ST KILDA's application to have full-forward Fraser Gehrig placed on its long-term injury list is yet to be approved amid concerns that it amounts to an exploitation of the system by which seriously injured players can be replaced on club lists.
The Saints announced last Tuesday that their troubled forward, who has an arthritic condition affecting both hands, was to be placed on the injury list and therefore ruled out of action for at least eight matches. As of last night, however, the application was still to receive endorsement from AFL medical commissioners, Drs Harry Unglik and Peter Harcourt, and had drawn complaint from other clubs who believe that, if successful, it will rewrite the definition of what constitutes a serious injury.
A player placed on the injury list is allowed to be replaced on the senior list by a rookie but traditionally the injured player has been physically unable to take the field and would be unlikely to do so for some time.
Gehrig played against Collingwood four days before it was decided he needed time to recuperate, and was not injured in the match.
It is understood that AFL football administration manager Rod Austin received calls of complaint last week, with at least one club making the case that it would now be possible to promote a rookie for an out-of-form player with a mild ailment rather than a seriously injured one.
An AFL missive yesterday did not list Gehrig on the long-term injury list, as it did the promotion of Melbourne's Shane Valenti for the recently retired David Neitz, but an AFL spokesman said this was because the application was not received until yesterday.
The application, he said, would be examined by Unglik or Harcourt over the next 24 hours.
The Saints themselves were acknowledging last night the peculiarity of the Gehrig submission. Football manager Matthew Drain said that he attached an explanatory letter to the application, knowing that Gehrig's injuries do not prevent him from playing and could be interpreted as an attempt to exploit the injury list system; in other words promote a rookie by stealth.
"He could run out on the ground. We acknowledge that," Drain said.
"But there is also a significant amount of supporting medical evidence, going back four and five years, that says he needs a break from the game.
"But at the end of the day, the approval rests with the AFL medical officers and we understand that."
Drain said that his letter of explanation pointed out that the club was "highly unlikely" to promote a rookie to replace Gehrig.
Of St Kilda's seven rookies, Andrew McQualter has already been promoted on to the senior list for Matt Maguire, and at least four others -- Glenn Chivers, Robert Eddy, Luke Miles and Luke van Rheenen -- are injured. A fifth, Khan Haretuku, is a developing former rugby player from NSW.
Storm brewing over Fraser Gehrig listing
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
JeffDunne
Storm brewing over Fraser Gehrig listing
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 22,00.html
-
st_Trav_ofWA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8886
- Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006 7:10pm
- Location: Perth
- Contact:
i wonder what clubs complained ?
"The team that wins in the most positions and makes the least amount of mistakes, usually wins the game." -- Allan Jeans
http://westernsaints.wordpress.com/
http://westernsaints.wordpress.com/
-
JeffDunne
I'm sure Collingwood would have been one.
I think they've setup a special business unit just do deal with AFL complaints.
Really, I don't see the difference between Fraser and Neitz as both are suffering from pre-existing conditions. No doubt one is more serious than the other but from an administration perspective I don't see the difference.
It is a touch ironic though - like most things at St Kilda atm - that we heard all preseason about our new world's best football department and our improved injury management and use of the rookie list but we're in this situation.
I think they've setup a special business unit just do deal with AFL complaints.
Really, I don't see the difference between Fraser and Neitz as both are suffering from pre-existing conditions. No doubt one is more serious than the other but from an administration perspective I don't see the difference.
It is a touch ironic though - like most things at St Kilda atm - that we heard all preseason about our new world's best football department and our improved injury management and use of the rookie list but we're in this situation.
Eastern wrote:Typical Stephen Rielly trying to make something out of nothing. My guess would be that Geelong have said something to him. No other clubs can be bothered with him !!
I honestly don't think Geelong would be bothered. We are not of interest to them and they are grateful to us for solving their King / Gardiner problem!