Why a 23rd player can fix nonsensical medical sub rule

By Tyler / Roar Guru

The AFL medical sub rule is nonsensical.

Especially when its feeder competitions – NAB League and VFL – don’t use medical substitutes and instead have used a far more practical equivalent in the past.

The medical sub rule was rushed, leaves debutants with a sour taste in their mouth and is virtually the same rule that was scrapped at the end of 2015, just without the hideous green and red vest.

The VFL and NAB League have a 23rd player rule, which allows sides to name 23 players, with a nominated 23rd player monitored with a cap of time in which they’re allowed on the field.

For the VFL, the rule was abolished in 2021, but swiftly reinstated in 2022.

This player’s game time – like every other – is monitored on the boundary line and the player is not forced to sit awaiting a potential injury.

In the VFL, the player was allowed to play only 60 per cent of game time and there was a cap on how many times a single player was allowed to be selected as the 23rd player.

This rule simply has to be brought into the AFL.

It would wash out any of the upsetting images of a player sitting on the bench in a warm-up tee. Not to mention another James Jordon case, where Jordon was forced to sit on the sideline as his side won the 2021 premiership.

(Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

On the flip side to a debutant, it could potentially be used brilliantly to accommodate a senior player coming back from injury, or carrying a niggle, without giving them the tag of being a sub.

There can also be tweaks to the rule that would make it bringing it in seamless, while simultaneously maintain the integrity of the competition.

The amount of times any particular player is 23rd could be capped.

The 23rd player could not be the selected 23rd three weeks in a row.

If another player sustains an injury early in the game and has less than 60 per cent game time recorded, the 23rd player could then not be capped on game time and not be considered the 23rd.

And finally, the 23rd player’s rotations on and off the bench could not count towards the restricted number, to prevent the unlikely case of a club’s best player being on the bench while the 23rd is on the ground in the dying stages of a tight match.

The 23rd player has potential and is far more practical than the medical substitute.

The Crowd Says:

2022-04-09T04:10:35+00:00

Reg Grundy

Guest


The medical sub rule is a joke. Go back to only 3 players on the interchange bench. If you run out of injured players than tough luck, including concussions.

2022-04-09T00:11:20+00:00

Brendon the 1st

Roar Rookie


Interesting, my first thoughts though we're, doesn't it then just make it a 23 player game? How would that work with rotation caps? I also don't think you can mandate a one game break either, Duursma thought he broke his collarbone the other week, turned out it was structurally ok after scans, it would be a shame for him to miss a week because of that, McKenzie was carted off on a stretcher, Ollie Wines had a heart issue, all could play or possibly play the week after. To many players out at the moment with the vid already.

2022-04-08T03:34:57+00:00

pablocruz

Roar Rookie


Why complicate it with %s and caps? Clubs would love this and have the formula down pat for using it to the optimum. Either scrap it or just have 5 on the bench. Simple.

2022-04-08T00:09:54+00:00

Col from Brissie

Roar Guru


Pretty simple. Once a team brings on their medical sub then the opposition is allowed to bring on theirs if they want to.

2022-04-07T22:47:48+00:00

AD

Guest


The solution to the nonexistent problem that the sub is supposed to fix is even simpler than that. Just scrap it altogether and play with the selected 22. If you get an injury then you adapt.

2022-04-07T21:22:29+00:00

Kane

Roar Rookie


It's one of the simplest fixes there ever will be, if a player gets subbed off then he can't play at any level the following week. Clubs won't use it as a tactic then.

2022-04-07T20:30:53+00:00

Opps74

Roar Rookie


Geelong used it as an unfair tactical gain last week. Ratugolea was still running during 3/4 time break for "injury review" and his injury was deemed so severe he could not continue the game... He is named to play against the Lions tonight. I like your proposal of the 23rd player with capped time. However, if AFL are serious on continuing the medical sub, maybe the AFL need to introduce if you are subbed off you automatically missed the following week regardless of your perceived injury and rapid recovery. Imagine the uproar during an AFL grand final if a team did what Geelong did and the game was in the balance at 3/4 time...what happened last week should not happen again...sure within the rules but not what rule was designed for

Read more at The Roar