As the NRL confirm they are reducing the number of interchanges to 8 for next season, also stating they are to monitor the effect and not ruling out reducing it further in the future will we follow suit?

As we seem to adopt most of what the NRL do I can't see us not in this case. I would also like to see us increasing the number of substitutes from 4 to five. This would reduce the impact of a player being ruled out of the game from injury and hopefully give an opportunity to a youngster to fill a bench spot.

Already said on BBC Sport SL are looking into doing the same.

Not for me thanks.

You're just going end up with template forwards all built like second rowers who can do as close to 80 minutes as possible. It's promoting athleticism over skill IMO.

The stated aim of this is to reduce the impact of impact substitutions by making players play more minutes. I am all for that as it could reverse the trend for bigger and more musclebound props.
I would go further and have fewer interchanges alongside permanent/injury substitutions. I am aware that for the good of the players and match in progress we do not want to see injured players staying on to make up numbers.

Isn't that what we already have? A constant stream of fresh legged behemoths does not promote skill development.

I've said for a while we should go to five subs if we're reducing interchanges. Would give more players game time and improve development.

I wonder if the Dragons knew about this before they signed Mose Mosoe?

Fine by me, Leeds have been running with 3 subs for years anyway.

'cause rotating 20 stone mammoths every 20 minutes is high level skill?

If it means more "smaller" props like Grant Millington, it means there's going to be a lot more skill on display.

I'd love to know which universe you're living in where sides are rotating 20 stone mammoths every 20 minutes.

There should still be a place in the game for players like Masoe, Kylie Leuluai etc who provide big impact over a short period of time. Tired defences don't encourage skill, they just make it easier for mediocre players to look good.

I'd rather have the seven-tackle set!

No chance of that since Thierry Alibert moved on

It's bad for player welfare. Those proposing the rule changes are idiots. The idea is to stop big players having an impact on the game by making everyone tired. It isn't going to reduce the collisions and their severity, instead you will see fatigued players going through the same impacts more often. You will likely see more injuries as players make poor choices and their technique deteriorates.

I though the idea (or one of them) was to reduce the gang-tackling with 3 and 4 defenders (due to them saving energy) and thus help have a better/cleaner ruck and PTB......which is a good thing as the wrestling and spoiling tactics/slowing down the PTB has become the biggest problem with the on field product. Too much seemingly relies on that one area of a match,

How will it stop that? If anything the wrestling and spoiling will INCREASE as players are fatigued. They will lie on for longer and mess about more.

If you're fatigued - then you don't have the high intense energy to complete in a wrestle. Therefore, I suspect wrestling will decrease.

Either because a) they're too knackered after wrestling for the first part of the game
or
b) wrestling will decrease as a measure for players to conserve energy throughout the whole 80 minutes.

Don't you love the implication that the best players of the past were simply those who were fit enough to run round the opposition forwards who had stopped for pint and a fag.

Agreed. And for those spouting "development" nonsense, surely it would be better for players to develop skills against fitter and fresh opposition than tired players blowing out of their ars3.


Personally I think this will be another gimmick that'll blow up in the RFL's face, most likely in unfortunate circumstances.

The players this is most aimed at benefitting are halfbacks. At present they can be ruthlessly targeted in defence and yet not have the time/space to use footwork against tired defenders. That's the idea anyway. As ever there will be unintended consequences.

There are some forwards that will have to lose weight to be of much use. There are plenty of forwards in the NRL who's entire game is based on 10 minute spells. Down to 6 interchanges these forwards will become far less important.

I think its massively overdramatising to suggest that we'll see heaps more fatigued players all over the place and much smaller forwards. Outside backs are getting bigger and bigger and these changes won't affect them much at all.

Like which other gimmicks?

There are also a few other measures including a time clock for breaks in play, which add to rule changes last year designed to make the game faster and the players smaller and fitter.
The play the balls should be quicker because there will be less wrestle and less numbers in tackles, so the game will speed up.

It shouldn't make the game look much different from the stands, but smaller and fitter guys will thrive more, and that will lead to teams that win with small guys running big teams off their feet.

Even this year, with the changes made last year, the game is a bit faster and the players need to be a bit fitter.

I think it is working well, and look forward to see how it works next year.

They still have that in the NRL since Perenara is still employed there....

Great idea, better use of subs and tacktical changes on the return, better than just swapping all the time, coaches will have to look at using 5-6 changes up to 60-65 mins keeping the other changes in reserve for injuries in last ten mins.

I'd cautiously back these changes (the 8 interchanges from 5 subs). It hopefully might go someway to mitigating the effects of huge increases in power and strength of the players in recent years.

Though I think if the aim is to clear up the ruck then that can be done by the referees penalising holding down, interference etc.

If we think the play the ball is too quick and we want to avoid the cannonball tackles and twisting techniques then firstly we can harshly penalise those who commit them but we can slow the play the ball if we wish, again through the referees. They can penalise poor play the balls.

If we think there isn't enough space for half backs (which id agree with) then in addition to these new interchange rules we can tweak the playing rules. A simple rule change as to when the ball is in play and so when the defence can move up at the play the ball would help. Change it from the point the player touches the ball with his foot to the point at which the acting half either passes or runs with the ball. That'd give the attack an extra second or so to get the ball away from the play the ball and so give the first receiver a little extra time on the ball. Combine that with penalising offsides and not square and also harshly penalise "late" hits on the halves. I say they're late they're generally not, they're often timed just right.
If you want to give halves more room in which to work I'd also suggest looking at re-introducing competitive scrums.