I don't like it, but think I understand the concussion rule. The AFL has to seem like it's killing that bravery notion and aspect involving concussion ... I don't think it actually changes anything though. Obviously, with normal injuries, the AFL will not be sued in the long run to the same extent as with concussions.
If the AFL were really serious about protecting the players and not the game and its wallet (which don't get me wrong, is bloody important too), surely they would introduce mandatory headgear rather than subs for players who are concussed.
Anyway, I guess it makes for an interesting curveball to be strategic about. I would prefer if the sub's points be distributed to the subbed player- but I guess others would detest such a rule. Strategically, I'd probably be more inclined to go with Fyfe and Kelly...
Edit: The recent rugby Guinness fantasy comp has had an interesting sub-rule. You select three subs and one of which, if they don't start but do come on during the game, will score triple points of whatever they score (also score triple negative, as I found out in round 3). If the player starts, then they just get half points (as do all of the normal subs). I hate it for Rugby, as it rewards those who know and follow the game a slight advantage over someone like me who can do well with a bit of stats and numbers with a good game tactic for starting players. I mean ... and I will go ahead, as this is a rant post... I actually am top scorer in the league, until you consider the 'super sub' where I have lost 300 points on my rival - needless to say I am in third. Apologies for an off-AFL-SC-topic rant. But for SC, actually, I do follow it far closer than the rugby these days at least I suppose.
Yeah nah yeah ... Any sub-rule sucks. Bring on the headgear.