Opinion Rant!
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
Think I'm finally able to articulate why this change to the medical sub rule is annoying me so much.
I actually think having a concussion sub is really important in this day and age, given all the contemporary research that discusses how repeated head knocks affect players for the rest of their lives, not just in their sporting career, in a way that having a reconstructed knee, for example, just doesn't. So I completely understand the desire to disincentivise clubs and players from taking a risk in sending a player back out who's showing symptoms.
The reason the extension to the substitute for any medical reason annoys me is that those incentives simply don't exist with a "conventional" injury. You're clearly not going to send a guy back out who's just torn a hamstring in a close game because it's guaranteed that he'll be useless and he risks making the injury worse. With concussion there was perhaps a tendency to think you can play through it (not the same code, but Sam Burgess in the 2014 NRL grand final springs to mind).
It's blatantly obvious that a player removed from the game for concussion or for an ACL has the same impact on the game in progress - but a concussion rule saves players from themselves (and clubs from liability). Now the message the whole rule is sending is diluted - we're already talking about "how can teams exploit this?" It's a pretty disappointing result.
I actually think having a concussion sub is really important in this day and age, given all the contemporary research that discusses how repeated head knocks affect players for the rest of their lives, not just in their sporting career, in a way that having a reconstructed knee, for example, just doesn't. So I completely understand the desire to disincentivise clubs and players from taking a risk in sending a player back out who's showing symptoms.
The reason the extension to the substitute for any medical reason annoys me is that those incentives simply don't exist with a "conventional" injury. You're clearly not going to send a guy back out who's just torn a hamstring in a close game because it's guaranteed that he'll be useless and he risks making the injury worse. With concussion there was perhaps a tendency to think you can play through it (not the same code, but Sam Burgess in the 2014 NRL grand final springs to mind).
It's blatantly obvious that a player removed from the game for concussion or for an ACL has the same impact on the game in progress - but a concussion rule saves players from themselves (and clubs from liability). Now the message the whole rule is sending is diluted - we're already talking about "how can teams exploit this?" It's a pretty disappointing result.
As if introducing the rule 24 hours out wasn’t bad enough now they’ve left a grey area to exploit. The one thing the AFL could have done to stop clubs exploiting this was to mandate that a player who is subbed off must miss the next one / two weeks but no, they had to leave it open to exploitation. Amateur hour.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,958
- Likes
- 126,610
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Getting in nice and early for all those 50-50 selections (whether they be rookies, premiums or midpricers) we end up falling on the wrong side of or last minute switches that didn't feature in any pre season planning, that we rue for rounds on end.
https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=vcggBxBxFs4&start=146&end=164
https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=vcggBxBxFs4&start=146&end=164
Gonna get this one out early... I hate when the human error of CD impacts the game. Gawn had a blatant FA that led directly to a Freo goal, omitting it from his stats has a significant impact and is exactly what causes the golden ticket effect. Can just see the CD guy sitting there with Gawn as captain going "no one will notice if I leave that one out"...
I bottled my onfield rookie picks, ended up fielding all of my lower scoring ones.
Teams being named late meant I had to lock in Scott in the midfield in case I wanted to flick someone for Bergman. (decided against it) Which meant I had Brockman at F6 (thought he'd kick a couple of goals against the Dons so it wouldn't be that bad).
Then I fielded Fullerton, normally not a rookie I'd start but I felt like with all the eyes on Daniher he could fly under the radar and kick a few snags.
To compound that I had Rowe and Gulden as my emergencies. I really thought that the Crows & Swans would get spanked.
Cost myself a decent round.
Teams being named late meant I had to lock in Scott in the midfield in case I wanted to flick someone for Bergman. (decided against it) Which meant I had Brockman at F6 (thought he'd kick a couple of goals against the Dons so it wouldn't be that bad).
Then I fielded Fullerton, normally not a rookie I'd start but I felt like with all the eyes on Daniher he could fly under the radar and kick a few snags.
To compound that I had Rowe and Gulden as my emergencies. I really thought that the Crows & Swans would get spanked.
Cost myself a decent round.