Should substitutions be banned.

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I can only see it increasing injury risk. Tired muscles are more likely to get injured and tired players are more likely to tackle high and loose.

That was my instinctive reaction the first time I heard about this but after talking to people who know more about this than I do I am not sure anymore.
Hard to tell. You would have several things going on, most of them moving the needle in different directions. Would players get exhausted or would they pace themselves a bit more?
Two very tired players going at each other vs a fresh one vs a tired one: which scenario has a higher chance of injury?

I don't mind tactical changes and naturally, I am not against substituting injured players. I dont particularly like the idea of making changes to introduce someone who only brings fresh legs to the table, but it is just a personal preference.

 

[McTallshort]

I can only see it increasing injury risk. Tired muscles are more likely to get injured and tired players are more likely to tackle high and loose.

Not sure I agree with that. If you are tired after 60 minutes and some massive lump comes on and smashes into you it's going to hurt more than another player who had already done 60 minutes.

Also if players knew they had to more likely play a full 80 you would probably see players looking more athletic and less bulky, watch the Lions 97 games as an example of what players looked like before tactical subs.

Big lumpy players coming on after 50 minutes and smashing into everyone isn't going to decrease to risk of injury.

 

[AlRums]

This comes to mind

Bloodgate - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Which Tyler]

This comes to mind

Bloodgate - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Not to mention years worth of everyone running a book on when Wasps would suffer a front row "injury" and have to go uncontested with 3 flankers and 1 prop.

Hence the suggested 10 day stand down for any "injured" player to make a full recovery.

The downside, of course, is players playing on when they really should go off with an injury, and aggravating it.

 

[Scotty]

If we take out the welfare side of it. What is the effect on the game itself and how does it affect the spectical for the viewer?

I do like subs coming on and changing the game. And getting players gametime who are coming back from injury/need experience but arnt first choice or ready to be starters.

The welfare reasons are valid and im not discounting them but rather just looking for at from the point of view of the viewers.

 

[LardFingers]

I would gradually reduce the number of subs allowed to come on, by one per season, and assess the impact each year.

I suspect the sweet spot would be around 4 subs, but time would tell.

 

[McTallshort]

The welfare reasons are valid and im not discounting them but rather just looking for at from the point of view of the viewers.

Player welfare should always trump the needs of the viewers

 

[Scotty]

Player welfare should always trump the needs of the viewers

Not disagreeing at all, yet i want to know what the affect for the viewer is.

Even if this doesnt even come into it when making decisions on this subject, i still want to know the affect it will have.

 

[Reiser99]

Not disagreeing at all, yet i want to know what the affect for the viewer is.

Even if this doesnt even come into it when making decisions on this subject, i still want to know the affect it will have.

My logic is that tired players would lead to more gaps at the end of the game, so more chance for exciting finishes.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Less substitutes would also stop the 140kg monsters as you couldn't replace your entire front row, a lock and a back row. That must be better for player welfare if we had fitter but smaller players.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

My logic is that tired players would lead to more gaps at the end of the game, so more chance for exciting finishes.

thats exactly what i think, so rather than speeding up the game late with fresh legs...we slow it down...still get tries, players would have to change and change how they play, pace themselves a little

 

[McTallshort]

As I said. Different fitness levels and body mass. Watch the Lions 97 games. Slimmer players, faster games, more exciting finishes.

 

[BilgeConcerto]

What do you think about the idea of downgrading scrum penalties to free kicks so there is less reward for bulk?

 

[Saintjay]

What do you think about the idea of downgrading scrum penalties to free kicks so there is less reward for bulk?

A knee jerk reaction to South Africa winning two World Cups on the bounce and a cynical way of stopping it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Pretty sure South Africa had only won 1 RWC in 2006

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Got no issue with the concept of scrum penalties, but do have an issue with that being the goal of most scrums which is what causes the endless resets

No idea how you combat that, though - remove the scrum option from a penalty at the scrum, so the game has to move on?

 

[Reiser99]

What do you think about the idea of downgrading scrum penalties to free kicks so there is less reward for bulk?

Got no issue with the concept of scrum penalties, but do have an issue with that being the goal of most scrums which is what causes the endless resets

No idea how you combat that, though - remove the scrum option from a penalty at the scrum, so the game has to move on?

I still say if the scrum is stable for say 3-5 seconds then a penalty is automatically removed and the maximum that can be awarded is a freekick. This way only cynical collapses immediately are penalised and weaker teams have more incentive to scrum properly to avoid a penalty.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I still say if the scrum is stable for say 3-5 seconds then a penalty is automatically removed and the maximum that can be awarded is a freekick. This way only cynical collapses immediately are penalised and weaker teams have more incentive to scrum properly to avoid a penalty.

Yeah that's a great shout - the scrum is a means to restart the game, if you've got the opportunity to restart but choose not to then minimise the reward from that

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I still say if the scrum is stable for say 3-5 seconds then a penalty is automatically removed and the maximum that can be awarded is a freekick. This way only cynical collapses immediately are penalised and weaker teams have more incentive to scrum properly to avoid a penalty.

Good call.

Would that be a real time 5 seconds or a "use it" 5 seconds

Score from a scrum and you can almost see TMOs counting the frames to determine whether a team's had it too long.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

What do you think about the idea of downgrading scrum penalties to free kicks so there is less reward for bulk?

i hate how scrum penalties work currently, its almost the goal now for teams to get the penalty

hate when you see teams getting penalised for effectively just not being strong enough....youre being penilised for something the other team is forcing on you, not something you can change

the scrum is a competition for the ball...the reward should be possession of the ball...ie a free kick