That’s not the rule
The rule is for a medical injury a player can only be subbed out if the doctor thinks it will be at least a 12 day injury.
If a club wants a player to play the next week it has to be cleared by the Chief AFL doctor.
Hey Obsessed, welcome to The Roar! I hope you enjoy the comments and feed back. I remember when I was New to The Roar like it was yesterday. I’m guessing you’re a tigers supporter? Fantastic win last night
The 12 day limit is for concussion only. I have no problems with a player being subbed out by a Doctor with what he believes is a game ending injury (other than concussion) and then for that player to play the following week if he manages to recover in time. It's the same rule for all Clubs so it is very fair and logical application of the rule. At the end of the day its still only 18 v 18 on the field. There is a little too much hysteria surrounding this right now.
It's a simple solution, if you are subbed off for any reason then that player can't play for 12 days. Clubs won't exploit it then. It is one of the worst knee jerk reactions I have ever seen and it has been very poorly thought out.
A medical sub can be subbed into the game when the club doctor deems that a player is injured (what could go wrong!). Players are getting injured all the time in AFL and there might be several players with ailments at any given time - it could be a case of: "take your pick!". A gun player carrying some injury can now be picked to play half a game and then be subbed off as injured. The rorting of this rushed change will begin this round and will only get bolder as the season progresses. The coaches will always try to get any advantage they can, but they would all be gobsmacked by the AFL's stupidity with this change.
It’s what is the intent of the new rule. Is it to ensure a team is not disadvantaged so a player can get replaced if the player gets an injury no matter how serious, is it to protect players who get injured from the win at all costs coaching staff or even themselves. I think it is the latter & I think the rule is well intentioned. It is just poorly thought through. Clubs & coaches will exploit it, no doubt about that, replacing players when they don’t really need tone.
I usually respect what Brown has to say but I think some Commentators, and particularly Garry Lyon, are distorting the argument and headline grabbing on this one. Last night's injury to Vlastuin was ruled by a Doctor as a game ending injury and so he was fairly subbed under the rule. If Vlastuin does get up for the next game then that's a good result for player and club. Same story for Carlton and Silvagni.
Some here on the Roar and some Commentators, it would appear, are calling the Richmond Doctor dishonest and a cheat? If that's the case then the Carlton Doctor was cheating also?
By extrapolation they are all saying that a Doctor, during a game of football, with limited resources should be required to determine whether the injury will keep the player from playing in the next round? That is not only totally absurd but it is also not contained within this rule!
Take a deep breath and move on hyper-ventilators!
Parkside Darren
Roar Rookie
You need to read the rule and take a deep breath That is exactly what the rule says.
Parkside Darren
Roar Rookie
That’s not the rule The rule is for a medical injury a player can only be subbed out if the doctor thinks it will be at least a 12 day injury. If a club wants a player to play the next week it has to be cleared by the Chief AFL doctor.
2dogz
Roar Rookie
Hey Obsessed, welcome to The Roar! I hope you enjoy the comments and feed back. I remember when I was New to The Roar like it was yesterday. I’m guessing you’re a tigers supporter? Fantastic win last night
O M
Roar Rookie
The 12 day limit is for concussion only. I have no problems with a player being subbed out by a Doctor with what he believes is a game ending injury (other than concussion) and then for that player to play the following week if he manages to recover in time. It's the same rule for all Clubs so it is very fair and logical application of the rule. At the end of the day its still only 18 v 18 on the field. There is a little too much hysteria surrounding this right now.
Kane
Roar Rookie
It's a simple solution, if you are subbed off for any reason then that player can't play for 12 days. Clubs won't exploit it then. It is one of the worst knee jerk reactions I have ever seen and it has been very poorly thought out.
Lukey Miller
Guest
A medical sub can be subbed into the game when the club doctor deems that a player is injured (what could go wrong!). Players are getting injured all the time in AFL and there might be several players with ailments at any given time - it could be a case of: "take your pick!". A gun player carrying some injury can now be picked to play half a game and then be subbed off as injured. The rorting of this rushed change will begin this round and will only get bolder as the season progresses. The coaches will always try to get any advantage they can, but they would all be gobsmacked by the AFL's stupidity with this change.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
It’s what is the intent of the new rule. Is it to ensure a team is not disadvantaged so a player can get replaced if the player gets an injury no matter how serious, is it to protect players who get injured from the win at all costs coaching staff or even themselves. I think it is the latter & I think the rule is well intentioned. It is just poorly thought through. Clubs & coaches will exploit it, no doubt about that, replacing players when they don’t really need tone.
O M
Roar Rookie
I usually respect what Brown has to say but I think some Commentators, and particularly Garry Lyon, are distorting the argument and headline grabbing on this one. Last night's injury to Vlastuin was ruled by a Doctor as a game ending injury and so he was fairly subbed under the rule. If Vlastuin does get up for the next game then that's a good result for player and club. Same story for Carlton and Silvagni. Some here on the Roar and some Commentators, it would appear, are calling the Richmond Doctor dishonest and a cheat? If that's the case then the Carlton Doctor was cheating also? By extrapolation they are all saying that a Doctor, during a game of football, with limited resources should be required to determine whether the injury will keep the player from playing in the next round? That is not only totally absurd but it is also not contained within this rule! Take a deep breath and move on hyper-ventilators!