Substitutions – time to revise?

Home The Clubhouse The Scrum Substitutions – time to revise?

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    • #3619
      Jonathan Golding

      My understanding of the current laws is that a player who has been subbed is not permitted to return to the field of play unless (1) He is a front-ranker (2) He went to the blood-bin (3) He went for an HIA.
      On the weekend a player (Richie Mo’unga) was told to go off the field after he had returned to it when his replacement had been taken for an HIA. (There was a “misunderstanding”)

      The difference between feeling woozy, having an open cut, a pulled hammie or an off-day is a bit tenuous.

      Just allow a subbed player to return ffs! If they want, they can put some laws in place to prevent the circus of full on rolling subs, but to have a side playing with 14 men when 6 or 7 willing and able men stand on the sideline is a little stupid!

    • #3623

      I believe that rolling subs are the way to go in the future.
      The massive workload, coupled to the high impact hits that players have to take and make week in and week out, month after month for 10 to 11 months of the year are a recipe for disaster.
      Increase the size of the bench to 25, of which 23 may be used in any one game, with no restriction on the number of times a player may be substituted.
      Yep, bring on the three massive tacklers when you are defending your goal line, and bring on the quick fire runners when you are in the opposition half…..
      Perhaps we can say that a player in a specialist position may be subbed by one of the 25 rather than the 23?
      There are other laws that desperately need changing too – the ruck offside line needs to be 5m back from the last feet………
      I have not sat and thought this through yet, but it is interesting.

    • #3624
      Adrian Laros

      Rolling substitutions would change the game. It would mean bringing on specialists at certain times of the game, very much like American Football. Players would have less playing time, but the intensity of the game would be right up there for 80 minutes, which could be just as damaging to players. It would change the game as we know it.
      Not sure what the answer is. Maybe players should only be allowed to be substituted if injured, not sure how that should be policed to prevent faked injuries. What would happen then is there would be a natural drop in intensity as the game progressed,
      without fresh legs being introduced against already fatigued players.
      I like the idea of a 5m rule from racks and mails, although imagine the collisions off 9 with an extra couple of meters to build up some steam. Maybe the extra room will discourage the use of one off runners with the possibility of more opportunities in the wider channels.

    • #3627
      Jonathan Golding

      I see where you guys are going, but I am not sure I fancy the idea of “specialists” on the bench! I am more interested in just ensuring that teams are not forced to play with less than 15 (unless there have been multiple cards!) or worse, where all the subs have been used and some guy is forced to continue to play with a popped rib or wonky knee! If the law is not changed maybe coaches need to not use all their subs after 65 or 70 minutes and keep at least one sub on the bench?
      In terms of “5 meters behind the last feet” – right now, there could be penalties after virtually every ruck because it seems impossible for the refs to patrol it. In football, the assistant refs do the off-sides monitoring – this could happen in rugby without law changes. But I would support the change.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.