RugbyRebels

Big D wrote:8 subs named 3 can be used used concussion subs. That would cover bases.

8 subs named
2 can be used tactically
Temporary subs for HIA or blood
Can also replace any injured player. Any injury replaced player has a mandatory 16 day stand-down for treatment & rehab.

That's a pretty big incentive to play whilst injured

So is anything that reduces the amount of subs available

Which Tyler wrote:So is anything that reduces the amount of subs available

And there's the rub. Anything involving reducing tactical subs has a tradeoff between allowing "injuries" and encouraging actually injured players to stay on the pitch.

I think I'd probably lean more towards the lenient side, as the game is in enough concussion trouble as it is without a set of regulations encouraging people to play on. 8-man bench, but you can only make 4 subs in total, including injury. HIAs, blood, and bringing a prop on in the case of a yellow don't count towards that limit, but they are short-term, so if someone fails their HIA or the blood cannot be stopped, then that counts as one of your four (or the sub has to be removed at the end of the HIA time if you'd already used all four). And all HIA removals are done by an independant doctor and happen for any head clash, even if the team doctor has gone on and made firm eye contact with the player who says they're fine to continue, as appears to be the current protocol.

Puja

It is a little different in having a 16 day recuperation period. I'm not sure what the answer is but that feels wrong, someone could break my finger in a ruck and I'd get punished with a 2 game ban when otherwise I might be able to strap the finger and take a painkiller

Digby wrote:It is a little different in having a 16 day recuperation period. I'm not sure what the answer is but that feels wrong, someone could break my finger in a ruck and I'd get punished with a 2 game ban when otherwise I might be able to strap the finger and take a painkiller

If you can strap a finger and take a painkiller and not have any longer term adverse effects - then you can also do that pitch side - as demonstrated on plenty of occasions where exactly that has happened.

For me, I am happy to see subs for injuries, and much prefer that to tactical subs (though I'll allow some to try to change a game; I'd also be happy to allow 0 for tactics). The problem is in making sure the injury subs are for actual injuries, not tactical with a different box ticked.
The only way I can see for doing that, is to stand that player down for long enough that it outweighs the convenience of a tactical sub - and given that we're talking about injuries, we can do it under the guise of player welfare - by allowing time to actually treat the injury.

For the most part, if an injury isn't bad enough to need time off rugby; then it's probably not bad enough to need replacing on the day either.

Perfectly happy to allow that 16 days was a number pulled out of my backside to cover 2 matches so that it's actually a deterrent. Equally happy to allow that 2 tactical and 6 injury is pulled out of my backside.

I'd say it's a better option (in terms of player welfare) than 5 replacements only, or anything else that limits the number of substitutions available.

As I see it, we're largely in agreement that we want...
Fewer tactical subs => greater fatigue, and hopefully => training for more stamina, less high intensity and less sheer muscle mass.
To allow temporary substitutions such as HIA / blood / carded front rowers.
To allow changes for actual injuries, whilst not just relying on the player's "honesty" because we know they don't have any.
There's also an argument to be made for generalists rather than specialists, and therefore smaller benches in total - but that's more about supporting the 2nd / 3rd XV rather the OP

Rugby manager about 100 years without tactical subs.

Been watching the superb6 in Scotland which is seen as quite a low level compared to wales prem or English championship. Skills for me are comparable. What isn’t is the gym time these guys can manage.

That for me sums up quite a lot about pro rugby. Spend years in the gym getting massive so you can play against other massive guys. Why not have introduce team weight limits to reduce the bulk of some of these guys

You could strap a broken finger pitch side, but you might want to get an idea how bad it is, and you might want to load up the painkiller in advance not just knock something back during a game. And there'd be other examples where the enforced stand down would punish a victim of foul play, and there'd be other examples of someone playing on and ensuring an injury.

I get what the enforced stand down is trying to do, it just feels at best inelegant, and really somewhat perverse even if coming from a good place

whatisthejava wrote:Rugby manager about 100 years without tactical subs.

Been watching the superb6 in Scotland which is seen as quite a low level compared to wales prem or English championship. Skills for me are comparable. What isn’t is the gym time these guys can manage.

That for me sums up quite a lot about pro rugby. Spend years in the gym getting massive so you can play against other massive guys. Why not have introduce team weight limits to reduce the bulk of some of these guys

I guarantee their skills are not comparable

I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Gloskarlos wrote:I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Free kick will mean, flankers playing front row and teams will trade conceding fre kicks for more mobile players.......maybe

Gloskarlos wrote:I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Do subs really change the course of a game if one team is on top in the scrums? Usually the subs are worse than the starters and bringing them on doesn't alleviate the pain at all.

In addition, if the same front row has to play the full 80 minutes, then there's the option of outlasting a dominant front row and attacking them when they're tired, or picking the pace of the game up and making them run so that they don't have the energy to beast your scrum. At the moment, there's no option of tiring out a dominant scrum, cause they'll just bring their subs on and continue the pain.

Puja

Gloskarlos wrote:I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Which is exactly what happened in the good old days. Replacing front rows is part of the problem as you don’t have knackered props defending in the last 20 any more.

Puja wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Do subs really change the course of a game if one team is on top in the scrums? Usually the subs are worse than the starters and bringing them on doesn't alleviate the pain at all.

In addition, if the same front row has to play the full 80 minutes, then there's the option of outlasting a dominant front row and attacking them when they're tired, or picking the pace of the game up and making them run so that they don't have the energy to beast your scrum. At the moment, there's no option of tiring out a dominant scrum, cause they'll just bring their subs on and continue the pain.

Puja

Equally the team that has the advantage might actually see some benefit in a knackered opposition pack later on. Which might bring some value back to the scrum.

Puja wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:I have concerns over teams getting munched in the scrum and not being able to do a thing about it, that's a long and very one sided 80 mins. So I would still allow tactical changes in the front row only, or reduce all scrum penalty sanctions to a free kick.

Do subs really change the course of a game if one team is on top in the scrums? Usually the subs are worse than the starters and bringing them on doesn't alleviate the pain at all.

In addition, if the same front row has to play the full 80 minutes, then there's the option of outlasting a dominant front row and attacking them when they're tired, or picking the pace of the game up and making them run so that they don't have the energy to beast your scrum. At the moment, there's no option of tiring out a dominant scrum, cause they'll just bring their subs on and continue the pain.

Puja

Yes, if it's the case that the ref has pre-determined one side is dominant and just repeatedly pings one side of the scrum or is on the cusp of yellow carding repeat infringements here. In that case a tactical front row change is exactly what is needed. You are correct the reserve front row needs to have the minerals which not all do - but the change in perception can make all the difference as we have seen on occasion. I don't buy that a weaker front row can become dominant later in the game. If they're under the kosh for 60 mins the chances they get a 'second wind' for the last 20 has little chance of materialising.

In my experience if a scrum is consistently getting pasted then it’s unlikely to get better without a change in personnel. The best you can hope for is that if a bug pack tires then you can take advantage in other ways. But most props will always find enough energy for a scrum, even if walking to breakdowns!