Should substitutions be banned.

[Rugbyfan564]

Yes or no. For all forms or for only club or international. Allow injury replacements or not at all.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

No

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Of all the stupid clickbait takes out there, this is a top tier one.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Of all the stupid clickbait takes out there, this is a top tier one.

Brian Moore is calling for non injury replacements to be banned. And progressive rugby are long term supporters of the policy due to the dementia risk

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Yes or no. For all forms or for only club or international. Allow injury replacements or not at all.

All for it!

The clock won't be turned back. But I genuinely would like to see a significant reduction. Maybe something like Doctor required subs + a max of 3 tactical.

I just prefer a team game to a squad one. More often than not subs pouring on disjoint a game rather than enhancing it.

 

[Yulia]

Same as Vieux Talonneur: a "no" (shouldn't be banned) for medical reasons,but with a limited quantity for other reasons

 

[big ginger 8]

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.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

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.

Genuine question.

Has there been any conclusive research into whether that's overall worse than fresh players smashing into tired players? Instinctively, to me, differing fatigue levels doesn't sound great, especially when you think about how powerful players now are.

I can be persuaded if the science says otherwise but I'm not sure it does yet? Until it does I'm sticking with my reduced numbers / continuity position.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Genuine question.

Has there been any conclusive research into whether that's overall worse than fresh players smashing into tired players? Instinctively, to me, differing fatigue levels doesn't sound great, especially when you think about how powerful players now are.

I can be persuaded if the science says otherwise but I'm not sure it does yet? Until it does I'm sticking with my reduced numbers / continuity position.

This.

Also, if more players (especially the gargantuan forwards) are expected to play 80 minutes rather than 45-50 then they'd have to lose weight and muscle mass to last that long. As a result you'd see players become smaller/weaker and the impact of collisions would be reduced, thus causing less injuries.

Banning all subs would be dumb. But I'm all for reducing them.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

This.

Also, if more players (especially the gargantuan forwards) are expected to play 80 minutes rather than 45-50 then they'd have to lose weight and muscle mass to last that long. As a result you'd see players become smaller/weaker and the impact of collisions would be reduced, thus causing less injuries.

Banning all subs would be dumb. But I'm all for reducing them.

Wouldn't a weight limit also help do that. Either individual or team one.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

South's Africa would just fake injuries to get subs on. Just wouldn't work.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I wouldn't mind a full bench (or even a bigger bench) and limiting the subs a team can make. Something like 5 subs in a game, 3 forwards and two backs can be replaced or something along those lines, once they're made only a returning player can replace an injured one.

Injury only invites cheating and interpretation. Smaller benches and less specialised positions have their own risks. Simple and strict rules are needed.

Don't hate the way it is currently but do think that devaluing the subs bench can level out the playing field and make the game more entertaining in many ways.

 

[Which Tyler]

South's Africa would just fake injuries to get subs on. Just wouldn't work.

Anyone who leaves the pitch injured (or "injured"), has an automatic 10-day R&R?

 

[dirty harry]

Genuine question.

Has there been any conclusive research into whether that's overall worse than fresh players smashing into tired players? Instinctively, to me, differing fatigue levels doesn't sound great, especially when you think about how powerful players now are.

I can be persuaded if the science says otherwise but I'm not sure it does yet? Until it does I'm sticking with my reduced numbers / continuity position.

To add to this, reducing the numbers of players, will automatically reduce the size, weight and power output of starters.

Right now, stats determine when front rowers fall off cliffs stamina wise, if they were forced to last 80 they would have to drop 15kgs to last, it would incredibly reduce injury risk by limiting the massive size difference in players.

Tight 5s might look like real human beings again

 

[dirty harry]

This.

Also, if more players (especially the gargantuan forwards) are expected to play 80 minutes rather than 45-50 then they'd have to lose weight and muscle mass to last that long. As a result you'd see players become smaller/weaker and the impact of collisions would be reduced, thus causing less injuries.

Banning all subs would be dumb. But I'm all for reducing them.

Oops, my thoughts echo this

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I'd reduce the amount of subs and also bring back props that can cover both sides, it's not that difficult.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

giving this more air time than it might deserve, i have thought a bench like football would be good. so you have 8-10 on the bench....but can only make 3-5 subs

so you can still have that injury cover...but generally we will bring a little more fatigue into the last quarter creating more space

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

giving this more air time than it might deserve, i have thought a bench like football would be good. so you have 8-10 on the bench....but can only make 3-5 subs

so you can still have that injury cover...but generally we will bring a little more fatigue into the last quarter creating more space

I like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.

definitely, so you're always going to keep at least one front row and one back/loosie reserve until the last 5-10 minutes

 

[higgik]

I like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.

How about rugby league style of limited interchanges.
Then if injury occurs to FR, then the replacement FR comes on for another player, so down to 14, if all interchanges used, but need a FR.
Otherwise, faking injury to go to non-competitive scrums will happen.