Substitute Strategy 2015

[bulldogtragic]

I was in the vast minority last year who thought our sub strategy was not best. So moving forward to 2015 we don't have Gia or really anyone else of his ilk we could replicate the theory with. Matt Boyd seems the closest in age and I don't think he's the sort to run a sub strategy around. Our age profile is again fairly young and fairly inexperienced. So we are back to looking at everything fresh again.

Subs of KPPs who aren't returning from injury don't seem common, to generalise others seem to inject fresh legs and pace with their subs. Is this something we should conform with, or with the likelihood of kids being very sore, should we look at putting in a bigger body like a Stevens?

Or horses for courses?

[jeemak]

The Sub strategy of the last one and a half seasons was purely designed to develop players and get them off the ground if they weren't doing what they needed to be doing. Gia was a good substitute because he could immediately come on to the ground and influence the game. Fair enough you didn't agree with it, but in my view it wasn't really an issue for us because of the stage of development we were in.

All that aside, if I was to speculate I wouldn't think our current coach will take the same tact when it comes to managing the sub. As the last coach wasn't necessarily match day result oriented and he's since been replaced, we'll see a different perspective from the current coach because he needs to show he is capable of coaching a more competitive team, on top of being different from the last guy.

As we have a number of small to medium sized forwards and midfielders coming through the ranks this year, my prediction is that these are the types that will fill the sub role, with it being an extension of the interchange bench as another layer of competition across the playing group.

I like the idea of using the sub as a strategic position, but only when the team is one capable of being in the contest up to its armpits in the final quarter of most games. We're not there yet.

[boydogs]

I think we will be a lot more boring and normal with the sub this year. Gia was a bit of a special case in needing the same to slow down to contribute and being able to have an influence straight away. Expect a lot of Wallis, Stevens, Hrovat, Hunter subs

[Hotdog60]

If the sub stays and I hope it doesn't. Would there be a need for the specialist sub, a player that is versatile enough to play multiple positions. A swing man as such if you wanted a key player as the sub or the 195 midfielder that has good skills to play the 3 major parts of the ground.
A Bonts type might be the future although it would suck for the player unless his tank isn't the best but is very skilful.
That type only falls down if he goes on very early in the game.

[GVGjr]

I was in the vast minority last year who thought our sub strategy was not best. So moving forward to 2015 we don't have Gia or really anyone else of his ilk we could replicate the theory with. Matt Boyd seems the closest in age and I don't think he's the sort to run a sub strategy around. Our age profile is again fairly young and fairly inexperienced. So we are back to looking at everything fresh again.

Subs of KPPs who aren't returning from injury don't seem common, to generalise others seem to inject fresh legs and pace with their subs. Is this something we should conform with, or with the likelihood of kids being very sore, should we look at putting in a bigger body like a Stevens?

Or horses for courses?

I didn't think our use of the sub was an issue in the slightest in fact the output by Giansiracusa was productive and despite missing a few games he still kicked a few goals for us.

The bonus of using the sub the way we did last year was that it also provided more game time for the younger players and hopefully that will benefit them this season.

I don't think there is an obvious choice for a role albeit Matthew Boyd could be a candidate in the 2nd half of the season.

It doesn't work well with taller KP players so I think it will be spread amongst the mids or flankers. The likes of Darley, Johannisen, Biggs, Hunter, Hamling and Honeychurch might take their turn as subs. As a bit of speculation Jarrad Grant is the sort of impact player that might be considered.

The new coach will spread it around as he tries to put his best side on the ground so who gets to be the sub each week won't be a huge issue for him.

[F'scary]

The sub usually doesn't play in the VFL game, so there is a risk to young players' development if they are being slotted in as the regular sub. That said, I would like to see the sub used to give inexperienced players a taste. Perhaps we could see Honeychurch and any of our 6 draftees who are showing signs of readiness to progress to the seniors being given sub roles but I would rotate it, no more than 1 sub game in a row.

Of the more senior players, I don't think we will be able to afford having the likes of Stevens, Boyd, JJ or Hrovat as subs. Maybe Dickson and Grant (if he is proving to be too mercurial to merit a full game) could offer enough positional flexibility to earn the sub spot if they can't force their way into the first 21 picked.

[G-Mo77]

I actually didn't mind the Gia as sub, perfect role for an older guy. It would have been better had we had a more competitive team. You're not alone though BT. Going back when this awful rule started I don't think we've utilised it very well. This season we have a lot of smaller forward types so I'm guessing they'll see the most time as sub. I guess that is one advantage of grabbing the same type of player in every draft position. Although as jeemak pointed out using it as a strategy at this stage seems pretty futile, it'll just the 22nd man.

[bulldogtragic]

I actually didn't mind the Gia as sub, perfect role for an older guy. It would have been better had we had a more competitive team. You're not alone though BT. Going back when this awful rule started I don't think we've utilised it very well. This season we have a lot of smaller forward types so I'm guessing they'll see the most time as sub. I guess that is one advantage of grabbing the same type of player in every draft position. Although as jeemak pointed out using it as a strategy at this stage seems pretty futile, it'll just the 22nd man.

I was hoping Gillon would axe the sub and return to 22. I'm hoping it will be gone soon enough, and pretty much agree with the post all round.

[GVGjr]

I was hoping Gillon would axe the sub and return to 22. I'm hoping it will be gone soon enough, and pretty much agree with the post all round.

I think it will go if a cap is put on the interchange numbers. I get the logic behind the sub because an early injury does give a huge advantage to the other team as they can still rotate 4 players on an off against 3 but if the cap is in place it might not still matter.

[Axe Man]

I think it will go if a cap is put on the interchange numbers. I get the logic behind the sub because an early injury does give a huge advantage to the other team as they can still rotate 4 players on an off against 3 but if the cap is in place it might not still matter.

There already is an interchange cap - 120. Do you mean if the cap is lowered?

[G-Mo77]

I think it will go if a cap is put on the interchange numbers. I get the logic behind the sub because an early injury does give a huge advantage to the other team as they can still rotate 4 players on an off against 3 but if the cap is in place it might not still matter.

Injuries have been apart of footy for years, if someone gets injured you're disadvantaged even with the sub rule. I've never known the logic behind the decisions of this rule, interchange cap, cut the bench down to 3 with a sub? It doesn't make sense. It would have been better had they left it at 4 man interchange with a sub.

[boydogs]

Injuries have been apart of footy for years, if someone gets injured you're disadvantaged even with the sub rule. I've never known the logic behind the decisions of this rule, interchange cap, cut the bench down to 3 with a sub? It doesn't make sense. It would have been better had they left it at 4 man interchange with a sub.

Aside from reducing the impact of early injuries, I think it was to slow the game down to reduce collision injuries and congestion

[bornadog]

Injuries have been apart of footy for years, if someone gets injured you're disadvantaged even with the sub rule. I've never known the logic behind the decisions of this rule, interchange cap, cut the bench down to 3 with a sub? It doesn't make sense. It would have been better had they left it at 4 man interchange with a sub.

Couldn't agree more.


Aside from reducing teh impact of early injuries, I think it was to slow the game down to reduce collision injuries and congestion

Another BS excuse used by the AFL to tinker with the game and upset supporters. What a joke slow the game down, yet they have introduced so many rules to keep the game flowing and actually make it faster.

[jeemak]

Couldn't agree more.



Another BS excuse used by the AFL to tinker with the game and upset supporters. What a joke slow the game down, yet they have introduced so many rules to keep the game flowing and actually make it faster.

Immediate kick-ins, early play-on calls and deliberate out of bounds are the ones areas that spring to mind. The AFL is a silly organisation.

[Bulldog Joe]

Another BS excuse used by the AFL to tinker with the game and upset supporters. What a joke slow the game down, yet they have introduced so many rules to keep the game flowing and actually make it faster.

I really believe they are trying to overcome some of the defensive developments and looking for the game to open up rather than slow it done. The speed up with the kick-ins and other factors are all designed to increase fatigue. The Interchange cap and sub rule is also to add to the fatigue.

That fatigue then reduces the defensive capacities, opening up more scoring opportunites.

More scoring late in games can be exciting and they want excitement at the end of games.

[Greystache]

Immediate kick-ins, early play-on calls and deliberate out of bounds are the ones areas that spring to mind. The AFL is a silly organisation.

Those rules speed up the flow of the game by reducing delays, but it can be argued they reduce the speed the players move as they have less recovery time during breaks in play and therefore the players need to pace themselves rather than playing in bursts.

Speeding up the continuity of play actually slows down the play itself.

[1eyedog]

Those rules speed up the flow of the game by reducing delays, but it can be argued they reduce the speed the players move as they have less recovery time during breaks in play and therefore the players need to pace themselves rather than playing in bursts.

Speeding up the continuity of play actually slows down the play itself.

Yep which impinges on the least-fit side.

[Greystache]

Yep which impinges on the least-fit side.

The plan is ultimately to force positional play rather than end to end rolling zones. The only way it'll actually happen is to dramatically reduce interchange to something like 40 a match, which I would be supportive of.

The problem is the coaches will fight tooth and nail to stop it because it reduces their ability to influence the game as much. The AFL just has to tell them to butt out and make it happen, or give up completely and just accept how it unfolds. This half pregnant approach just annoys everyone.

[jeemak]

The plan is ultimately to force positional play rather than end to end rolling zones. The only way it'll actually happen is to dramatically reduce interchange to something like 40 a match, which I would be supportive of.

The problem is the coaches will fight tooth and nail to stop it because it reduces their ability to influence the game as much. The AFL just has to tell them to butt out and make it happen, or give up completely and just accept how it unfolds. This half pregnant approach just annoys everyone.

I've always thought that as this happens coaches will inevitably take the defencive road, as for the most part they are risk averses.

This means more numbers behind the ball, and slower transition out of the back line from fatigued players rather than the positional play the AFL desires.

Athletes with less burst speed and greater endurance will become more important than they have ever been.

[Greystache]

I've always thought that as this happens coaches will inevitably take the defencive road, as for the most part they are risk averses.

This means more numbers behind the ball, and slower transition out of the back line from fatigued players rather than the positional play the AFL desires.

Athletes with less burst speed and greater endurance will become more important than they have ever been.

You could very well be right.

It's a bit like economics, you can know the cause of the current situation, but you can't accurately say what the outcome will be of changing a variable. That's the problem with the AFL changing rules in such a reactionary fashion, the unintended consequences of a rule change is often worse than the original problem.

[bornadog]

I've always thought that as this happens coaches will inevitably take the defencive road, as for the most part they are risk averses.

This means more numbers behind the ball, and slower transition out of the back line from fatigued players rather than the positional play the AFL desires.

Athletes with less burst speed and greater endurance will become more important than they have ever been.

Exactly right, you can't change the game to be played like what you think it should be played like through rule changes.

Every rule change has a consequence and often introduced through knee jerk reactions by AFL House.

Let the game evolve and don't tinker.

As GStache you need a proper solution, so to me either go back to 19th and 20th man and zero interchange or stay with unlimited, me, I love unlimited.

[boydogs]

Another BS excuse used by the AFL to tinker with the game and upset supporters. What a joke slow the game down, yet they have introduced so many rules to keep the game flowing and actually make it faster.

Slow it down as in make it harder for players to run up and down the field all game and create huge numbers around the ball

[F'scary]

Slow it down as in make it harder for players to run up and down the field all game and create huge numbers around the ball

I'm starting to veer off topic, but I think that at the centre bounce up there should be two players (one each side) starting from the respective goal squares, similarly 2 players where the 50 metre arcs meet the boundaries and only the wings allowed to start at the centre square. All other (the non midfield) players must start behind the 50 metre arc. There could be similar rules for the kick ins, perhaps a number of players (6 each side?) having to be inside the opposite 50 metre arc.

[GVGjr]

I've been giving this a bit more thought and I wonder if Hamling fits the bill for us. Typically subs are midfielder types but given Hamlings speed and athleticism he might be someone we can use from time to time as the sub.

[GVGjr]

There already is an interchange cap - 120. Do you mean if the cap is lowered?

Sorry I missed this, the cap is 120 but is actually over 130 (133 from memory) when they allow for changes to be made at the breaks etc that don't go against the cap. My understanding is this will be received at the end of this season and I believe they will look to lower that sometime in the future.

If they do lower it again then teams might have to review the type of players they draft and what sort of player they use as the sub.

[F'scary]

I've been giving this a bit more thought and I wonder if Hamling fits the bill for us. Typically subs are midfielder types but given Hamlings speed and athleticism he might be someone we can use from time to time as the sub.

Could also be the path to a regular starting gig if he does well.

[Twodogs]

I've been giving this a bit more thought and I wonder if Hamling fits the bill for us. Typically subs are midfielder types but given Hamlings speed and athleticism he might be someone we can use from time to time as the sub.

Who would you look at him replacing? Typically a tall having a bad day or one of the mids and go tall?

[GVGjr]

Who would you look at him replacing? Typically a tall having a bad day or one of the mids and go tall?

Should be able to cover both options.

[Twodogs]

Should be able to cover both options.




I like it as an idea. Maybe have an extra mid on while the game has some pace in it and then later when the game has slowed down bring on the extra tall?

[F'scary]

Should be able to cover both options.

From the little I have seen of him, that is one of his more marketable qualities.

[bornadog]

AFL is considering 23 players per team with a 'concussion sub' in place for the 2021 season

[Vred]

AFL is considering 23 players per team with a 'concussion sub' in place for the 2021 season


This should of been a rule years ago.

[Axe Man]

AFL is considering 23 players per team with a 'concussion sub' in place for the 2021 season

If it comes in it will be interesting to see how the club approaches it.

Bevo's versatility mantra will come in handy as obviously you have no idea who may get concussed. The sub should be able to fill more than 1 role if required.

There would also need to be a rotation policy on the sub as hopefully they aren't required most weeks but may then miss out on playing all together that weekend depending when and where the AFL and VFL teams play.

[bornadog]

If it comes in it will be interesting to see how the club approaches it.

Bevo's versatility mantra will come in handy as obviously you have no idea who may get concussed. The sub should be able to fill more than 1 role if required.

There would also need to be a rotation policy on the sub as hopefully they aren't required most weeks but may then miss out on playing all together that weekend depending when and where the AFL and VFL teams play.

There will be no faking either as rule is concussed players miss the following week

[Grantysghost]

If it comes in it will be interesting to see how the club approaches it.

Bevo's versatility mantra will come in handy as obviously you have no idea who may get concussed. The sub should be able to fill more than 1 role if required.

There would also need to be a rotation policy on the sub as hopefully they aren't required most weeks but may then miss out on playing all together that weekend depending when and where the AFL and VFL teams play.

Can't see it being abused either :cool:

GF day, Alex Keath does his groin in the first qtr we have Young as a sub.
Get him to run head first into the post "accidentally" ;)

[comrade]

I don't mind the idea but good of the AFL and their forward planning to put something like this on the table a week out from the season starting.

[Axe Man]

I don't mind the idea but good of the AFL and their forward planning to put something like this on the table a week out from the season starting.

It's not the AFL putting it on the table, it's the coaches demanding it. Seems the AFL hadn't even considered it:

Coaches' concussion worry sparks push for 23rd player (https://www.afl.com.au/news/561189/coaches-concussion-worry-sparks-push-for-23rd-player)

THE AFL is strongly considering a request from some coaches to use a substitute player to replace a concussed teammate in 2021 matches.

AFL.com.au has learnt that the initiative was one of many raised by coaches during an at-times tense meeting with AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan and football department boss Steve Hocking on Thursday morning, as part of the AFL's wider approach to health and safety.

While several parties, including the AFL Players Association and AFL Medical Officers Association, will need to approve of the change, some coaches are convinced it will be formalised within days.

The mooted change would need to be officially approved by the AFL Commission before Thursday's night's Richmond-Carlton season-opening match at the MCG.

Already the AFL has ruled for the 2021 season that a player cannot return to playing inside 12 days after suffering concussion.

Coaches have asked for a additional 23rd player to be the concussion sub. Currently, each team is comprised of 18 on-field players and four interchange.

In the fiery meeting on Thursday, some coaches sought to have interchange rotations increased from the legislated 75 as a means to deal with loss of a concussed player within a match.

[bornadog]

Any rule changes to protect players, I am all for. Great initiative by coaches. Hocking hasn't the brains to think of this.

BUT

Let's see if they extend this to being back to a sub like previously? I hope not.

[Axe Man]

Any rule changes to protect players, I am all for. Great initiative by coaches. Hocking hasn't the brains to think of this.

BUT

Let's see if they extend this to being back to a sub like previously? I hope not.

Do we know how many concussions Steve suffered during his career? Could explain a bit.

[comrade]

I hate the idea of subs if it means younger players are being kept out of the VFL side to sit on the pine which will stunt their development. I don't mind it if we use it smartly, and have a mature player like Duryea for example.

[soupman]

Why just a concussion sub? Why not a full all encompassing injury sub?

I'm sorry but aside from the optics "Oh we are taking concussion so seriously" it makes no sense why you would have someone ready to go on the off chance someone gets concussed (guessing one, maybe two players a round?).

[GVGjr]

AFL is considering 23 players per team with a 'concussion sub' in place for the 2021 season

While in principle I'm or for it, I don't think it should be just for players with concussion unless the AFL has strong evidence that clubs are fudging the AFL concussion protocols and I don't think that is the case.
If the protocols for concussion tests are as solid as they should be why is it that only concussed players can be replaced? Why not players who have done a knee, popped a shoulder or ripped a hammy?

I actually think 3 interchange players and a genuine sub for whatever reason was working the way it was designed
4 and a genuine sub will work as well and it will take all the speculation away from if a club has worked it's way around the system

[GVGjr]

Why just a concussion sub? Why not a full all encompassing injury sub?

I'm sorry but aside from the optics "Oh we are taking concussion so seriously" it makes no sense why you would have someone ready to go on the off chance someone gets concussed (guessing one, maybe two players a round?).

Spot on Soup
Is there admission by the AFL that the protocols aren't being followed?

[bornadog]

While in principle I'm or for it, I don't think it should be just for players with concussion unless the AFL has strong evidence that clubs are fudging the AFL concussion protocols and I don't think that is the case.
If the protocols for concussion tests are as solid as they should be why is it that only concussed players can be replaced? Why not players who have done a knee, popped a shoulder or ripped a hammy?

I actually think 3 interchange players and a genuine sub for whatever reason was working the way it was designed
4 and a genuine sub will work as well and it will take all the speculation away from if a club has worked it's way around the system

Concussion protocols now mean a player misses next week, so fudging doesn't help, or is not wise.

[GVGjr]

Concussion protocols now mean a player misses next week, so fudging doesn't help, or is not wise.

12 days isn't it?
But why would it be only a player with concussion that should be replaced?
Do we have more game ending occurrences with concussion than anything else?

[bornadog]

12 days isn't it?
But why would it be only a player with concussion that should be replaced?
Do we have more game ending occurrences with concussion than anything else?

I never liked the sub rule at all, but would agree for a concussion it could be considered.

Unfortunately when we did have a sub rule, the coaches exploited it and took off players when not even injured, but rather to get an advantage of having a fresh player on.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

12 days isn't it?
But why would it be only a player with concussion that should be replaced?
Do we have more game ending occurrences with concussion than anything else?

I think extending it to all injuries could leave things open for coaches to exploit on game day.
Even if you had a mandatory rule say that meant any player subbed oit would be unavailable for 12 days.
Nothing say stopping a team from selecting a player who was already injured, and then pulling them out at game time, saying 'they pulled up lame during warm up'.

[GVGjr]

I never liked the sub rule at all, but would agree for a concussion it could be considered.

Unfortunately when we did have a sub rule, the coaches exploited it and took off players when not even injured, but rather to get an advantage of having a fresh player on.

I thought the rule worked the way it was designed. For clubs it was 3 vs 3 players on the bench and didn't disadvantage a club for losing a player early in the game.

If we are going to do it for a concussed player then why not a player who has done a knee or ripped a hammy?

I think extending it to all injuries could leave things open for coaches to exploit on game day.
Even if you had a mandatory rule say that meant any player subbed oit would be unavailable for 12 days.
Nothing say stopping a team from selecting a player who was already injured, and then pulling them out at game time, saying 'they pulled up lame during warm up'.


I think extending it to all injuries could leave things open for coaches to exploit on game day.
Even if you had a mandatory rule say that meant any player subbed oit would be unavailable for 12 days.
Nothing say stopping a team from selecting a player who was already injured, and then pulling them out at game time, saying 'they pulled up lame during warm up'.

It's a good point but if the aim is to make sure a side isn't disadvantaged but a medical injury then a medical sub rather than a concussion sub might be the better option subject to of course clubs not abusing the option

Does anyone know if the sub comes on when the sub protocol is called or once the player is found to have been confirmed as concussed?

[Hotdog60]

You could have the rule that if a player gets subbed they cannot play for 12 days and bring it in line with the concussion rule so regardless of injury it's a minimum of 12 days out of the seniors.
Hammy's would be a 2 to 3 week away so you shouldn't think it gets exploited unless it's a fringe player who was playing crap and was likely to be dropped the following week away.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

You could have the rule that if a player gets subbed they cannot play for 12 days and bring it in line with the concussion rule so regardless of injury it's a minimum of 12 days out of the seniors.
Hammy's would be a 2 to 3 week away so you shouldn't think it gets exploited unless it's a fringe player who was playing crap and was likely to be dropped the following week away.

That's where i reckon there is still potential for gaming. Coach selects someone say who they know is injured, or coming back from injury, knowing they're still two weeks away from being able to play. Then makes an injury sub, while they're on the pine.

[GVGjr]

Let me go through a couple of scenario's to see if I understand what they are proposing

1#
At the 15 minute mark of the 2nd quarter a player comes off and says he's taken a bump to the head and he feels a bit off.
A concussion protocol 20 minute test is called and the sub is initiated
At half time the player tested has been cleared and he returns to the field and the sub is moved back to the bench

Is this what the proposal is cover?

2#
At the 15 minute mark of the 2nd quarter a player comes off and says he's taken a bump to the head and he feels a bit off.
A concussion protocol 20 minute test is called and the sub is initiated
At half time the player tested has been ruled out because of concussion and the sub is now an option to be used for the balance of the game

Does the proposal cover this scenario?

3#
At the 15 minute mark of the 2nd quarter a player comes off and says he's taken a bump to the head and he feels a bit off.
A concussion protocol 20 minute test is called and the sub is initiated
At half time the player tested has been cleared and he returns to the field and the sub is moved back to the bench

Later in the game

At the the 10 minute mark of the 3rd quarter another player comes off and says he's taken a bump to the head and he feels a bit off.
A concussion protocol 20 minute test is called and the sub can be used again

Does the proposal cover this scenario?


Clubs will want to be a bit careful if they use this option to add fresh legs to their selected side. They could be opening a door for a lot of delayed compensation claims

[Grantysghost]

Injury sub rule has been ratified by the AFL commission. Will be announced today. Note it's an injury sub, not just concussion.

[comrade]

Injury sub rule has been ratified by the AFL commission. Will be announced today. Note it's an injury sub, not just concussion.

Clubs will exploit this, 100%.

Especially with rotation limits, expect to see lots of players subbed in at 3QT to give their side extra run.

[Grantysghost]

Clubs will exploit this, 100%.

Especially with rotation limits, expect to see lots of players subbed in at 3QT to give their side extra run.

It's going to need a decent framework that includes independant oversight. However considering the nowist nature of the implementation I doubt it exists.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

It's going to need a decent framework that includes independant oversight. However considering the nowist nature of the implementation I doubt it exists.

I hope there is consideration for a mandatory 12 day break for any player subbed out. It might be hard on a player who was genuinely injured but is able to play the following week, but for me it's the only way to minimise coaches from exploiting this in the above manner.

[comrade]

I hope there is consideration for a mandatory 12 day break for any player subbed out. It might be hard on a player who was genuinely injured but is able to play the following week, but for me it's the only way to minimise coaches from exploiting this in the above manner.

Pretty rough on the player with just a niggle, but it's hard to see else you can stop the system from being gamed.

[Axe Man]

I hope there is consideration for a mandatory 12 day break for any player subbed out. It might be hard on a player who was genuinely injured but is able to play the following week, but for me it's the only way to minimise coaches from exploiting this in the above manner.


Pretty rough on the player with just a niggle, but it's hard to see else you can stop the system from being gamed.

AFL has published the rules, I've posted in the other thread. As I read it only concussion has a mandatory 12 day exclusion period. For other injuries the doctor has to sign a medical certificate to the effect that: "it is reasonably determined the player will be medically unfit to participate in any match for at least the next 12 days." I don't think it necessary precludes the player from playing the following week if they have a "miracle" recovery though.:rolleyes:

[comrade]

AFL has published the rules, I've posted in the other thread. As I read it only concussion has a mandatory 12 day exclusion period. For other injuries the doctor has to sign a medical certificate to the effect that: "it is reasonably determined the player will be medically unfit to participate in any match for at least the next 12 days." I don't think it necessary precludes the player from playing the following week if they have a "miracle" recovery though.:rolleyes:

I think we'll be seeing plenty of miraculous recoveries throughout the year.

[soupman]

I think they are expected to miss 12 days, but if the AFL doctor signs off on it they can play in less. I think it is their workaround for the finals.

[meenies]

Think Naughton in the last game. Went to hospital for scans. Thought he was shot. But now expected to line up 11 days later.