Isn't a 10-minute impact player a game changer? Far more than most backs picked on the bench. Most back subs are only there to cover for injuries, not because they are likely to swing a game. In an era with increasing versatility generally amongst players keeping a bench spot for a back is seen as a waste (as it generally is if you have to pick a hooker there as well).

Its not so much the bench that people want to see changed as the ability of genuinely skilful players - i.e. halfbacks - to shine through. The argument is that they don't get space if tackles are slow and they are constantly facing relatively fresh big men who are mobile (bigger players now are far more mobile than they were).

I tend to think that what we're seeing now is part of an inevitable move in the sport towards athletes across the field, with reduced specialisation following as a result. A bit like the atom bomb, its impossible to 'uninvent' progress in sports science. I think its also important to remember that whilst some commentators and fans might not like it, a lot of coaches - particularly of course those who are winning under current rules - don't want to see things changed too much. In Australia that's a big deal because coaches are included in the rule-change process.

Does facing tired defenders really improve a half-back's skill levels though?

The effect would just be to make it easier for mediocre but agile smaller players to get around the bigger guys, rather than having to try and find ways to open up the defence with a pass or a kick.

Like Rob Burrow in the GF?

Burrow is a perfect example.

Arguably, he's not had to build his skill levels that much because his game has been predominantly about exploiting tired defenders in the middle of the field.

If you increase those fatigue levels by making the big men play extra minutes, then you're making life easier for the more agile player rather than pushing them to find other ways of breaking down defences.

I don't see it as a matter of skill levels though. I think the halfbacks today are just as skilled as the halfbacks 10 years ago yet if you watch the Leeds v Saints Cup Semi final in 2003 again you'll see a game that's far more open and, in my opinion, better to watch than the vast majority of games today.

The defences were slower with much bigger gaps and far, far less wrestling/tackle manipulation than today which led to a much more open game.

I think if you put today's halfbacks in those type of games theyd flourish. It's the speed and efficiency of the defensive line combined with a well trained techniques of turning the attacker and slowing the play the ball that means halves have sod all time to actually assess the defence, half the the time are getting tackled just as they get the ball (especially 2nd receiver) and even if they do have time there just aren't the gaps in the defences to put people through or for players to take advantage of.

It's why I'm sort of in favour (55/45) of bringing proper scrums back, mainly as a way of making at least some of the forwards less mobile.

Agree about today's halfbacks. What they're far better than they were is geting quick passes away and using set plays. In fact the range of passing and kicking skills in general is far higher than it was. The classic Andy Greg running (or even jogging) across the defence probing for gaps simply wouldn't work today as they'd get smashed in possession far too often.

I have the same sort of thinking myself about scrums. Right now they are just a very limited way of giving the backs one tackle to make a play, but given the speed of backrows and the fact they aren't looking at anything other than peeling off the scrum as fast as possible, we very rarely get to see backs vs backs even on the first tackle.

I do understand the potential problems with contested scrums, and we'd see a lot of our big props suffer (not to mention the return of hookers), but if you want to radically overhaul the game that would do far more than tinkering with subs.

BTW I think its a real eye-opener to watch highlights of games from 10 or 20 years ago. I've watched a few NRL GFs from back then and the difference in speed and organisation on defence even from 10 years ago really is quite amazing, especially given how much bigger players are generally right across the park.

The reason I advocate less interchanges is that you the same type of player replacing the guy coming off e.g. A prop replacing a prop. How many teams have one never mind two backs on the bench?
The great debater who said b0llocks when I suggested all players should be able to play a full 80 minutes never explained why or give any examples of QUALITY impact players.
Can anyone name 3 top class impact players in SL?

Yep agree with all that. I've recently re-watched the 2003 Cup semi v Saints and the 2004 season review dvd (Oldham Rhino & JohnD providing some legendary commentary!) and some of the gaps in defences were huge. They just don't happen anymore. Also something else I noted was that when we made a break the defence wouldn't try and chase back, they'd just rely on the full back. Now the defences react much quicker and there's usually at least 3 or 4 defenders chasing back covering support runners so the full back can take the ball carrier.

Perhaps if you prevented the 10 players in the scrum from participating in the first play you would open up that play i.e. 8 v 8 for that play and also give it as an option on a penalty i.e. you can tap, kick or scrum if awarded a penalty. Getting a penalty in the opponents 20 isn't really that much of bonus as you are cramped for space against a set defence - sides seem quite prepared to give penalties away in the 20.

The speculation can end, confirmed changes. Clarity over Obstruction and Sin Bin guidelines. Extra sub when concussed and on field ref must make a decision before referring to Video Ref. Disappointed they haven't removed the negative "being able to step over the line and as long as the ball was moving it's out rule" but pleased with all the changes. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/25314.php#.VJRwI8N8GA

The speculation can end, confirmed changes. Clarity over Obstruction and Sin Bin guidelines. Extra sub when concussed and on field ref must make a decision before referring to Video Ref. Disappointed they haven't removed the negative "being able to step over the line and as long as the ball was moving it's out rule" but pleased with all the changes. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/25314.php#.VJRwI8N8GA

I quite like that idea. It also means you might get more focus on the actual scrum as at the moment the defending pack just wants to break ASAP to get out and defend. If they cant do that they might concentrate more on the scrum itself.

Aren't there 12 players in a scrum? Or are the loose/locks allowed to break to join the attack/defence? I like the idea though.

[i5 4-----------------6 1 3 2[/i

-------13
------12 11
-----10 9 8 [i7[/i
-----10 9 8 [i7[/i
------12 11
-------13

[i2 3-----------------6 1 4 5[/i

You are correct I meant 12 bad day yesterday - 7 v 7 even better more space

Just when we've finally got the referee's judgement out of the obstruction rule and made it a matter of physical fact, we've taken a massive step backwards on it IMO.

The whole "was the defender disadvantaged" is a subjective judgement that creates inconsistency. I'll give it a couple of controversial big decisions before fans and pundits are screaming for clarity again.

How - after the Ryan Hall decision in the Four Nations - anyone can suggest the VR having to find incontrovertible evidence to overturn the on-field decision is workable simply amazes me. Nothing wrong with the VR system as it was.

I like the idea of the sin bin now being an option for crusher/chicken wing tackles and other foul play. Just hope referees have the guts to use it rather than cop out.

I can understand the issue with the obstruction rule. It had been redrafted to being a matter of fact rather than opinion, but that left us in a silly position of having an obstruction penalty when nobody was obstructed. I like that a player has to be obstructed for it, I think that is right. I think having tries ruled out on such 'technicalities' is not what the game is about. However that will lead to more inconsistency. It does give the referees an easy out though. "I didn't think he was sufficiently obstructed" can't really be argued with.

Agree entirely with you about the VR. Stupid and ridiculous decision.

Id go even further with the sin bin, mandatory sin bin for any high-tackle. I think we would see the amount of them drop drastically, and tackling change slightly which would allow more offloads and promoting of the ball. All good things in my opinion.

I’m in favour of a slight reduction in the number of subs but nothing too drastic since I think the big fellas do bring something unique to the game and to go back to the days of 15 and 16 stone props would be a retrograde move.

Cutting out the wrestling by penalising players who continue to wrestle after calling “held” would help as it’d get rid of a lot of rubbish at the PTB.

I think both these moves would help.

If that didn’t work I’d look to re-introduce some kind of way teams could battle for possession of the ball. You can’t strip the ball in a tackle unless it’s 1 on 1, scrums are uncontested, you can’t strike in the play-the-ball, so how do you get the ball back if a team is completing its sets? They changed from the unlimited tackles rule because teams played up the jumper boring RL. Maybe something needs to give here? I think it’s a bigger problem in the NRL than SL but if games become too sterile I’d look at one of the options above.

As for bringing in interpretations into the obstruction rule we run the risk of endless debates about decisions as there’s bound to be inconsistencies. I’m not keen on that but at times last year tries were ruled out on technicalities that didn’t seem to be based in common sense. I don’t think there’s an easy option here TBH. Perhaps we just need to accept that refs might sometimes get it wrong but move on and not bother with over analysing things?

Bringing the defensive line back to 5 metres instead of 10 would IMO make teams play better attacking rugby if they wanted to move the ball down the field. It might also encourage better development of kicking games and better strategy. Too easy now to make 7-10 metres a carry with a one up hit. 5 drives then a very ordinary kick and you have the opposition starting their set on their 20 and that seems to be classed as a good result for most teams these days. Completely boring to watch.

Totally agree...as it is at the moment RL is not the 'great product' on the field that we all keep saying it is. Too much reliance on the physicality and athleticism at the expense of guile and ball skills. 5 metre rule would make for a big improvement

I agree there's too much focus on physicality and athleticism, I wouldn't call it a reliance. But I disagree entirely moving the defence 5m closer. You'd have the attacking side going backwards. The halves have little to no time to take on defences as it is, which is why we've got the current glut of 3rd man plays and not much else.

I honestly think the only way to open up the games is to have less mobile forwards.

Or fewer forwards.

On the VR, changing the way they are used made it work far better in the NRL. It really does seem to take some of the pressure off the VR and the ref combined. What we had previously is refs sending everything to the VR, who would then look endlessly from all angles. With the newer system they only look for strong evidence to overrule the ref.

Why do we want to "open up" the game though?

There are plenty of points scored in SL, so defences clearly aren't on top and dominating games. Why make it easier for attacking sides by just exploiting fatigue?

How is that going to teach players to be more creative with the ball and make better decisions under pressure - both things we need IMO in order to compete with Australia and New Zealand?

Reducing the gap to 5m would significantly reduce fatigue in the defence. Also, it might well lead to more messing around at the tackle by defenders attempting to gain time for the line to space itself properly.

I think players are too fit nowadays for 5m to work. Line speed and modern defensive organisation would stifle creativity.

By "open tha game up" I mean introduce more variety to play. Less 5 drives and kick. Allow some rule changes to reward creativity and re-introduce some excitement that was lost when the battle for possession was downgraded. The way the game is played has become very strutured in recent years and can become very predictable.

I actually don't believe players are significantly fitter then they were in the mid eighties. Full time pros have a slight edge on their part time predecessors but I think the large number of interchanges allows average forwards to come on and gas it for 20. We are at a stage where skill has been superceded by the ability to get off the line quick and blow your lungs out for 20 minutes smashing the ball one up. Look at what Stevie Ward has slowly turned into. If you give defences the edge using the rules then I think you would force deeper attacking lines, better offloading in the middle in traffic from big men who could actually handle the ball and some actual thought and skill. A different type of player would become valuable and a kicking game would be an absolute priority - in danger of quoting Stevo, the short kick over a rapidly advancing defence would suddenly become an option. At the moment I could kick at SL level.
Attacking rugby is too safe, it's too easy to make metres and wait for a mistake from the opposition. You don't have to earn territory these days. If you watch entertaining games from the 70's and 80's you see the ball changes hands a lot more often as attacking players push and try things. There are more passes before contact - essential to open up a defence - but risky as every pass these days has to be justified. It might take a while - several years maybe - but a new generation of kids with hands, rather than body builders (the Burgess twins come to mind) would come through.

Never going to happen, but it would be interesting to see the experiment.

but as we saw in the internationals, it leeds to more wrong decisions. Or as it led to with the Hall incident, the VR spending ages looking at all the angles and still getting the wrong decision. Following the NRL seems a crazy idea when the NRL's officials are held in a pretty low regard.