With all the confusion over interchanges, HIAs, what counts as a substitution and what doesn’t, rugby league should consider following the path of another sport that it apparently shares some distant DNA.
Scrap the 18th man standby player who sits gloomily on the four-player interchange bench waiting for an unlikely run and expand the game-day squad to 21 while still capping the number of interchanges at eight.
Such a move would give league a similar set-up to union with eight players on the bench.
Now before you rush to the comments to say how dare anyone consider anything that links league back to union in any way shape or form, there are benefits.
If you’ll allow me to explain?
Thank you in advance.
It would open up opportunities for coaches to decide between interchanging their stars on and off the field throughout a game even though their performance will drop off as fatigue sets in over the 80 minutes or do they bring in fresh legs from a lesser player.
Concussion rules would not need to change – if a player suffers a head knock and needs to be assessed, a team would still receive the medical interchange which doesn’t count in the overall tally of eight.
But the coach would have greater flexibility on their bench to cover all positions on the field to avoid the situation of playing someone out of position.
Coaches roll the dice with their four players on the interchange by only really catering for the forwards and hoping their back seven get through the 80 minutes.
And when they do carry a specialist back on the bench, they can often be thrown into the “roving lock” style position, which can have disastrous consequences, such as Ryan Papenhuyzen’s broken leg late last season when he the lightweight fullback was mixing it with the big boys in the middle of the ruck.
Ryan Papenhuyzen after suffering his injury last year against Brisbane. (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
Expanding the bench reserves to eight would also fix the problem that Parramatta and Brisbane encountered when they had a player taken out by a dubious hit while the perpetrator stayed on the field.
Eels winger Bailey Simonsson went off early a couple of weeks ago due to a Jarome Luai high shot and the Eels had to reconfigure their backline on the run, as did the Broncos when Taylan May’s controversial head clash with Reece Walsh sent Brendan Piakura into the centres where he was a defensive liability.
Another option could be to keep the four-player interchange as is but allow teams to have multiple reserves on the bench who can only come on when one of the top 17 is injured by foul play or has to go off for a concussion check.
You could have the throwback situation where, on the increasingly rare occasions when the State Cup is played as a curtain-raiser, the lower-graders can keep their dirty socks and shorts on but run out with a fresh jersey.
It was a particularly jarring look for a team like St George decades ago when a Rex Terp or Jason Hoogerwerf would come onto the field late in the first-grade fixture with a not so white uniform due to Kogarah’s dusty surface on the bottom half, contrasted with a gleaming jersey up top.
Nowadays, when the State Cup team is playing the next day, the club could decide whether the player is able to back up for the reggies.
But not all retro returns should be given another airing.
Way back in the 1980s, a “head bin” rule was brought in so that players who suffered head injuries could be replaced by a fresh player for 10 minutes.
As is often the case, coaches exploited the rule rather than see it as a way to protect their players when concussed.
Manly second-rower Ron Gibbs went off to the head bin twice in the 1987 Grand Final with attacking livewire Paul Shaw sent out on each occasion to disrupt Canberra’s tiring defensive line.
At least nowadays with the independent doctor in the bunker ordering the 15-minute stint off for an HIA, such unsavoury tactics would be eliminated.
The counter point to expanding the number of interchange players is that coaches should carry a utility on their bench who can cover a few positions and have enough versatility within the squad, whether in the starting 13 or overall, to cater for all possibilities within a game.
Canterbury certainly think so after buying up every off-contract utility player on the market in the off-season.
There is immense value in a versatile forward like Kurt Capewell, who was shunted out to the centres last week for the Warriors after their fullback was taken off. The veteran managed to hold his own out wide after starting out his NRL career in Cronulla’s backline.
Bailey Simonsson is smashed by Jarome Luai. (Photo by Jason McCawley/Getty Images)
But as we saw with a much younger player in Piakura being relentlessly targeted by Nathan Cleary’s attacking raids, being young and athletic cannot compensate for the know-how that is needed when shuffled a couple of spots wider on the edge.
Brisbane coach Kevin Walters admitted after the game that he should have carried more versatility on his bench but his team was ultimately punished for an incident which the NRL later said should have led to May being charged.
In instances like this, it would be better if teams had the safeguard of extra players at their disposal on the bench so they’re not caught short through no real fault of their own.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
As far as the law outside of football is concern it should be blindfolded and that means sentencing is based on the crime and this recent inclusion of the social aspect of a crime becomes civil law.. The player should only be charged and punished based on the offence.Not if someone got 2 stitches or five.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
That's absolutely right...more interchange just has the game heaving at full RPM's for 80 minutes and that causes more headaches for injuries. We don't want coaches having more strings on the players that are out there...you have the option to load a body that can cover every position in your 13 with the four man interchange. Does he think having wingers who were traditionally smaller players taking up the first run after a changeover has caused the game to get bigger and bigger bodies which is what ruins the health of players today.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
Then have 13 specialists...They can choose to place a rangy centre in the four interchange player.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
So we have exhausted the idea of stamina depletion that was always critical in rugby league and now you want to have bandaids for attrition....A combat sport has attrition as one of the factors that can determine a game and I believe if you take this out of the game we will homogenize the game. A coach has four interchanges and we don't want coaches having more of a role in game outcomes. We don't want coach's playing chess.This is a team sport and the coach sends the team out with game plan and the players determine outcomes with crowd involvement being able to effect games. Coaches have four players in which they can choose ...They can have maximum weight or anticipate usage of an outside back. You already have the choice to load a position specific back.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
So running all game into a defense that never tires is going to reduce head injuries.They want to reduce interchanges if they are concerned with player health..
mushi
Roar Guru
No he didn't in each the action was the same it was the consequence that varied.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
Agreed. It has to be managed properly.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
You’ve just described three different scenarios, not differences in severity of the same scenario. And comparisons between criminal law and rules of professional sport are not valid. Professional rugby league players are allowed, indeed required to do things on the field not permitted off the field.
The Barry
Roar Guru
As I said, it doesn’t happen anywhere else in life. Why footy? You run a red light and get caught, you get a fine and lose points. Run a red light and cause an accident. Bigger fine, more points. Run a red light and kill someone you’re going away for a loooong time big boy All exactly the same action. All exactly the same intent. But severity of the punishment varies based on the severity of the outcome and all incfluenced by the actions of the victim…
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
That would actually give a good shift. Even if you extend the bench, it's use wouldn't really change expect for injury. Your best front rower after a 20 min spell is still better than your 5th best front rower for example. So even if you widened the bench and carried 6 front rowers instead of 4, coaches will want to get their best 4 on over the 5th and 6th choice. And the same equation works for other positions unless there is injury. But going with this changes the dynamic completely. You can't just play your starting props for 30, give them a spell and then sub them back on after half time and get 50-60 really impactful minutes. You know need to get a full 40 out of them.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because the defender is the only one trying to make contact...
Hoy
Roar Guru
It's the resting of players that allows more explosive power for sure, which increases risk of high impact. So... changing interchange to replacement... is the way to go. You are off, and can't go back on.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
Reese Walsh got his head knock 3 minutes in. Fatigue is simply not an issue at that point in the game. It certainly would be, but to the Broncos' detriment, later in the game.
Pacey
Roar Rookie
How about you get an 18th player but you can only activate them if you “deactivate” one of the original 17 players and they can’t come back on. So that way if someone is injured and out of the game you still have 17 players to interchange between
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Severity of punishment should be based solely on severity of action, not the outcome, because the same action can and often does have varying depending on the victim. The penalty should be based solely on the action.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Of course the seriousness of the injury plays a part in the punishment. It does in every other face of life, why not footy?
Brendon Waldron
Roar Pro
"Say the Titans have Jayden Campbell. So we’re saying they can sit him on the extended bench and if they are down by 20, they throw him in the game, if they are up by 6, they throw on a defensive player?" Yeah, but, your team can do that too. Going to your bench for what you need is what the bench is there for. If they throw a player like that on late in the game, it's no different to if they were in the 17 now. They're still taking up one of the four spots of players who can come on and still using an interchange to get on. If they dont come on, it's the equivalent of not playing. I'd say instead of 21, leave it as the 19 man game day squad we've got now. The only difference is instead of cutting it to 17 just before kickoff, the coach does it during the game. I've been in favour of this for a while now.
Short Memory
Roar Rookie
I get where you're coming from, but I think many (most? all?) refs are reluctant to send a player off, considering, perhaps rightly, that playing the rest of the game with one less player is too great a disadvantage to the penalised team. By allowing the infringing player to be replaced by a reserve player reduces the disadvantage, and is therefore more likely to be implemented. I suspect it might result in a few less fouls that cause injury. As for the fouling player perhaps not having a case to answer for, most acts of foul play are pretty unambiguous. If foul play reduces the number of players available and/or the quality of players available to one team, then unless the fouling team suffers the same reduction they have gained an advantage by committing the foul play.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
Same eight interchanges, but five on the bench. I’ve been saying this since the 18th man arrived on the scene. Glad to see someone with more credibility than me is also making this recommendation.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Nah, the game can’t go back, it’s evolved to what it is now.