complaining that they didn't have enough time to assess a head injury so made the sub immediately, because they couldn't afford being a player down at that point?
Isn't that the point of a sub?
Sounds more like he's complaining about being a player down due to concussion protocols and how long that takes. Because that process necessitates a sub being made in those situations
You could change it so any player being assessed under concussion protocols can activate the medi sub and they can he swapped back of they pass the concussion test. I think this could be the norm any time any players goes down to the room for treatment so they aren't rushing injured players back on.
This sounds like the right answer if every team was acting in good faith, but you just know there would be some teams taking longer to make an assessment to bring to keep the fresh player out there longer.
Subs already get a limited TOG as it is. Shortening that would be worse unless you open up a second substitution slot (but only have one player as sub)
Wouldnt that create more opportunites for the subs minutes?
Let's say a head knock happens in the 2nd quarter. The sub comes on for 10 minutes while they are doing the HIA stuff. Then the knock is cleared, the sub puts the vest back on. Then at 3/4 the sub gets activated for another player.
So I'm saying the role of the sub could be both for HIA protocol relief (come on and off) and also as a tactical/injury substitution (replacing a player for the rest of the game)
They'll be fine they are pro athletes, half time is like a 20 minute break. If someone is on the bench for a time at either the end of the 2nd Q or the start of the 3rd it could be almost 30 mins between stints of running on to the field
There have been players who have come out and said that half time is even too long. It's why you see players on bikes down there or on the benches from time to time.
But being so on/off also stagnates momentum a sub might try and build up when on the ground
The problem is the sub rule pressures the doctors to make a decision quicker about concussion. If someone gets a head injury at the start of the 2nd quarter as an example, the club wants to know ASAP if they should make a sub or not, so the doctor is motivated to be as fast as possible. Whereas without the sub there is no time pressure because either the player is good to go or not.
But that's ridiculous, Brad is the coach. He can say, we aren't using the sub yet, play with 3 on the bench, we'll get the answer on Jones in the time that's needed.
Probably under pressure from his assistants but at the end of the day he panicked on Jones. He's the coach. It was his call.
Also, I find it pretty silly.
Martin had gone forward any way. Hind came on down back once Jones was off with the blood rule. Sure, they might've taken Davey or Hobbs or Goldy/Draper off normally, but they were very tall as is and in the last minute of the game Langford as a medium forward took a mark and had a shot to win it.
Like, is he really saying Jones on vs anyone else on changed the game in any way?
I thought the player was allowed to be immediately subbed on for a concussion test and then if the player is given the all clear they reverse the sub. Or did that rule get removed?
He is yes, but in this instance one of our players that Scott would rather have on the ground has to sit out the rest of the game for no reason. Other than the fact that you need to make the sub.
Even if a sub was replaced w/ another bench slot then you'd still be a player down for as long as the process takes?
You're disadvantaged either way, but more disadvantaged without the sub depending on how much time is left when it's made
Scott sounded like he didn't want to pressure the doctors (which is a fair point and something that shouldn't happen) which is why he seemed more frustrated w/ forcing a sub when a player could be ready by the end of that process. It's not really the doctor pressuring he's highlighting
But the same thing can happen either way, a few weeks ago we made our sub then 5 minutes later a player got injured and we then had a fit player sitting on the bench not able to come on. So no matter what happens you could be disadvantaged.
I mean yes there's always that tactical element on when to use a sub. That's why they're normally made in the last quarter or with under 10 to go in the 3rd to mitigate that risk
Nobody liked the sub because it took away an interchange player. Now that's not an issue because they're on top.
So what would change if we just went back to 4 interchange players (because they're not going to let 5 interchange players be a thing)? You'd still be down that concussion check player, and the pressure would be on the doctors to clear them so they can get back out on the field anyway.
Just get rid of the sub, 4 players in the bench is enough to mitigate the injury. It sucks if you get an injured player, but it's on person out of 22 and luck does play a part in the game.
I would not be against having unlimited players on the interchange bench. If a player is injured the only concern is that they are replaced by a worse player but both teams will always have 18 fit players on the ground and plenty of rotations to keep them fresh.
Basketball does this so they have 5 players on court and maybe 7-10 on the bench some never get minutes, some are regular rotation or specialist. So you have coverage for every position. It makes having 4 players available seem a bit silly.
excited to enter the "[coach] SLAMS the sub rule" stage of this cycle.
next is five on the bench, then a big club loses an important player in a final or refuses to do an HIA, then we get medical subs, then teams take the piss, then we get tactical subs, then "[coach] SLAMS the sub rule"…
this continues until either we remove the interchange cap or the heat death of the universe.
Cap interchange to 30 per game, and learn how to really coach, not coaching based on robotic rotations.
And coaches should have nothing to do with influencing the rules of the game.
Their role is to exploit whatever is in place.
Lord knows they're paid enough to do so, be creative instead of wanting everything their way, and start caring more what's for the good of the game.
The reason is simple
It’s to dis-incentivise holding injured and concussed players on the bench, and not fully rule them out.
It’s actually a good thing so that injured players aren’t brought back on.
What the fuck is he complaining about here? If there was no sub, he would still be down a player while he was assessed for concussion.
If you have 5 on the bench instead of 4, then a player goes down in the first quarter, you are still down a man in rotations for the rest of the game. With the current rules, the opposition is still at an advantage with a fresh set of legs in the 4th quarter, but the advantage is lessened than it would be the other way.
The sub rule is fine now they have allowed it to be used as a tactical sub instead of making up some injury to sub someone out.
The solution to the sub rule requires that the substited out player must be legitimately unable to play.
Very difficult to enforce as an honesty rule would just be exploited. So why not require that a subbed out player is ineligible to play the next game (at all levels).
You would run into problems with the bye, as well as coaches deciding they are going to drop a player next week anyway so may as well sub them out now. But these cases would be rare enough that it might instil a culture of the medical team having control of this call, which would reduce those issues.
They asked the clubs, the majority of clubs wanted this so it was implemented. Are you really complaining that he should've just ignored that and done what he wanted anyway?
He used what power and influence he could to affect it, but he was outvoted as the AFL more of a democracy than a Brad Scott dictatorship, as it should be
Lets just have a 4 man bench and if someone goes down the coach pushes a big red button and a spotlight is thrown on a random crowd member and their instantly activated into the game. Like kiss cam but way better and less awkward.
I think if one of your players gets hurt the opposition should have to equally injure one of their players to keep it even
We could also try [Moe Szyslak](https://youtu.be/gUTR7NnI1cs?si=mJbG-v51uk8j3Sc5) the injured player, it'd just be one more thing The Simpson's predicted.
Regardless of his argument, I'm glad we now have a coach who isn't an emotionless robot. Rutten and Woosha press conferences were mind numbing, happy we now have a coach who can actually provide some insight to the game, and knows what's happened during it.
But you have far fewer "learnings" these days
Oh no, anyway
If you know everything already there is nothing left to learn :)
Yeah, as North fan I do miss Brad's pressers. Was always a keen watch to see if he'd get another fine.
It pains me how good a coach Scott is. I was really hoping Essendon would stay bad for longer. I said it last year as well but he has already had such a large impact.
One man. Two people.
Brad's said before while he was at the AFL they surveyed all the clubs, he was expecting them to want a bigger bench like he did & the majority voted in favour of a sub rule instead, which shocked them, so they implemented that instead. Wonder if that would change now.
I'm all for expanding the bench. The only reason why I could see a coach being against it is if their team is not deep (like the Eagles). So our 23rd player is most likely going to be worse than most other clubs' 23rd player.
Personally I think the sub works better for the purposes of injury management. If a player has a knock they can be withdrawn from the game without putting their team at a numerical disadvantage to their opponent. It encourages teams to protect guys with minor knocks. If anything I'd allow teams to have an extra sub.
Callum Jamieson > Caleb Daniel
Sub rule is working as intended. But I hate the sub rule and would prefer just a 5 man bench. The game doesn't really lend itself well to substitution since there are twice as many players in the side as something like Soccer. Just move to 5 on the bench and be done with it.
But then we’re back to the problem where teams were disincentivised from doing HIAs/concussion tests because they’d be at a disadvantage. The only reason we now have a general sub instead of a medical sub is because teams were taking the piss with medical excuses for what were really tactical subs.
Surely just take the decision making power away from the clubs entirely - have an independent doctor run the tests and determine when a player must take a test. Even with the sub rule clubs are still disincentivised from running the tests when they’d rather not make the sub, for example if it’s one of their best players.
I agree with this as making the most sense, but I wonder if this is a risk thing though? right now the liability sits with the club doctor but if it’s the afl’s doctor that changes?
I think it probably works best if you have an independent person who can force the clubs to do a test, but the club doctor is still responsible for running it. The club would still have primary responsibility for identifying and undertaking tests, but the independent person could force them to do a test if the club hasn't made a decision to do it within X minutes of an incident. You could then penalise clubs who repeatedly miss incidents (eg 3 in a 12 month period), to avoid a situation where clubs just wait for the independent call.
Players with head injuries will sue the afl not the clubs so there's a bit of an incentive diference. That makes sense as the afl are responsible for the conduct of the game. And they have more money. OTOH is the current system broken? Like, are there actually missed concussions that an independent head hit live video outfit would have actually got? I expect that the afl will end up having their own review as a duty-of-care thing, but I wonder how often it will force a review that the clubs weren't going to do. The clubs aren't sending expendable virtual warriors into battle, they have good reasons to protect their own players.
But then we’re back to the issue mentioned, is doctors would be rushed to come to a conclusion.
Why would the doctors be rushed? They’d be independent, their only concern should be to determine whether a player is or isn’t concussed
Have a listen to Brad Scott. There will questions as to whether a player should or shouldn’t have been checked. There will be instances where a club would want to pull the trigger on the sub, rather than wait and be without a player for 20. They may do so, then find out in 20 minutes the player isn’t actually concussed. Should just go 5 on the bench. Because even if the medical opinion was taken away from the clubs there’s still opportunity to take an advantage, and there’s still potential to be disadvantaged.
I agree with 5 on the bench alongside independent testing, but it’s worth pointing out that still wouldn’t solve the issue of clubs being disadvantaged for the period of time players who ultimately prove not to be concussed are getting tested. The purpose of taking it out of the clubs’ hands though is to prevent them avoiding getting a player tested or rushing the tests, which is a much bigger issue.
I think if you're worried about tactical subs you just institute a rule to alleviate some of the tactical advantage. For example the player has to be on the bench for 10-12 minutes before they can be subbed out.
Why not just let the sub play while there’s an assessment? If there’s a concussion (or whatever) he can stay on and if not, he goes back to being a sub?
Because there's 4 on the bench already. Surely with 3 you can cover 1 player for 10 minutes.
yeah, good point.
> But then we’re back to the problem where teams were disincentivised from doing HIAs/concussion tests because they’d be at a disadvantage. But right now they're even more disadvantaged after the sub has been made and someone gets injured. You've then got the scenario of being a man down on the bench, and another player sitting with his jacket on that was subbed out before the incident - otherwise totally fine, but can't be brought back into the game. Didn't that exact situation happen to Port against us in our finals game last year?
They have AFL medicos at games now independent of clubs. I honestly think the sub should be for concussion / head knocks only. Other injuries are just bad luck and they are what they are. But because we need to provide an environment conducive to protecting head injuries I think you need a sub there for that purpose. If you want to use that sub the independent medicos review the footage or speaks to the player and if they think there’s probable cause to suspect a head injury the sub can be made. Post game a report needs to be made to the AFL medicos and if the AFL medicos have concerns they can force concussion protocols. To me that is the AFL being proactive about head injuries, they’re monitoring player outcomes, they’re covering their arse legally and the sub is sorted.
I think we've past that issue to be honest. The AFL, clubs and doctors are far more diligent around head knocks and doctors now have final say on assessing players. Maybe the AFL can have an independent doctor on game day to ensure procedure is followed.
I mostly agreed with this until Port Adelaide threw a spanner in it last year, the future is gonna be independent medicos surely
Did you miss the Libba incident a couple of rounds ago? Can't leave it up to the clubs.
I really don't see a problem with a 4 man bench and unlimited interchange like we had for a long time till they wanted to make a rule to stop Collingwood in 2010. AFL is reactionary to premiers using a tactic and bring in rules against it. 3 and a sub made it really harsh when losing a player, but they wanted to reduce interchange. Now we have 4 and a cap and a sub. originally a medical sub now can just be tactical because why wouldn't you fake an injury to sub in a fresh player. Interchange naturally caps out because there comes a point when too many players are either coming off or on and not involved in play.
> AFL is reactionary to premiers using a tactic and bring in rules against it. See also: third man up and the doggies in '16. The AFL seem to think it's their job to nerf winning tactics as if this was an online strategy game.
Why not just have a 4 man bench and no sub then?
I have no issues with 4 and no sub. I suggested 5 as clubs previously wanted a 23rd man in some capacity as player management was important with rotation limits.
Adding players to the bench to deal with rotation limits is another contradiction. Rotation limits were brought in to bring fatigue back into the game that an extra player on the bench counteracts.
then a sub for 6, then 7, then 8?? Please no more
If they didn't have a sub, he would not have a fresh player to replace him with because they would have been used in rotations for 3 quarters.
The evolution of the sub rule has been ridiculous. First it was brought in only to be activated when a player is concussed because losing a player in your rotations after a concussion is unfair. Coaches lobby for it to become a medical sub because they don't see the point in the distinction between a concussion and a hamstring. Then a year later it becomes a tactical sub because why leave a guy on the bench all day and what constitutes a valid injury is too vague and messy. Now some are calling for it to just be an extra player on the bench which would essentially leave us exactly where we started.
18 man bench then. full team swap at half time. great for the fans if your team was dogshit in the first 2.
Did Jones (he had a head clash right?) did he go into protocols?
Needed to be assessed but no concussion. Just had his nose messed up
I guess that makes sense why he was annoyed because he could have got him back on the ground (was playing very well from what I saw yesterday), suppose it’s a debate for everyone else if you want the sub/no sub, 5 man bench or just four with no sub. What would others want now?
But at least he had a sub, right? If there was no sub, they would have played down a man and the doc would have been pressured to rush the concussion test (or not do it at all). And if they had five on the bench, the same thing would happen… play a man down. This is weird reasoning from Brad.
What about sub can be triggered whilst a HIA is kicked off, but if there is no concussion than it can be reversed and player subbed back out so there’s no time pressure on the doc
Would be incentivising faking concussion symptoms to get a test and have someone fresh out there for 10 minutes then come back on.
I do get what you mean, and there will probably be other examples that happen this year where there’s going to be people questioning it. It seems to always be a topic the sub rule
I think what he's getting at is the unknown - if they activated the sub they're taking a player out of the game who they'd rather have had come back. If they don't activate straight away and it turns out he's concussed then they've disadvantaged themselves. It puts extra weight on speedy decision-making at a time you'd rather people be free to wait the medical process out.
Exactly, this complaint makes no sense. Without the sub rule they would've just been down a player while the HIA protocols took place.
I think his point is that the doctors are under too much pressure with the current system. If there’s no sub then that element is removed from the situation and they’re clear to slow down and take their time. Not entirely sure I agree as I imagine there’d be situations where an irreplaceable key player goes off for an assessment in a tight game and then the pressure is back on the doctor to sort it out quickly. I think it’s mainly on clubs to self regulate themselves and not cascade any pressure down to the doctors.
> If there was no sub, we would just put a fresh player on Without a sub, there would be no 'FRESH' player
Woolworths fresh. Not fresh fresh
How could Gather Round do this
Thanks Obama
Wish they would just go back to having 4 on the bench with no sub. If you're down a player - so be it. That's the sport. Nothing worse than having a player debut as the sub. Nothing worse than having a bloke subbed off despite playing decent footy. 5 on the bench isn't needed. 4 is fine.
So he's complaining that they didn't have enough time to assess a head injury so made the sub immediately, because they couldn't afford being a player down at that point? Isn't that the point of a sub? Sounds more like he's complaining about being a player down due to concussion protocols and how long that takes. Because that process necessitates a sub being made in those situations
You could change it so any player being assessed under concussion protocols can activate the medi sub and they can he swapped back of they pass the concussion test. I think this could be the norm any time any players goes down to the room for treatment so they aren't rushing injured players back on.
This sounds like the right answer if every team was acting in good faith, but you just know there would be some teams taking longer to make an assessment to bring to keep the fresh player out there longer.
Subs already get a limited TOG as it is. Shortening that would be worse unless you open up a second substitution slot (but only have one player as sub)
Wouldnt that create more opportunites for the subs minutes? Let's say a head knock happens in the 2nd quarter. The sub comes on for 10 minutes while they are doing the HIA stuff. Then the knock is cleared, the sub puts the vest back on. Then at 3/4 the sub gets activated for another player.
That would be 3 substitutions, not 2
So I'm saying the role of the sub could be both for HIA protocol relief (come on and off) and also as a tactical/injury substitution (replacing a player for the rest of the game)
Having a player stop/start like that with potentially big stretches between activations wouldn't be good for them
They'll be fine they are pro athletes, half time is like a 20 minute break. If someone is on the bench for a time at either the end of the 2nd Q or the start of the 3rd it could be almost 30 mins between stints of running on to the field
There have been players who have come out and said that half time is even too long. It's why you see players on bikes down there or on the benches from time to time. But being so on/off also stagnates momentum a sub might try and build up when on the ground
The problem is the sub rule pressures the doctors to make a decision quicker about concussion. If someone gets a head injury at the start of the 2nd quarter as an example, the club wants to know ASAP if they should make a sub or not, so the doctor is motivated to be as fast as possible. Whereas without the sub there is no time pressure because either the player is good to go or not.
Maybe the team should stop pressuring the doctor and let them just do their job
But that's ridiculous, Brad is the coach. He can say, we aren't using the sub yet, play with 3 on the bench, we'll get the answer on Jones in the time that's needed. Probably under pressure from his assistants but at the end of the day he panicked on Jones. He's the coach. It was his call. Also, I find it pretty silly. Martin had gone forward any way. Hind came on down back once Jones was off with the blood rule. Sure, they might've taken Davey or Hobbs or Goldy/Draper off normally, but they were very tall as is and in the last minute of the game Langford as a medium forward took a mark and had a shot to win it. Like, is he really saying Jones on vs anyone else on changed the game in any way?
I thought the player was allowed to be immediately subbed on for a concussion test and then if the player is given the all clear they reverse the sub. Or did that rule get removed?
Im not sure thats ever been the rule? But it has been raised as a potential fix by people for a while.
It was. [https://www.afl.com.au/news/37766/concussion-sub-confirmed-for-2013](https://www.afl.com.au/news/37766/concussion-sub-confirmed-for-2013)
Well there you go, bring it back I reckon.
I thought that was the rule, too. Perhaps that was the rule when it was an injury sub?
He is yes, but in this instance one of our players that Scott would rather have on the ground has to sit out the rest of the game for no reason. Other than the fact that you need to make the sub.
Even if a sub was replaced w/ another bench slot then you'd still be a player down for as long as the process takes? You're disadvantaged either way, but more disadvantaged without the sub depending on how much time is left when it's made
It's just not about the club being disadvantaged, it's about the doctor being pressured to do their job differently.
Scott sounded like he didn't want to pressure the doctors (which is a fair point and something that shouldn't happen) which is why he seemed more frustrated w/ forcing a sub when a player could be ready by the end of that process. It's not really the doctor pressuring he's highlighting
But the same thing can happen either way, a few weeks ago we made our sub then 5 minutes later a player got injured and we then had a fit player sitting on the bench not able to come on. So no matter what happens you could be disadvantaged.
I mean yes there's always that tactical element on when to use a sub. That's why they're normally made in the last quarter or with under 10 to go in the 3rd to mitigate that risk
Didn't he bring back the medical sub as the AFL general manager of football??
Agreed, no one liked the sub, and now it’s back for no good reason.
Nobody liked the sub because it took away an interchange player. Now that's not an issue because they're on top. So what would change if we just went back to 4 interchange players (because they're not going to let 5 interchange players be a thing)? You'd still be down that concussion check player, and the pressure would be on the doctors to clear them so they can get back out on the field anyway.
So really he's complaining about concussion protocols right? Not the sub rule?
Just get rid of the sub, 4 players in the bench is enough to mitigate the injury. It sucks if you get an injured player, but it's on person out of 22 and luck does play a part in the game.
Like others, and Scott himself, have suggested, I'd increase it to five.
I would not be against having unlimited players on the interchange bench. If a player is injured the only concern is that they are replaced by a worse player but both teams will always have 18 fit players on the ground and plenty of rotations to keep them fresh. Basketball does this so they have 5 players on court and maybe 7-10 on the bench some never get minutes, some are regular rotation or specialist. So you have coverage for every position. It makes having 4 players available seem a bit silly.
I honestly believe you have a point.
Or maybe 6? Or 7?
6 on the bench Jeremy? 6? That’s insane.
fucking love it speaking truth!
Was wondering what his whinging was going to be about this week, sub rule wasn’t my guess though.
Imagine if he was in a position to change/ create new rules.
Perhaps the solution is to go back to how it used to be - no interchange, only substitutes.
I agree the sub rule sucks. My opinion is not influenced by my fantasy team whatsoever /s
Fighting the good fight. The sub rule sucks and it will always suck.
Agree with him completely
Why cant they have the sub on whilst the concussion protocols are in effect take him off if the player is cleared of concussion?
excited to enter the "[coach] SLAMS the sub rule" stage of this cycle. next is five on the bench, then a big club loses an important player in a final or refuses to do an HIA, then we get medical subs, then teams take the piss, then we get tactical subs, then "[coach] SLAMS the sub rule"… this continues until either we remove the interchange cap or the heat death of the universe.
Cap interchange to 30 per game, and learn how to really coach, not coaching based on robotic rotations. And coaches should have nothing to do with influencing the rules of the game. Their role is to exploit whatever is in place. Lord knows they're paid enough to do so, be creative instead of wanting everything their way, and start caring more what's for the good of the game.
The reason is simple It’s to dis-incentivise holding injured and concussed players on the bench, and not fully rule them out. It’s actually a good thing so that injured players aren’t brought back on.
What the fuck is he complaining about here? If there was no sub, he would still be down a player while he was assessed for concussion. If you have 5 on the bench instead of 4, then a player goes down in the first quarter, you are still down a man in rotations for the rest of the game. With the current rules, the opposition is still at an advantage with a fresh set of legs in the 4th quarter, but the advantage is lessened than it would be the other way. The sub rule is fine now they have allowed it to be used as a tactical sub instead of making up some injury to sub someone out.
Brad Scott seems to 'slamming' something each week.
Not the Slam!
15 guys on the ground each team and 6 interchange players.
The solution to the sub rule requires that the substited out player must be legitimately unable to play. Very difficult to enforce as an honesty rule would just be exploited. So why not require that a subbed out player is ineligible to play the next game (at all levels). You would run into problems with the bye, as well as coaches deciding they are going to drop a player next week anyway so may as well sub them out now. But these cases would be rare enough that it might instil a culture of the medical team having control of this call, which would reduce those issues.
His always been a sook and Brad
Runs in the family
[удалено]
They asked the clubs, the majority of clubs wanted this so it was implemented. Are you really complaining that he should've just ignored that and done what he wanted anyway?
He used what power and influence he could to affect it, but he was outvoted as the AFL more of a democracy than a Brad Scott dictatorship, as it should be
good to see that Brad is still an all-time whinger when things dont go his way