New Rules

[ToraToraTora]

Media jsut grilling Shocking.
"If a player pings a calf why does he need to be replaced?" "Are coaches running the show now?"
Very fair questions.

 

[Ridley]

There goes the neighbourhood. What a farce.

Yeah it is an abject and total farce. I know I shouldn't be but I am staggered by this decision; both by the timing and the decision itself. Completely unnecessary.

 

[Reverse Centaur]

Amazing just how bad this is. What's worse is like Trump, we've become accustomed to behaviour like this from the AFL so there is no uproar. I'm just waiting to hear how allowing an injury sub will increase scoring. Or rather to their new narrative about opening up the game seeing the push to increase scoring had the opposite effect.

More Dusty moments maaate

 

[ToraToraTora]

A massive can of worms about to be exploded open. Can't even imagine some of the scenarios. I would say this will lead to players trying to play on through injuries, especially in big games,risking worse injury. La la land.

 

[Nico]

Scores tied in the GF halfway through the last qtr. The worst performing player (or a tall in a wet game) "pings" a hammy. On comes a sub who has fresh legs when the rest of the players are totally Mal Maninged. The sub kicks the clincher.

 

[Redford]

AFL should change its acronym to ROTRL.

Rules On The Run League.

 

[Ridley]

Scores tied in the GF halfway through the last qtr. The worst performing player (or a tall in a wet game) "pings" a hammy. On comes a sub who has fresh legs when the rest of the players are totally Mal Maninged. The sub kicks the clincher.

Yes the incompetents at the AFL (SHocking and Dill) have left themselves open to potential compromised integrity of the game. Still shaking my head at this.

 

[larabee]

Media jsut grilling Shocking.
"If a player pings a calf why does he need to be replaced?" "Are coaches running the show now?"
Very fair questions.

Not coaches, coach. When Clarko says "jump", Gilligan says "how high?" apparently.

Like many things out of AFL House, I still don't see the point of this.
How does it improve safety (according to SHocking)? It's like saying if I have a bandaid around when I'm chopping onions, I won't cut my finger.

 

[Baloo]

I heard Mince say it's incumbent on the Coaches not to exploit the new rule. I might need a new keyboard if I can't get the coffee out of this one

 

[St Kevin]

I heard Mince say it's incumbent on the Coaches not to exploit the new rule. I might need a new keyboard if I can't get the coffee out of this one

Whateley once again parroting the AFL’s company line. So now it’s the coaches’ problem? Coaches are paid to win games of football, not to bend to the will of the league’s various agendas that get traction via a select few media personalities.

Whateley is still flogging the “quarters are too long” horse, which no else apart from his Geelong mates Selwood and Dangerfield seem to care about.

Like most of the earth-shatteringly brilliant changes that Hocking et al have scrawled in crayon, the coaches will have clocked this and be exploiting it in a few weeks.

To expect administrators (read bureaucrats) to ‘outsmart’ people who live and breathe football and will do anything to win is laughable.

 

[ToraToraTora]

Not coaches, coach. When Clarko says "jump", Gilligan says "how high?" apparently.

Like many things out of AFL House, I still don't see the point of this.
How does it improve safety (according to SHocking)? It's like saying if I have a bandaid around when I'm chopping onions, I won't cut my finger.

Well, If our man got his way. there would be unlimited subs.

 

[Timmy99]

Scores tied in the GF halfway through the last qtr. The worst performing player (or a tall in a wet game) "pings" a hammy. On comes a sub who has fresh legs when the rest of the players are totally Mal Maninged. The sub kicks the clincher.

I’m not fussed. Can’t see that it disadvantages us in any way.

Reduces the likelihood of injured players being forced to have to play on. Also, at the moment we have the greatest depth so are likely to have a “better” sub then most.

 

[larabee]

this quote from an ABC article:

Coaches have been concerned that with interchanges reduced to 75 this season, the loss of one player could cause more injuries among the remaining 21 players due to fatigue.

So, in typical AFL style, they bring in a new rule because of concerns about the effects of another new rule

The AFL: "lets reduce interchanges to fatigue players so they slow down"
Also the AFL: "lets have an injury substitute because the reduction of interchanges could fatigue players and cause injuries"

 

[tommystigers]

It's here. A new rule 24 hours before the start of the season. It's a medical, not just concussion, sub. And here's the kicker; the injury must be game ending but the player will be able to prove his fitness to play the following week . Has to be approved by AFL medical officer. No can't see any rorting of this rule . How many players who are struggling for form will come off the ground with "hammy tightness" in the second half?

Why stop here? What happens if 2 or 3 or 4 players get game ending injuries. Let's just scrap the VFL, SANFL and WAFL sides and have the whole squad sitting on the bench.

FFS this is an absolute joke. SHocking press conference at 12pm. Hopefully it is to announce his resignation. Otherwise he should be sacked. The most incompetent AFL administrator ever. No mean feat.

Ah yes, the AFL Medical Officer. Last time this role was used in a major AFL policy we allegedly had players self reporting and taking time out in order to avoid an illicit drug strike against their name. AFL reported at the time that their policy was a success so it must have been.

 

[Redford]

 

[Tigers of Old]

There goes the neighbourhood. What a farce.

Yep. Time to put pressure on the AFL. SHocking has got to go.

 

[MD Jazz]

Not coaches, coach. When Clarko says "jump", Gilligan says "how high?" apparently.

Like many things out of AFL House, I still don't see the point of this.
How does it improve safety (according to SHocking)? It's like saying if I have a bandaid around when I'm chopping onions, I won't cut my finger.

Yeh, it was clarko who put it in Gil”s head. Clarko who had a rule interpretation changed mid year. Clarko who whinged about the quality of games, which was more to do with him having to watch his *smile* side every week than anything else.
Clarko who wants to orchestrate more exposure and game time for young players because he needs to get games into them. If his side was at the top he wouldn’t be putting this forward.

 

[BT Tiger]

View attachment 11683

 

[spook]

this quote from an ABC article:

Coaches have been concerned that with interchanges reduced to 75 this season, the loss of one player could cause more injuries among the remaining 21 players due to fatigue.

So, in typical AFL style, they bring in a new rule because of concerns about the effects of another new rule

The AFL: "lets reduce interchanges to fatigue players so they slow down"
Also the AFL: "lets have an injury substitute because the reduction of interchanges could fatigue players and cause injuries"

As I've said before, the AFL is the old lady who swallowed a fly. They must be up to 'goat' by now.

 

[mrposhman]

Typical AFL, no disincentive to using the sub rule. No limits as to when it can be used. If the AFL weren't bringing in a new rule, are they actually the AFL?