Ban subs or someone is going to die

[Puja]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/58213246

Over-dramatic language perhaps, but you can't deny their point. It's a rare game that doesn't end with 46 players having been used and it lets players, the tight five especially, bodybuild and plan with the assumption that they can just go out and smash for 55 minutes. Doubly so for a 6:2 bench - the entire front five can train and prepare on the assumption that they don't have to play a full game.

I don't think you can get rid of subs entirely except for injury, as teams will 100% get players to fake injury if they think it'll get them an advantage. Hells, no need for a blood capsule nowadays, just go into a ruck and then stay down holding your head. Maybe if we say 8 man bench, with 4 subs available, which has to encompass HIA, blood, and injury - if you make your subs and lose a player, then you go down to 14 and it's your own fault for not having kept one back.

Worth noting that I would allow the community game to keep rolling unlimited subs, as that is only sensible in terms of keeping players happy and ensuring safety when there's not a pro medical team around to drag players off. I don't think preparing to just play 50 minutes is a thing at Level 6 - if anything it's optimistic to assume a player won't be walking after 10 minutes!

Puja

[Digby]

The query is the scrum, and whether one needs 3 role specific replacements. Beyond that I cannot see a downside to a 5 man bench, 3 forwards and 2 backs.

Best thing for the community game as aside would be a smaller bench btw, it'd help the 2nds hugely if the 1sts didn't have such a large bench, and it'd help the 3rd if the 2nds didn't ave such a large bench, and.... Much easier to get teams out, and actually have some better players in those games

[Puja]

The query is the scrum, and whether one needs 3 role specific replacements. Beyond that I cannot see a downside to a 5 man bench, 3 forwards and 2 backs.

Best thing for the community game as aside would be a smaller bench btw, it'd help the 2nds hugely if the 1sts didn't have such a large bench, and it'd help the 3rd if the 2nds didn't ave such a large bench, and.... Much easier to get teams out, and actually have some better players in those games

I would say you do need 3 specialist replacements in the (professional level) scrum. It's not safe to have someone who's not a specialist step in if there's an injury.

I don't know whether it's the same nationwide, but in Wiltshire, you can only have a three-man bench for any team that's not the lowest one in your club. So if you're a 1-team club, then you can have a bench as large as you like, but if you've got a 1s and a 2s, then the 1s are limited to 18 players and the 2s can have as many as they like.

We actually had a problem a couple of years back where we got overambitious and declared a 4ths team. We only actually got it out for 3 games, but because we'd declared it at the start of the season, it meant the 3rds could only have a 3-man bench as they were technically no longer our lowest team, no matter that the 4ths weren't playing and we had 8 players spare not doing anything.

Puja

[Digby]

I'm tempted to say don't let them have the 3 specialist scrum replacements. It's not like anyone takes the scrum seriously anyway, all front rows cheat, nobody puts the ball in straight, and far too many feck around refusing to restart hoping to win a penalty so they don't have to play.

[Son of Mathonwy]

An 8 man bench but only a total of 4 subs is a good idea.

Additionally, how about no more than 2 subs can be made in any 10 minute period of the match? That would mean it would be impossible to replace the whole front row at once, or otherwise make dramatic impact changes.

There is a danger in all of this that it would encourage deliberate injury to bring teams down to 14 men, but I guess we must hope that out and out thuggery is more difficult to get away with these days. To counter this, we could say that if an injury occurs because of foul play, a 'free' substitution can be made.

[Puja]

To counter this, we could say that if an injury occurs because of foul play, a 'free' substitution can be made.

That's a good idea! Would save teams being punished if they're facing Owen Farrell and his incredible non-bending waist.

Puja

[whatisthejava]

WR need to start standing up to coaches, I’m a big believer in coaches getting sanctioned if their players repeatedly show a lack of understanding how to bend in the middle

[Puja]

WR are still trying to work out if a coach who released an hour long video slagging off the referee has possibly broken the rules about not disrespecting the referee. I don't know how much leadership we can expect.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I think this is the most sensible suggestion made in rugby Union circles since the game went pro.

So many injuries occur in the last quarter as a result of fresh players running at tired ones and the slave that used to exist as the front five got a bit tired is now largely gone with 4/5ths normally replaced.

So a coach can fake an injury and bring on a tactical replacement rather than an injury one. Of a coach is found to be cheating then there are ways to deal with them, ask Dean Richards. But I seem to recall a French prop who went off against Wales somewhat dubiously in 2017 to set up the 100 minute infamous game, so the situation can be abused under current rules.

So remove tactical subs, and bring back proper feeds into the scrum. That will have an impact on the size of players and will hopefully bring back a focus on skills rather than pure size.

I would echo Puja’s point through about keeping players interested in the community game. At purely amateur level this can be relaxed and any sub can be brought on (sides rarely have squads of 23 in my experience of late).

[Sandydragon]

WR are still trying to work out how to minimise the impact of their recent safety rulings on head contact by making a red card only apply for 20 minutes.

Showing leadership isn’t one of WR’s strong points.

[Puja]

WR are still trying to work out how to minimise the impact of their recent safety rulings on head contact by making a red card only apply for 20 minutes.

Showing leadership isn’t one of WR’s strong points.

I do have a little sympathy with what WR are trying to do there - at the moment, referees feel pressured not to give an early red or face the charge of "ruining the game". Making the team go down to 14 for 20 minutes and then bring on a sub for the red carded player is still a big punishment, but might make refs feel easier about brandishing a card early doors.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

WR are still trying to work out how to minimise the impact of their recent safety rulings on head contact by making a red card only apply for 20 minutes.

Showing leadership isn’t one of WR’s strong points.

I do have a little sympathy with what WR are trying to do there - at the moment, referees feel pressured not to give an early red or face the charge of "ruining the game". Making the team go down to 14 for 20 minutes and then bring on a sub for the red carded player is still a big punishment, but might make refs feel easier about brandishing a card early doors.

Puja

I totally agree with the new sanction. It was ridiculous that the worst kind of foul play was punished anything between 1 and 8 yellow cards' worth purely depending on the time in the match it took place. However, if 20 mins isn't enough, by all means let's make it 25, 30 or whatever.

[whatisthejava]

So many injuries occur in the last quarter as a result of fresh players running at tired ones and the slave that used to exist as the front five got a bit tired is now largely gone with 4/5ths normally replaced.

Is this assumption or fact?
I’m not convinced that it’s true but happy to be corrected.

The tackle/ruck area is still the most dangerous area of the game so I still think if you prevent players binding onto a player on the ground then you make the game much safer, faster, more exciting which will solve all the other issues we have.

[Puja]

So many injuries occur in the last quarter as a result of fresh players running at tired ones and the slave that used to exist as the front five got a bit tired is now largely gone with 4/5ths normally replaced.

Is this assumption or fact?
I’m not convinced that it’s true but happy to be corrected.

The tackle/ruck area is still the most dangerous area of the game so I still think if you prevent players binding onto a player on the ground then you make the game much safer, faster, more exciting which will solve all the other issues we have.

I don't know whether it's fact or not, but I think it's the lesser concern compared to players conditioning and building themselves into a body shape that's only designed to last 60 minutes so they can hit harder.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

So many injuries occur in the last quarter as a result of fresh players running at tired ones and the slave that used to exist as the front five got a bit tired is now largely gone with 4/5ths normally replaced.

Is this assumption or fact?
I’m not convinced that it’s true but happy to be corrected.

The tackle/ruck area is still the most dangerous area of the game so I still think if you prevent players binding onto a player on the ground then you make the game much safer, faster, more exciting which will solve all the other issues we have.

There was some old research on this, I’ll see if I can find it.

[Sandydragon]

WR are still trying to work out how to minimise the impact of their recent safety rulings on head contact by making a red card only apply for 20 minutes.

Showing leadership isn’t one of WR’s strong points.

I do have a little sympathy with what WR are trying to do there - at the moment, referees feel pressured not to give an early red or face the charge of "ruining the game". Making the team go down to 14 for 20 minutes and then bring on a sub for the red carded player is still a big punishment, but might make refs feel easier about brandishing a card early doors.

Puja

So I decide to take one for the team and put their star player out of action in the first minute but I’m caught doing so. Yes the ban after game will be far worse but if it’s a cup final then so what? I’ve still given my team a huge boost and it’s only a 20
Min disadvantage to cover.

I look at Finn Russell’s red card in the six nations and I can see why 20 mins is entirely fair as it looked totally accidental. I’m not so sure about Peter OMahoneys though and there lie my problem. Is this really a deterrent on the day for a team which wants to play a little dirty?

Did Wales or England get a red card for a high tackle in the six nations? It’s possible to play the game without being sent off.

[Mellsblue]

So many injuries occur in the last quarter as a result of fresh players running at tired ones and the slave that used to exist as the front five got a bit tired is now largely gone with 4/5ths normally replaced.

Is this assumption or fact?
I’m not convinced that it’s true but happy to be corrected.

The tackle/ruck area is still the most dangerous area of the game so I still think if you prevent players binding onto a player on the ground then you make the game much safer, faster, more exciting which will solve all the other issues we have.

I don't know whether it's fact or not, but I think it's the lesser concern compared to players conditioning and building themselves into a body shape that's only designed to last 60 minutes so they can hit harder.

Puja

WR is undertaking research of over 2,000 matches and, so far, there is no correlation.
I agree that producing muscle bound 50/60min freaks is the main issue, and the one McGeechan et al seem to be focussing on. No tactical replacements seems like a blunt sword, though. There are plenty of other ways to reduce this. Introducing laws, and applying them (!), to produce a faster paced game, with less stoppages, ticks both that box and the entertainment box.

[Puja]

WR are still trying to work out how to minimise the impact of their recent safety rulings on head contact by making a red card only apply for 20 minutes.

Showing leadership isn’t one of WR’s strong points.

I do have a little sympathy with what WR are trying to do there - at the moment, referees feel pressured not to give an early red or face the charge of "ruining the game". Making the team go down to 14 for 20 minutes and then bring on a sub for the red carded player is still a big punishment, but might make refs feel easier about brandishing a card early doors.

Puja

So I decide to take one for the team and put their star player out of action in the first minute but I’m caught doing so. Yes the ban after game will be far worse but if it’s a cup final then so what? I’ve still given my team a huge boost and it’s only a 20
Min disadvantage to cover.

The alternative could be that you take one for the team, put their star player out of action in the first minute, but the ref bottles it under pressure of not wanting to "ruin the cup final" and only hands you a yellow. You've given your team a huge boost, it's only 10 minutes and then you get to come back on as well, rather than using a substitute.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I mentioned it in another thread in a slightly tongue in cheek way, but I think something could be done about players getting a breather whenever we have a stoppage. Why not get the players to do exercise instead of having a water break? Force them to run the length of the pitch or something similar? That would make overdeveloped power players struggle.

Reducing half time could help too, how about 7 minutes? (Although this might reduce beer revenue, so may not be a flier....)

[Digby]

Do injured players avoid the shuttle runs? Because wouldn't we just have 30 injured players?

[Sandydragon]

I do have a little sympathy with what WR are trying to do there - at the moment, referees feel pressured not to give an early red or face the charge of "ruining the game". Making the team go down to 14 for 20 minutes and then bring on a sub for the red carded player is still a big punishment, but might make refs feel easier about brandishing a card early doors.

Puja

So I decide to take one for the team and put their star player out of action in the first minute but I’m caught doing so. Yes the ban after game will be far worse but if it’s a cup final then so what? I’ve still given my team a huge boost and it’s only a 20
Min disadvantage to cover.

The alternative could be that you take one for the team, put their star player out of action in the first minute, but the ref bottles it under pressure of not wanting to "ruin the cup final" and only hands you a yellow. You've given your team a huge boost, it's only 10 minutes and then you get to come back on as well, rather than using a substitute.

Puja

If the ref bottles a red where there is clear foul play then that ref shouldn’t be in their position. Maybe it’s an orange card then for a non deliberate act that puts another players safety at risk. But really teams can tackle lower, they choose not to in most cases and then blame the ref for the card.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Do injured players avoid the shuttle runs? Because wouldn't we just have 30 injured players?

The ref can send the 'injured' off for medical attention and those who want to play can continue.

[Sandydragon]

Regarding the time in the match most likely to see an injury, I recall some media coverage a while ago referring to the second half as being the most prevalent time, due to fatigue and the input of fresh players.

There is an Australian report into amateur rugby which comments

Injury rates varied among match quarters; 9% (n = 18) occurred in the first quarter, 31% (n = 65) in the second quarter, 21% (n = 43) in the third quarter, and 39% (n = 81) of injuries in the fourth quarter. There was a statistically significant difference in injury rates between quarters χ2 (3, N = 207) = 43.4

https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/1004 ... 5-3_08.pdf

I’ll see what else I can dig up as the impact is cited in a number of places but I can’t find the original research.

[Sandydragon]

I can’t find any research that suggests that impact subs are the cause of a greater number of injuries in the second half of a match. All I can find is research that suggests that the second half is more dangerous than the first. Whether that’s down to simple fatigue or the impact of replacements isn’t that clear.

What I would suggest is that if logically tactical subs make no difference to the injury rate, then banning them will make no positive difference and could make the situation worse. After all all 30 players will be fatigued in the final quarter as opposed to roughly 50-60% as is often the norm. The RFU publishes quite a lot of stats on the type of injury and when in the season these injuries occur. But nothing that I can find on when in the game an injury is most likely to happen or of tactical subs were a factor.

Clearly a need for more transparent research. If WR have data to at suggests otherwise then they should release it.

[Big D]

8 subs named 3 can be used used concussion subs. That would cover bases.