Discussion Re-Signings, Retirements, Delistings, Trade & Drafting

Darkie · 12 Mar 2021

I agree for the most part and don't think a concussion should be treated any differently to any other kind of injury although I do feel if you lose a couple of players in the first half you're at a pretty big deficit. Are there any other sports where you can be so screwed over by injuries and lack of subs? NBA, NFL and NHL all seem to have a heap ready to go on, not sure what soccer is like on that front but would we not just be better off with 6 on the bench?

Maybe that's just the element of sport that you can't fix and it's easiest to just be left alone. I just hate the idea of having someone that will maybe play, I've seen how my side ruined the young players with the green vest and know too well they'd do the same with this kind of idea too (SANFL side would play before, we'd hold the player back so they can travel, they wouldn't get used, it would happen once more and then they're dropped after good form in the seconds due to having not played in two weeks and needing to prove themselves).

Cricket would be one example. I have never seen the stats, but I reckon sides losing a bowler early in a Test match would suffer an enormous drop in their win percentage.

Connoisseur · 12 Mar 2021

wogitalia said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...un-smith-concussion-insurance-payout/12676602

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...oins-planned-concussion-class-action/10915086

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/c6fd39b735a2dc258a0a56be62c4e77d

“In other words, since being drafted, AFL players have been asked to pay an annual premium in respect of the AFL insurance policies, despite these policies providing no relevant cover for serious concussion and related risks facing AFL players.”
The Herald Sun also reported that the insurance schemes set up for footballers are dubbed as “zombie policies”, with one retired star set to be a test case for the action.
It is alleged that players were led to believe by the AFL, the AFLPA and AMP that they were covered for concussion related injuries.

wogitalia · 14 Mar 2021

Connoisseur said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...un-smith-concussion-insurance-payout/12676602

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...oins-planned-concussion-class-action/10915086

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/c6fd39b735a2dc258a0a56be62c4e77d

“In other words, since being drafted, AFL players have been asked to pay an annual premium in respect of the AFL insurance policies, despite these policies providing no relevant cover for serious concussion and related risks facing AFL players.”
The Herald Sun also reported that the insurance schemes set up for footballers are dubbed as “zombie policies”, with one retired star set to be a test case for the action.
It is alleged that players were led to believe by the AFL, the AFLPA and AMP that they were covered for concussion related injuries.

Fair point, as always the corporate monster is more important to this AFL House than the actual product or the sport itself. I should have been clear on "from a football POV".

jel · 14 Mar 2021

This is being driven by coaches who don't want to lose the flexibility of having 4 interchange players that then get reduced because a player is "only" concussed.
The interchange bench has gone from being a way to replace an injured or poor performing player to an 'energy bank', where the energy required for a game is spread over 22 instead of 18.
It's only a matter of time before coaching staff find a way to exploit the concussion sub, then more rules will be handed down by AFL HQ.