NRL interchange system needs an overhaul

At least three of the weekend’s NRL matches exposed major shortcomings with the NRL’s player interchange system.

We are all too familiar with the scene where one team struggles to compete with the opposition after two or three players are unable to take further part in the game.

Wests Tigers on Monday night were a prime example. On Friday night, Canterbury had to find a replacement for half-back Keating and front-row Kasiano. Playing with 15 against 17 made their win all the more impressive, but winning in that situation is certainly not the norm.

On Saturday night St. George Illawarra suffered by losing the services of Young in the middle of the first half.

Should a team that is already disadvantaged by the loss of an important player by the misfortune of injury be expected to play at a numerical disadvantage as well?

Then there is the player safety situation.

Here is another all too familiar scene. A player is struggling to stay upright on the field and only doing so through the assistance of the team trainer. The player could be suffering from any type of injury including concussion but the trainer (not a doctor) knows how important it is to use interchange movements wisely and is reluctant to consume any of the interchange movements with an unscheduled one.

The interchange system is geared up for the rotation of running forwards. The conventional selection for the interchange is three forwards plus one utility player.

In each game, coaches roll the dice and pray that they don’t have injuries to backline players. They know they have a contingency for the loss of one back but it all goes pear-shaped if there is a second injury.

There is considerable pressure on players in the backline to stay on the field. This pressure can result in players and trainers making poor decisions with regard to player safety. This could be increasingly risky for the NRL, as research into brain injuries now provides information not previously available.

Mistakes made could easily be followed by litigation.

The 16 NRL clubs each have a squad of 25 players, whose combined salaries must fit under the salary cap. The squad includes players who backup the first choice players in each position.

Why shouldn’t a club be able to use a second string player who they are paying to play football when they most need him, which is when the first string player is injured and can take no further part in the game? Instead, these players are often at another ground playing for another team or sitting in the grandstand, ineligible to play while paid by the club.

It’s worth revisiting the history behind the current player interchange system. Can you believe that back in the 1950s there were no replacements allowed?

The game’s history is littered with heroic stories of champion players such as Clive Churchill and John Sattler, who continued to play on in games after suffering injuries.

While these legendary tales give an insight into the culture of toughness and bravery that the game is famous for, it is hard to understand why it took so long for replacements to be become a part of the game!

Initially, two replacements were allowed and that was increased to four in the 1970s. It’s worth noting though, that in the era of replacement rules, coaches would have any number of ‘reserve grade’ players standing by.

When a player left the field, the coach could choose a replacement player to directly match the position of the injured player. Once he had used his fourth replacement, the remaining reserves became spectators.

The advent of blood born viruses such as HIV and greater knowledge about concussion injuries saw the introduction of the ‘Head Bin’ and the ‘Blood Bin’. Then coaches started to realise that these could be used as an opportunity to rest a player and send a fresh player out briefly into the game and gain an advantage by doing so.

At some point administrators really didn’t know what to do about the rorting of the blood and head bins, so replacements became interchange players. It was simple to allow the club to select four players on the bench and they could come and go from the field unrestricted providing there were never more than 13 players on the field.

The unlimited interchange was a farce. Players would be on the field for three minute intervals and occasionally teams were caught with 14 on the field. Then the interchange became limited to 12 movements and further reduced to 10 as it is today. There is debate as to whether it should be further reduced to seven or eight

Is it too much to ask for a system that better caters for the issues that occur in the modern game?

Teams should not be at a numerical disadvantage due to the misfortune of injury. Players should be able to have an injury assessed by a doctor without disadvantaging their team. Coaches should be able to use a backup player if the first choice player is injured.

Here is how it can be done:
1. Select 16 players for the game. Three players are the conventional interchange players who start on the bench and are most likely be forwards.
2. Limit the interchange movements to seven.
3. In addition to the seven interchange movements, up to three players can be replaced. A replaced player can not return to the game.
4. The club can choose from any number of players to act as ‘reserves’. They must be included in the salary cap but not selected in the first 16. Any three from the pool of reserve players can take part in the game and the choice would be based on injuries or match tactics.
5. An injured player is allowed three minutes for treatment and/or medical assessment off the playing field. A player from the interchange bench can take the field for this three minute period but no interchange movement will be consumed provided the player receiving treatment returns before the three minute period concludes. The three minutes start from the moment the interchange player takes the field.
6. Teams are allowed four of these three minute treatment periods during a game.
7. If a team consumes all of their seven interchange movements they can elect to use any of the three unused replacement changes with an interchange movement. This means a team could in fact elect to stick with the first 16 players and have 10 interchange movements and no replacements.

What do you think Roarers? Is this an improvement to our current system?