The game of rugby league and its fans have drawn great pride from their toughness.
It’s a brutal, gladiatorial sport played largely without protective equipment. Those who have played through injury are lauded for their toughness and ability to block out pain.
It made John Sattler and Sam Burgess into legends on the game’s biggest stage, helping their teams to grand final wins when they rightly should have been in hospital beds. Rugby league toughness is Trevor Gillmeister leaving his hospital bed to captain the Maroons to the unlikeliest of Origin victories.
In rugby league, tough guys rule.
However, the introduction this year of the HIA (head injury assessment) and our ever-increasing knowledge of the long-term effects of head injuries has dramatically changed the game. The NRL should be applauded for its strict stance on head injuries, and the new rules are essentially protecting the players from themselves.
It’s a welcome departure from the days when league was a “man’s” game, and a head knock a badge of honour.
However, these strict new concussion protocols have had some unintended consequences. I’ve lost count of the number of times teams have been left a man short for the remainder of the game due to a player failing a HIA.
Teams shouldn’t be penalised for protecting their players from long-term brain injuries by being left short a man for the remainder of the game. Nor should we force players with other injuries to play on because one of their teammates have already been ruled out of the game.
Who could forget Greg Inglis being forced to play a half of footy on one leg because his team was already short? He’s now out for the season.
The game must add and extra player to the bench and increase each team to 18.
Once they enter the game, the player whom they came on for cannot return. The number of interchanges would also not change, and any use of the reserve player would of course count as an interchange. The only exception to this is of course if a player was to go off with a HIA and therefore a team would not be charged an interchange anyway.
To be honest I’d even be happy if they went to 19-man squads, with two reserves and the same eight interchanges, but baby steps first!
Teams of 18 will also change the way teams select their benches. Do they go with four forwards, and a dummy-half? Do they plan on using their reserve at the 50-minute mark, concussion protocol be damned!
Or do teams stick to their normal line ups and pick a genuine utility as reserve, who they throw in with ten minutes to go? It will be fascinating to watch, and add a little more drama into the season.
This should dramatically decrease the disadvantage of losing a player to the concussion protocol, as even with a man down a team would still have their four reserves to call on.
Surely this is a fairer system then what is currently in place. It may even help to curb the possibility of teams exploiting the HIA.
Hypothetically, if you’re playing the Cowboys in an elimination final and scores are level with ten minutes to go, who’s to say a team doesn’t deliberately target Thurston with a high shot, forcing him to the bench for a minimum of ten minutes?
Having an 18th man to bring on will at least mean the Cowboys can bring on a fresh man for the last 10. They won’t be Thurston, but I’d wager that a fresh, fast back could cause some havoc.
This is a rule change that should be implemented right away. Not another week should be effected by teams losing players to head injuries and being unable to replace them.
The NRL has made great strides in protecting their players from long-term injuries over the last year. Now it’s time they started to protect their teams as well.
Kenw
Guest
No problems with that. I like the idea of less interchanges and more fatigue late in games. Might not get official approval though since it may lead to more blowouts with dominant teams racking up big scores in the last 20 over teams who have run out of puff.
Norad
Guest
If NRL teams had 20 bench [players the coaches would still cry for an extra man. They have 4 players as it is. They need to manage the bench. The same problem would exist if teams had 2 reserves. Just more NRL nonsense. Too many head knocks at NRL media i think.
Johnno
Guest
An 18th man should exist if a player is injured due to foul play
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
Gidday sheek, thanks for your thoughts! FWIW I completely and utterly agree with you. 6 Interchanges seems perfect.
sheek
Roar Guru
I would agree with the basic premise. But I would also reduce the number of interchanges downwards. I think the giant gym junkies who are good for 40-50 minutes need to be weeded out, or reduced. Develop your endurance strength as well, or go play sumo wrestling. Bring back some gladiatorial endurance element. Let the little guys run crazy in the last 10 minutes!
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
That's not exactly right, Matt - if a player undergoes 2 HIA in a game then he is automatically ruled out regardless of the result. Your suggestion of ruling a player out on illegal play is really like, however, in practice would be extremely hard to police. Player takes a dive and 'fails' a HIA? Both exit the game. Extreme example I know but could absolutely happen.
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
The HIA rule isn't luck, Albo - it's a rule change implemented by the league. The result has been more players than ever before being ruled out of games due to suspected head injuries. Remember, if you have 2 HIA in a single game you are unable to return, regardless of the results.
Albo
Guest
"isn’t that situation preferable to a team being forced to play 60 mins with 16 v 17?" No more preferable than stopping a team having more better bounces of the ball than their opponents or one team being awarded more penalties than the other mob ! I think the whole subject is a complete crock and a "non- issue" ! Do you want to eliminate the aspect of luck from the game altogether ? I think every team is already over serviced with 4 interchangeable replacements that can be swapped anytime and up to 8 times throughout a match. If a team manager / coach wants to avoid being left short of bench warmers due to a couple of injuries, perhaps he should select more 80 minute players in the run-on squad, or maybe take a punt on only using two interchange players for the first 60 minutes and assess the risk from there , before risking the other two with a run ? Why we want to keep tampering with the rules to try to overcome bad luck is pointless as there will always be other ongoing bad luck contingencies needed to be addressed.
Matt
Guest
Jay, a player only sits out the game if they fail the HIA. So they have been injured and they have failed a fitness test. Exactly like how Hayne and Zillman failed in their fitness tests after going off with injured ankle and calf earlier in the year. If the injury isn't severe and they improve they return to the field of play. Just because there is now clear guidelines for a particular injury doesn't mean that teams are now in need of an 18th man. You highly doubt if a player is going play with an injury if they are able to use the 18th man. Yet you have mentioned Gillmeister as a player that played with injury and he played without that back up. Cherry-Evans played an origin on one leg. Well you can bet if these circumstances occurred again that when the game was going poorly that Cherry-Evans would have 'succumbed' to his injury and a fresh Ben Hunt as 18th man would have been injected into the game. The only way I can see the use of an 18th man is when a player leaves the field through an act of foul play. But I would much rather see the player responsible for the injury replaced and not allowed to return reducing both teams to 16 players than the use of an 18th man. So for instance Gallen is tackled high by Barnett tomorrow. Gallen is taken from the field and fails his HIA and can't return to the field. The video referee reviews the footage whilst the HIA is taking place and deems that the contact made to the head of Gallen by Barnett is illegal. Barnett is then replaced and unable to return either. Reducing both teams to 16 men. That way the disadvantage the Sharks have from losing Gallen to an illegal act is now felt by the Knights not having Barnett for the rest of the game as well.
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
In a perfect world Peeko I think this is ideal! Judging from the reluctance I've seen already don't hold your breath though....
Wayne
Roar Guru
I like the idea. AFL tried having a "sub", and it failed. Teams were disadvantaged if the sub was used early in the game vs late in the game (fresh legs). Give them a bench, once your off your done. Concussion test they can come off for free, but an interchange to go back on
peeeko
Guest
make it like rugby - 7 man bench and reserves only. no going off for a breather and coming back on
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
Matt, quite simply because if a player receives a head injury they are required by the rules to come off and not return. This is not true with any other type of injury. As for teams playing players who are injured, that's their prerogative. If they want to leave themselves a player short for the game if that player is unable to continue it is up to them. I personally highly doubt this would be the case. Finally, I thought the 'good of the game' as you put it would be better served by not having results determined by iffy head knocks to players i.e. Wade Graham getting hit in the head with a ball! But it doesn't sound like your opinion will change regardless. I'm all for constructive debate, but not planting your flag on a hill and defending it irrespective of arguments others put forward.
Matt
Guest
Jay, why are you treating head injuries different to other injuries? As stated injuries occur in the game. There wasn't the need or call for an 18th man to cover for injuries earlier. Why now for head injuries? You can't differentiate between different types of injuries. Just because the player is ruled out through HIA compared to not being able to run on a leg does not make their injury worse. How is it fair that a team that suffers no injuries can only use 17 players compared to a team that has an injury being able to use 18? As stated earlier, teams will play players who are injured knowing that an 18th man will cover if they don't last a game. Clubs will also use the 18th man when a player goes down for an innocuous knock or bump late in a game when they are down on interchanges or to cover for a player that their 1 - 17 can't. Do you remember how the blood bin was utilised by coaches when it was around. A player got a cut and was replaced for whilst the cut was taped up and then returned after a nice little breather. It's all well and good to say it's common sense to bring in an 18th man straight away but not when it will be exploited by clubs for their own good and not the good of the game.
KenW
Guest
'isn’t that situation preferable to a team being forced to play 60 mins with 16 v 17?' My argument is that it's basically identical, for example. Current rules. * No players injured. Both teams have 4 reserves, used as the coach sees fit. * Team A player suffers serious injury at 20min mark Team A loses player and coach has 3 reserves compared to Team B's 4. Proposed rules * No players injured. Both teams use 5 reserves with the minor limitation of one of them being permanent. * Team A player suffers serious injury at 20 min mark. Team A uses permanent reserve and has 4 on the bench for last 60mins, Team B keeps their 5. So the difference comes down to 4 v 3 or 5 v 4. If that's the way they go then it really doesn't bother me, but I just don't think it solves anything.
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
No one was up in arms Matt because we didn't HAVE a concussion protocol that forces players of the field after a head knock. They would simply stay on an risk further damage. Now that we do, players are regularly forced from the field and the problem may well be worse than powerbroker originally thought. I personally cannot recall a game this year where someone wasn't forced off for a period of time for a HIA. Isn't an 18th man a common-sense counter-measure?
Matt
Guest
Jay, the only reason people are talking about an 18th man is because people are differentiating between a head injury and a shoulder, wrist, knee or chest injury. Most players who go off the field with an injury are assessed by their club medicos to see if they are fit to go back on. If they fail their assessment they are finished for the night. The difference is that now the assessment of head injuries is more stringent and doesn't allow for the player to self assess and say they are right to go back on. I applaud the NRL for their stance on head injuries, but I don't see how a head injury should be treated any different then any other injury that ends a player's game. For instance last year when the Broncos played the Cowboys in week 2 of the finals Opaciac injured his shoulder and was replaced. The Cowboys scored two tries through O'Neill exploiting first Opaciac being injured on the field and then Alex Glenn playing out of position in the centres. But if he suffers a head injury from his team mate when they make a tackle, friendly fire, instead the Broncos use their 18th man, who is a back and suddenly the Cowboys aren't able to exploit that area anymore. No one was up in arms saying an 18th man had to be brought in when the player has an injury to any part of his body below the neck, but all of a sudden a players are having head injuries and we need an 18th man. Jay, the game has changed and kept with the times by bringing in Head Injury Assessments. But an 18th man for losing a player to an injury is not a direction the game needs to go.
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
Yep, that's very true. But I think there is a certifiable difference. isn't that situation preferable to a team being forced to play 60 mins with 16 v 17?
KenW
Guest
But Jay, it sounds like you are (correctly, I'm sure) assuming that coaches will game the system to use the 18th man as a fresh player for the backend of the game. So if you use them earlier in the game for an actual injury, then you are missing this advantage of having a fresh man in the last 20mins. There's some minor differences with the limitation on the player not coming back, but the practical impact is almost identical to the current situation
Jay Dunbar
Roar Guru
Hi Matt, thanks for your thoughts. You are right, teams have been losing players to injuries since it started. We've since been adjusting the rules to better respond to this. In the 60's two injured players were able to be replaced. In the 80's it changed to 4 reserves (no substitutes). In the 90's we first allowed a max of 6 interchanges, then unlimited. In the 2000's it went down to 12. As you can see we have been adjusting the way we use reserves since... well, forever. The introduction of an 18th man is in direct response to the new concussion protocols now in effect. Do you really think that without HIA Tuivasa-Scheck comes off in the first half of his game a few weeks ago? Or Burgess doesn't return after half time last week? There have been so many of these already, and they WILL keep happening. As they should, the players welfare needs to be the #1 priority. Also, in relation to most nearly every other major sport in the world, Rugby League uses a limited amount of reserves. 4 reserves for 13 on the field. In rugby you have 8 reserves for 15, NFL has 53 man game squads for 11 on field, even soccer has 5 man benches for 11 on field. This change is simply keeping with the times. If you want to go back to the 70's with Reg Regan (even he is retired!) I won't stand in your way.