This is obviously a topic that will interest many who follow the NRL, given the apparently high number of injuries this season. Teams have had to finish games without any fit players on the bench, which is seen by many as wrong, hence the calls for an 18th player.
This originally stemmed from players suffering head injuries, sometimes from illegal play, which meant they had to undergo a head injury assessment (HIA).
Trent Robinson offered some thoughts following a concussion to Jake Friend and this has caused more discussion about this issue, with many suggesting the possibility of an 18th player being added, so players unable to return to a game after failing an HIA, or teams that have no remaining bench players, can have more replacements.
I’m not convinced the game needs more players on game day, but first, some history about replacements in the game of rugby league (with thanks to NRL.com).
•From 1908 to 1925 a local rule operated in NSW whereby a replacement player was allowed for an injured player
•Between 1925 and 1963 there were no replacements allowed
•In 1963, the replacement rule in Sydney changed so teams were allowed to replace up to two injured players, up to and including halftime
•In 1970, two replacements for injured players were allowed at any time during a game, though each had to have played at least half a game in the lower grades
•In 1987 a ‘head-bin’ was introduced to allow players suffering minor head injuries to return to the field of play after 10 minutes without affecting the team’s quota of replacements
•In 1988 two fresh reserves were allowed, but again, with a limit of two changes per team per match
•In 1991 concern over the potential spread of blood-borne diseases and the perceived ‘abuse’ of the head-bin rule saw the introduction of a four-player bench, then in April, a maximum of four players available for a total of six interchanges in a match. Players sent to the ‘blood-bin’ did not count among these six interchanges
•In 1996 the game moved to an unlimited interchange rule with fresh reserves
•In 2001 interchanges were limited to 12, with ‘blood-bins’ not included
•In 2008 the game adopted the current ten interchange rule in consultation with club officials, coaches and players. The 10 interchanges would include any blood-bin replacements, injury replacements and tactical replacements.
In short, the current iteration of the replacement/interchange rules allows for injury replacements, regardless of whether they are a head injury or otherwise.
That said, there’s room to include a specific replacement player, who only comes into the match as a result of a game ending injury.
In order to accommodate that, it’s important to look at what the NRL is trying to do about the game as a whole and also what it should be doing.
Peter V’landys and Andrew Abdo have stressed the need to speed the game up and make players more tired, to open up the game and create more try-scoring opportunities for teams.
They also need to take a serious stance on illegal play that is seeing players sidelined, often for long periods. An obvious recent example of this is Ryan Matterson, who is out indefinitely thanks to an elbow to the head by Felise Kaufusi.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
My suggestion is multi-faceted and needs all elements to be introduced in order to work.
Rather than have an 18th player available to come into games when a player suffers a head injury, teams would still have only the 17 players, but would designate one of these as the ‘injury replacement player’ (IRP).
Many would argue we should have an additional player available, on top of the existing 17, given the recent spate of injuries that have left teams down to a bare 13, but to that I say, where do you start and stop?
When does 17 become 18, become, 19 – or perhaps we’d like to go down the union path and have eight possible substitutes?
I’m not a stats guru like Tim Gore, but I’m guessing for every game where sides have to use up all of their bench to get through a game, there are as many, if not more games, where one of the four bench players hardly gets on to the field.
In the Broncos-Bulldogs game, for example, Joe Stimson played 13 minutes and Tom Dearden played just seven!
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
Anyway, back to the IRP.
The IRP could come into the game only when there is an injury that requires an HIA, or if a player suffers an injury that means they are not able to return to that match.
IRPs would not count as an interchange. This is to encourage players to come off the field and have an HIA, as well as encouraging players not to keep playing with severe injuries that could have longer-term effects on their health.
Players replaced by the IRP cannot come back to the game, apart from those who pass the HIA and return after the mandatory ten minutes on the sideline.
The effect of the IRP is that clubs would have three interchange players, but still have ten interchanges plus the ability to replace players, regardless what type of injury they incur.
The reduction in the number of players available for interchange should also mean more players getting tired, which in turn should mean the game opens up more, which is what the NRL is after.
A positive side effect is the 18th player would probably have to be a utility player, capable of slotting into a role in the backs or forwards. Of course, clubs could take a punt and fill that position with either a back or forward, but run the obvious risk of getting the call wrong and not having a like-for-like replacement.
Rule changes around illegal play need to be implemented.
If a player has to be replaced as a result of illegal play, the player deemed to have committed the illegality is automatically sin binned for ten minutes.
If the illegality involves deliberate contact with the head or neck, the player committing the illegality is sent off. The player who was contacted in the head also has to undergo an HIA, but can be replaced by the IRP.
If the injured player passes their HIA, they return to the field and the player that was sent off can be replaced, 20 minutes after they left the field. If the injured player fails their HIA, then the player sent off cannot be replaced.
The purpose of these rule changes is to try prevent the sort of crazy situations we saw in Round 2, where Latrell Mitchell was binned when he barely touched Daly Cherry-Evans, yet Kaufusi stayed on the field, while Ryan Matterson could not return to the game.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
An additional purpose is to try and reduce the number of players suffering injury through illegal play. This will only happen if the NRL also introduces much stronger deterrents for foul play.
Any player who is sin binned for foul play, be it a professional foul, or other illegal act, will automatically be suspended for the next match and should face further sanction if they are a repeat offender or if the judiciary thinks further punishment may be warranted.
Players sent off for offences involving attacking the head or neck will face a minimum of four weeks on the sidelines and repeat offenders will face at least three-month suspensions. This seems harsh, but this is an aspect of the game that needs to be stamped out.
V’landys and Abdo have to understand that it’s far better to have a few games of 13-on-11-or-12 for a short while, with ugly headlines about the length of suspensions than it is to have players crippled for life, thanks to being attacked around the head or neck.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
They then need to make sure the rules are written in such a way that there is no room for dispute. That empowers the refs to do their job and send players off if or when they injure others.
These changes will not prevent injuries, especially those which occur through accidental head clashes. At the end of the day, rugby league is still a game and all games have an element of luck involved.
In summary, having an injury replacement is very doable, as long as a number of other steps are followed. These suggestions allow the spirit of what the NRL is trying to achieve (i.e., a more open contest), while doing far more to protect players’ health and safety.
I’d suggest if these moves were introduced for the 2022 season, the number of players sidelined through injury based on illegal play would decrease by some margin, as would the number of players out through suspension.
At the end of the day, we all want to see the very best players on the field as often as possible. These changes would go a long way to maximising that.
BeastieBoy
Roar Rookie
Yes and if it is used the player replaced cannot play for 3 weeks
Spartacus
Roar Rookie
"An underdog team makes it to a grand final with one of your older & tougher forwards who’s going to retire after that game in the starting side, have him take out the key playmaker from their more fancied opponent" Speaking of Dogs, that's exactly what the Bulldogs did in the 1988 GF against the Tigers when Terry Lamb and Andrew Farah combined to take out Ellery Hanley. Only no one got sent off and the Dogs won the 1988 premiership. But you are right. That is exactly what would happen. Wikipedia; "A highly controversial tackle by Terry Lamb put Balmain's in form British import Ellery Hanley out of the game before the 30-minute mark had been reached.[5] Hanley staggered off, heavily concussed, with the score at 6–4. Under the rules of the time, Hanley was allowed 10 minutes to recover in the head bin. If he could not return he would need to be replaced. He returned just before half-time and stood, out-of-sorts, on the wing. The Bulldogs then ran in a 70-metre try from broken play and went to the break with a lead of 10–8. Hanley did not return after half-time and the Bulldogs started to dominate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_NSWRL_season The elephant in the room is dishonest coaches and players who are prepared to go to any lengths to win. Like James Graham headbutting Sam Burgess in the opening tackle of the 2014 GF. I guess that's where the term "Dog shot" comes from! :laughing:
Chubbs Peterson
Guest
Because for reasons I've never understood league execs take bad ideas from the NFL instead of tipping the cap to rugby every now and then. Captain's challenge, extra time in H/A games, night grand finals, gaudy premiership rings, painting the in goal on GF and Origin, half time GF entertainment... If the NFL had this rule today, the NRL would adopt it yesterday.
Tony
Roar Guru
Hi Paul, excellent article and some more food for thought. Obviously, there's been a lot said about this issue over the last couple of days and now we have a response from the NRL, although I haven't had a chance to look at the details yet. I agree that there needs to be a much better response from the NRL to foul play, particularly when the foul play puts a player out for the rest of the game and future games. Dare I say it, this is where the bunker can actually add some value (I still hate the bunker! :happy:) by giving the referee some more direction, or at least discussing the incident with him like they do in Union. Foul play that causes injury, like the Kaufusi incident, and almost any tackle by JWH or Josh McGuire, should result in longer suspensions and a fine to the player, commensurate with his contract value. If you're on a million dollar contract and you get a suspension of 4 weeks, then your fine is (1,000,000/52 x 4), and the fine is paid to the club of the injured player. Two or three of these longer suspensions and large fines would result in a significant drop off in foul play. Another thing they could look at is a yellow card system for minor indiscretions, professional fouls, etc. If you get a yellow card you spend ten minutes in the bin. If you get a second in that match, you are sent off and also sit the next week out. If you get a second yellow in a subsequent match you sit the next week out. As far as replacements go I think expanding the bench to 7 players is the way to go, as this covers all situations and no team should be disadvantaged in a game because of a few injuries. Sure, some players might not get used but that's the coaches call.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
Not bad Paul i think i prefer it to the 18th man which is getting flagged. We've seen the game try to implement rules to protect players, and then we see coaches abuse those rules. The biggest problem being clubs using "HIA" to get a fresh forward on the field in the 3oth minute of a half. The most heinous abuse of getting around a head injury rule though was Souths with Jackson Paulo. The kid gets a concussion in NSW Cup (in NSW Cup you are then required to sit out a week). But since Wayne wasn't happy with Mansour and wanted to drop him, they needed a winger in the NRL - call up Paulo since he can't play NSW Cup due to a head injury rule and sneak around the rule by getting him to play NRL. And what happens... Kid gets concussed again. Souths medical staff should already have a big grey cloud dangling over them, but this should see them severely punished... and nothing. The league needs rules that they can apply to protect player welfare, that is clear and obvious when a club breeches or tries to exploit that rule. I Don't know the answer but your suggestion is pretty close.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Thanks Buffalo, I must admit I haven't been following rugby as much these days so wasn't aware of this. Sounds pretty much what I am after, with perhaps a slight change to 10 mins, rather than 20 mins for the NRL.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Larry, its not the 1970's anymore. Its called duty of care, and coaches and players can be up on serious charges for that sort of thing. The fact is, the send off rule has been put out to pasture. Ref's don't use it for blatant offences. If a replacement was allowed, the ref would be much more willing to remove a certain player from the game, knowing it wont effect the outcome.
Peter85
Roar Rookie
One thing the NRL could do is see how the AFL goes this year - especially making changes this dramatic mid-season. What do the 18th and 19th players currently do? Do they get to play reserves that week or are they held back in case of injury in the warm-up? For the uninformed the AFL introduced (during the week prior to the beginning of the season) a single injury replacement substitute where the doctor diagnoses that the injury is likely to keep the player out for a minimum 9 days. They also introduced a 12 day suspension period for players who failed the HIA. It only took one game for a player to be subbed and then selected the following week. They also reduced the number of interchanges along with increasing game time from 16 minute quarters to 20.
Paul
Roar Guru
Larry, they can do that now and have a better than 50:50 chance the player will stay on the field.
Larry1950
Guest
Yep Dexter, here’s your scenario. An underdog team makes it to a grand final with one of your older & tougher forwards who’s going to retire after that game in the starting side, have him take out the key playmaker from their more fancied opponent, get sent off & then replaced by a fully fit substitute. Makes real sense, the club just pays any fine & a suspension is irrelevant to the perpetrator. Don’t tell me clubs wouldn’t consider it, there are plenty of stories from the old days of guys with serious injuries taking someone off with them through foul means.
Larry1950
Guest
No way if the past record of most coaches is a guide, I’m sure older correspondents recall the infamous ‘blood bin interchanges’ initiated by a certain Manly coach allegedly using fake blood capsules. Introduce anything in good faith & clubs try to find a devious way around it. Historically, plenty of premierships have been lost because of injuries to key players or just an unlucky high injury toll at a club, them’s the breaks. Bit like the nonsensical argument about suspensions at finals time being varied, you do the crime you serve the crime. If that argument was successful, NSW wins last years origin 3 because Tedesco, whose concussion was not from foul play, gets replaced by a fully fit quality sub & Qld is disadvantaged because we have fewer top class players to choose from. Interesting that the bleating is occurring because one of the ‘foundation’ favourite clubs is feeling the pinch. How many shonky medical retirements do the Rabbitohs get before the NRL draws a line, Inglis seems suddenly ok to play now that he’s got to the Superleague.
Nat
Roar Guru
On a Monday night? Count on it. :thumbup:
Nat
Roar Guru
I couldn't say either. It's blown up because an otherwise 'outlier' happened 3x on the weekend and once with the Broncos in rnd 1 (not much made of that one).
kk
Roar Pro
I admit to liking Kent but he needs to have an HIA and RBT before each show. Last night I wondered if he had been drinking. .
Paul
Roar Guru
spot on, BT. I see no reason why the NRL can't take a very good idea from Union and use it in League.
Paul
Roar Guru
great comments Peter. I don't think we're terribly far apart in terms of general approach. I'd only want to see some numbers (which I've no idea how to obtain), to see whether these additional players could be justified. If this were to happen, Clubs will want the NRL to increase roster sizes and would likely want them to stump some money to pay for it.
Paul
Roar Guru
You're right Nat, it's not a lot different from what we have now, but then again I'm not convinced the injury situation for Canberra was anything more than an outlier. I've no stats to back this up, but in the normal course of a game, I believe most sides would expect to have one or maybe two game ending injuries tops, which Clubs have successfully managed with the current 17 man arrangement. I also think 17 is one too many, given the number of times coaches only use 3 guys off the bench, with the 4th bloke getting little or no game time. I'd love to see some numbers around this issue, just to see whether I'm right or not and whether there's any justification for an 18th player. I don't like the idea that, because we had carnage in a few games, we add a player to each squad, which is significant additional costs to each Club.
Paul
Roar Guru
In the specific example of Kaufusi, using my suggestions, the player he cleaned up wasn't able to come back, so Kaufusi would be sent off and not replaced. Lets assume a different scenario where the player WAS able to come back. The Storm would still have been down to 12 men for 20 minutes, which is a pretty significant penalty with the way the game has been made faster this season. In a close game, which that one was, having only 12 blokes for that long could easily have turned the game to the Eels. On top of that, Kaufusi knows he has a minimum of 4 weeks suspension to face and again, that's a big penalty on his Club. I'd reckon it should make blokes think twice about doing stupid things like dropping the elbow, which means less players get injured. That has to be a better outcome than what we have now.
Peter85
Roar Rookie
This is a good article showing that something that seems relatively simple on the face of it is very complicated and nuanced underneath. What is the purpose of an interchange or injury replacement reserve trying to achieve? Is this a duty of care to players (not allowing injured players to continue playing or feel obliged to continue due to numbers), a sense of fairness for teams to be able to continue to compete on more equal footing following injury or some other reason/consequences that need to be considered? For me the biggest issue (across all sports) is the duty of care the the player and taking the decision making away from the player. The easiest way to do that is to reduce the impact of their absence with the allowance of a substitute. The other side of the argument is around coaches using the "fresh" player as a tactical advantage. I am less concerned about how the next best player who wasn't picked to pay is going to make a profound impact. As Paul goes through in great detail, you need to have some limitations on using the substitute especially around foul play. I would have it work as follows: 1) Two substitutes are allowed from the named 21 (in line with cutting 2 players from the 21 man squad) 2) Any player substituted can not return to the match 3) If a player is injured from foul play (in a play that is penalised), they can be removed from the match and replaced 4) If a player is injured not from foul play, then two players must be removed for the substitute to be available, any subsequent injuries can be substituted immediately. Point 4 is to try and avoid any tactical substitutions by making it necessary for the team to be a player short on the bench before it can be used but also allowing for injuries through foul play.
BuffaloTheorist
Roar Rookie
I am a fan of the new 20 min red card rule in rugby, which allows a subsitute after 20 mins, but the original offender stays off the pitch.