Five-man IC bench?

[GVGjr]

From the Age

Players push for pure five-man bench

Players push for pure five-man interchange, if medical sub dropped

AFL players are pushing for a pure five-man interchange, rather than returning to the green vest of yesteryear, if there is change to the medical substitute ruling.

The league’s competition committee meets next week, with debate on the configuration of the interchange bench one of the key topics.

The AFL has surveyed clubs and provided three options: retain the current system of four men on the bench plus a medical substitute, have a pure five-man bench, or return to the model used between seasons 2011 and 2015, but this time with four men plus a substitute, with the latter to be used at any time for any reason.

Players want to have a say, with industry sources confirming they are keen on a pure five-man bench, with the fifth player able to be used at any stage for any reason. Players do not mind if the medical substitute remains, but are against reverting to the tactical sub axed in 2015.

A fifth player on the bench can help players and clubs manage workloads, while also adding selection and tactical intrigue. One football department source said it could help the Demons use specialist ruckmen Max Gawn and Brodie Grundy in the same team, for it could reduce the amount of time they needed to be on the ground together, meaning the Demons have plenty of run.

The league review comes amid suggestions clubs exploited the medical substitute ruling for the wrong reasons. Players had originally favoured a concussion substitute, to be used only for game-ending head knocks, but this was adjusted to an overall medical substitute. It was presumed an injured player would miss the next week, but a slew of players early this season being subbed off but returning the following week, prompted claims the system was being gamed.

AFL rules state the substitute can be activated during games if the club doctor has “reasonably determined” an injured player will miss 12 days. However, if the player heals over the ensuing days, that player can play the following weekend, provided the club has sent an updated medical report.

Club doctors have called for change, suggesting they immediately are under added pressure to make an injury ruling on game day, so their team is not impacted by one less man on the bench. Doctors have also suggested they face the predicament of subbing off a player who may not need to be, for instance when a player has cramps, particularly in the final term, coming with their side seeking fresh legs with the result on the line.

The latest incarnation of the medical substitute was introduced ahead of the 2021 season, in a bid to strengthen protocols around concussions and head knocks.

Collingwood coach Craig McRae had his own suggestion this year.

“I just wonder whether we could shift and change the rule slightly where if the opposition has activated theirs then, you’ve got a bit of an open slather, or there’s less guidelines attached to it, so there’s no competitive advantage potentially,” McRae said.

[GVGjr]

From the Hun

Corey McKernan urges the AFL to scrap the medi-sub with ruckman major benefactor

Dual North Melbourne premiership big man Corey McKernan has urged the AFL to scrap the medi-sub in favour of a five-man interchange bench next season, saying the move could fast-track the next generation of young ruck stars.

The AFL’s Competition Committee will meet this week to discuss possible changes to the contentious medi-sub rule.

Among the options under consideration include making the medi-sub a substitute that can be used tactically at any stage of the match or increasing the bench size to five.

McKernan believes the latter is the best option as it would clear up any uncertainty around the medi-sub rule, which has faced some criticism since its 2021 introduction.

Players subbed out with concussion are banned from playing for a mandatory 12 days, but others have been subbed out with minor issues yet still played the following week.

“I think you are just better off getting rid of it (the medi-sub) as it gets rid of the grey areas,” McKernan said in reference to the speculation some clubs had in part exploited the rule in an effort to get a set of fresh legs on the ground late in games.

But the former Kangaroos and Blues star believes a push for five interchange players would also provide a boon for developing young ruckmen.

“If they (the AFL) keep it as a sub, that (extra) player is unlikely to be a ruckman,” he said.

“But I can see a real opportunity for developing big men if they make it five on the bench.

“I’m sure clubs would be looking at choosing an extra young ruckman if that was the case, maybe a kid who has only just been drafted or who hasn’t been in the system long.

“You could choose a young kid who might not be able to take the rigours of ruck work for more than five or ten minutes here and there. But they would get the chance to go up against some of the AFL’s best ruckmen for short bursts.

“That would be better for their long-term education than spending a whole game in the VFL.”

McKernan said he would have loved that to have been the case when he was starting out and is confident it would help young ruckmen fashion their craft earlier than happens now.

“I’m sure it would fast-track ruckman and give them a better grounding earlier,” he said.

[Hotdog60]

I think you either go with a five man bench or go back to four no subs at all.
The sub is like in the old days were you could sit on the pine and never get a game and it can't help with player continuity.
I may lean to the five man bench like McKernan states above and if it was in play we could have Sweet getting more senior game time.
Although Bevo would probably use an extra runner.

[bulldogtragic]

Go to five ASAP. The development of say a Sam Darcy type player is immense. If the thought it is the 5th is a little free hit for a tall kid, in our case you can take the time to give extra games/minutes to a tall kid that can play all over the ground - not just ruck if a club is lucky to have such a versatile giant. While Lobb plays virtually every minute, you can manage Marra’s minutes (keeping Narra fresher), replacing him with Darcy as a forward target, and manage older KPD minutes using Darcy back and giving him a range of match experience and development. Not to mention insurance if a KPP gets injured. If this fast tracks Darcy while helping manage other KPPs, then the sooner we can get have three 205cm+ AFEL quality talks running around impacting games the better.

Corey’s theory is good for all teams. But if you have a Sam Darcy type ready to develop into a gun, it’s got the potential to benefit us even more if Darcy is our 5th.

For players sakes, I hope we do go to five. It must be hard for fringe 22 players who to-to in and out of the sub and VFL with physical conditioning and finding and keeping good form.

[GVGjr]

I think you either go with a five man bench or go back to four no subs at all.
The sub is like in the old days were you could sit on the pine and never get a game and it can't help with player continuity.
I may lean to the five man bench like McKernan states above and if it was in play we could have Sweet getting more senior game time.
Although Bevo would probably use an extra runner.

The initial design of the sub was to ensure clubs didn't put concussed players back on the field which was an excellent concept.
The 12 day wait protocol for the concussed player to be able to play again was also a decent idea but of course clubs wanted more.
The next iteration was for the 23rd player became an injury sub which also wasn't a bad idea particularly if a club lost a player early in the game so that they weren't overly disadvantaged. Many clubs started to rort it though and it quickly became a way of adding some extra run late in games. Now a 5 man IC bench that removes all the rorting is being considered.

The original design was a good one to address a problem the competition will face in the coming years with lawsuits about concussed players being brought back on to the field but the AFL didn't have the will to enforce the 12 day protocol.
A 5 man IC still means clubs could put a concussed player back on so the AFL hasn't really addressed it and it will be a problem that hits them even harder somewhere down the track.

[FrediKanoute]

The initial design of the sub was to ensure clubs didn't put concussed players back on the field which was an excellent concept.
The 12 day wait protocol for the concussed player to be able to play again was also a decent idea but of course clubs wanted more.
The next iteration was for the 23rd player became an injury sub which also wasn't a bad idea particularly if a club lost a player early in the game so that they weren't overly disadvantaged. Many clubs started to rort it though and it quickly became a way of adding some extra run late in games. Now a 5 man IC bench that removes all the rorting is being considered.

The original design was a good one to address a problem the competition will face in the coming years with lawsuits about concussed players being brought back on to the field but the AFL didn't have the will to enforce the 12 day protocol.
A 5 man IC still means clubs could put a concussed player back on so the AFL hasn't really addressed it and it will be a problem that hits them even harder somewhere down the track.

If you add a player onto the bench you will have to compensate by reducing rotations.

[GVGjr]

If you add a player onto the bench you will have to compensate by reducing rotations.

I don't think the rotation limits are being adjusted.

[Hotdog60]

The initial design of the sub was to ensure clubs didn't put concussed players back on the field which was an excellent concept.
The 12 day wait protocol for the concussed player to be able to play again was also a decent idea but of course clubs wanted more.
The next iteration was for the 23rd player became an injury sub which also wasn't a bad idea particularly if a club lost a player early in the game so that they weren't overly disadvantaged. Many clubs started to rort it though and it quickly became a way of adding some extra run late in games. Now a 5 man IC bench that removes all the rorting is being considered.

The original design was a good one to address a problem the competition will face in the coming years with lawsuits about concussed players being brought back on to the field but the AFL didn't have the will to enforce the 12 day protocol.
A 5 man IC still means clubs could put a concussed player back on so the AFL hasn't really addressed it and it will be a problem that hits them even harder somewhere down the track.

Wouldn't then fall back on the Medical staff and their responsibility of due care. I wonder how much say the coaches have over the Doctor and we see quite often players saying they are fine only to be sat out by the Medical staff.
Liability is a big thing when dealing with players health and I think the Doctors would always take caution in this regard. (Don't look at Clay Smith's knee )
Coaches will always look to bend the rules to the limit and I can see us getting back to the game being too fast again because a team is using an extra runner to keep pace in the game and the old speed collision will be back on the agenda and it becomes another roundabout of rule changes. ( enter BAD )
I like the concept of having an extra ruck and maybe this should be the limiting factor.

[Grantysghost]

Remove the interchange.

Pointless, just have permanent subs.

[Stevo]

Go to five ASAP. The development of say a Sam Darcy type player is immense. If the thought it is the 5th is a little free hit for a tall kid, in our case you can take the time to give extra games/minutes to a tall kid that can play all over the ground - not just ruck if a club is lucky to have such a versatile giant. While Lobb plays virtually every minute, you can manage Marra’s minutes (keeping Narra fresher), replacing him with Darcy as a forward target, and manage older KPD minutes using Darcy back and giving him a range of match experience and development. Not to mention insurance if a KPP gets injured. If this fast tracks Darcy while helping manage other KPPs, then the sooner we can get have three 205cm+ AFEL quality talks running around impacting games the better.

Corey’s theory is good for all teams. But if you have a Sam Darcy type ready to develop into a gun, it’s got the potential to benefit us even more if Darcy is our 5th.

For players sakes, I hope we do go to five. It must be hard for fringe 22 players who to-to in and out of the sub and VFL with physical conditioning and finding and keeping good form.

Excellent way of looking at and not worrying about the medical implications. Would our match committee look at a taller player or go for the extra runner?

[hujsh]

Remove the interchange.

Pointless, just have permanent subs.

Expand the interchange. Any play can come on at any time. Only limit is rotation cap

[Happy Days]

Make it 5 but the fifth person has to be a crowd member picked at random and they have to play at least 25% of the game.

[bulldogtragic]

Excellent way of looking at and not worrying about the medical implications. Would our match committee look at a taller player or go for the extra runner?

With extra mids playing of wings, forward flanks and benches, and Gardner & Lobb top 6 in the whole comp for TOG (thus reducing their need to be interchanged) I’d like to think we have enough run and that fast tracking Sam Darcy and match day flexibility and managing other KPP’s is a no brainer.

*Not watching this year, I’m assuming our runners weren’t completely gassed at 3/4 time.

[Grantysghost]

Make it 5 but the fifth person has to be a crowd member picked at random and they have to play at least 25% of the game.

I like it.

Use kiss cam to judge.

[EasternWest]

Make it 5 but the fifth person has to be a crowd member picked at random and they have to play at least 25% of the game.