Are substitutions ruining rugby?

by Boston Exile Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:02 pm

Been musing about this for a while, whether the advent of substitutions has made it harder for the smaller teams. When subs first started in the 70s a player could only be replaced if a doctor said they were incapable of playing further. At first there was only 1 sub, then it was agreed there could be 1 forward sub and then a back sub. Numbers grew under the premise that particular positions (prop) were dangerous and we had the sight of non-contested scrums and players feigning injury to be replaced for tactical reasons. Eventually we got to the current position of 7 subs and use them as you will. The next step is some people want to have rolling subs as in American sports.

I can see a place for rolling subs, when young kids are learning the game to give everyone more exposure, or for old guys like me who need a breather, but between 10 and 35 everyone should be able to play 80 minutes.

The problem is it makes the gap between the best and the lesser nations even wider and may actually hold rugby back. For instance take USA playing Scotland. Scotland may have 40 players who would make the USA squad. The USA may only have 5 who would even be considered for Scotland. So they work extraordinarily hard, the game is close, everyone is tired and what happens at 60 minutes, Scotland replace with players of similar ability, the USA without same strength in depth cannot, chances of a surprise result go south. The same example could be used for Ireland v Portugal or Wales v Canada or NZ v nearly anyone else. Changing the game so it is no longer about 15 v 15 but 22 v 22 obviously favours the bigger nations, it was already hard for smaller countries to get a surprise result, with all the subs its made it much harder for developing countries to be competitive.

Maybe that's what people want but for me it makes the game less attractive. I hope rolling subs aren't used (except circumstance above) and I'd even like to see them limit the number of subs that can be made to 3 as in football. I'm probably on my own here but will throw the idea out there. Think on it as we watch the small nations in the RWC.

by MBTGOG Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:41 pm

I'm in favour of reducing substitutes. Without having done any research, I think more injuries are caused because of substitutes. Players are building themselves for 60 minutes rugby rather than 80 minutes and the guys coming off the bench against tired players is dangerous.

Rugby should be a game of endurance not collisions.

by The Great Aukster Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:40 pm

Five quality players against fifteen are always going to be up against it subs or not - forget the once in a blue moon when they keep the game close.
The logical conclusion of this argument is that Union keeps reducing numbers until it's our champion against yours - mano a mano.

There will soon be 23 man squads at Test level because fans don't want to see uncontested scrums rather than fewer subs.

I don't like the '1 minute caps' that have crept into the game so I'd have a one point scoreboard cost for every substitution made. At least in that way the coach would give some changes a bit more thought.

by MBTGOG Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:49 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Five quality players against fifteen are always going to be up against it subs or not - forget the once in a blue moon when they keep the game close.
The logical conclusion of this argument is that Union keeps reducing numbers until it's our champion against yours - mano a mano.

There will soon be 23 man squads at Test level because fans don't want to see uncontested scrums rather than fewer subs.

I don't like the '1 minute caps' that have crept into the game so I'd have a one point scoreboard cost for every substitution made. At least in that way the coach would give some changes a bit more thought.

How often are there actually uncontested scrums at international level? I can't remember the last time it happened.

by welshy824 Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:55 pm

1 point cost? thats a bit harsh really as subs may have to be used in incidents such as stoddart or hensons injury. and i would rather see normal scrums with an extra sub- it means rugby is not just a game of strategy on field but off field aswell

by Draigoch Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:03 pm

I think there is already a distinction between 'substitution' and 'replacement' for injuries and such like. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of the laws can help

by RubyGuby Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:12 pm

"Are substitutions ruining rugby"

I think it really depends if Huw Bennett is being taken off or being brought on. If it's the latter then yes they are ruining rugby thumbsup

by robbo277 Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:26 pm

I don't see what's the problem with an 8 man bench but limiting the amount of substitutions you can make (let's say to 3). If you make all 3 and a player goes down injured, tough. If you make all 3 and a prop goes injured, off comes the prop and a sub prop is brought on for a different player.

That way everyone should expect to play the full 80 minutes, you can cover injuries but will probably have to hold back at least one change. You lose the pre-meditated sub, the 1-minute wonder and the emptying of the bench on 60 minutes, three rubbish things in my opinion.

by MBTGOG Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:29 pm

robbo277 wrote:I don't see what's the problem with an 8 man bench but limiting the amount of substitutions you can make (let's say to 3). If you make all 3 and a player goes down injured, tough. If you make all 3 and a prop goes injured, off comes the prop and a sub prop is brought on for a different player.

That way everyone should expect to play the full 80 minutes, you can cover injuries but will probably have to hold back at least one change. You lose the pre-meditated sub, the 1-minute wonder and the emptying of the bench on 60 minutes, three rubbish things in my opinion.

No one has suggested this though.

by robbo277 Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:32 pm

That was just my way of introducing my suggestion! It's something I've thought about before, and despite musing on it for a while I can't find anything wrong with the idea. Not suitable for kids or amateurs when you want to get everyone a game, but I think it could work at pro-level (any team big enough to have an 8 man bench).

by Taylorman Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:49 am

MBTGOG wrote:Rugby should be a game of endurance not collisions.

whaaaat?
Wheres the fun in that?

by Boston Exile Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:21 am

I like robbo227's suggestion and could definitely live with it. Rugby is definitely about endurance, if we go the other way to rolling subs then the next thing that happens is we wheel on a Paterson to take the place kicks. Whilst we can cater for most things at pro-level it means the game at grass roots will be played differently.

Auckster, you are right there are not that many surprises of such a magnitude, but just occassionally a minor team playing well catches a bigger team on an off day or with a complacent attitude. It is part of the fun of rugby. NZ needn't worry they still had a great record well before substitutions, but it just opens that window of opportunity. At no time did I want the number of players reduced, although I have heard suggestions for removing flankers to stop the midfield being so cluttered. To me though that game already exists, its 7s.

by welshjohn369 Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:48 am

MBTGOG wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Five quality players against fifteen are always going to be up against it subs or not - forget the once in a blue moon when they keep the game close.
The logical conclusion of this argument is that Union keeps reducing numbers until it's our champion against yours - mano a mano.

There will soon be 23 man squads at Test level because fans don't want to see uncontested scrums rather than fewer subs.

I don't like the '1 minute caps' that have crept into the game so I'd have a one point scoreboard cost for every substitution made. At least in that way the coach would give some changes a bit more thought.

How often are there actually uncontested scrums at international level? I can't remember the last time it happened.

The 2nd Test between the Lions and SA on the last tour after the Boks had battered some of the packin off the ball incidents.

I am old school and would like to see us revert to no subs unless the dr says so.

by B91212 Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:50 am

Really good idea with limiting the amount of subs during the game. Before this I always thought it should be 6 subs, 4 forwards of 3 front row and one second row / back row forward and then a couple of backs, a scrum half and another back but I defiantly see the advantage of limiting teams to a total of 3 substitutions from 8 players on the bench.

by offload Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:29 am

I hate the way the bench empties and the way the last 20 mins is nearly always a shambles as new players try to find the tempo of the game and read the ref. And what is "impact" player all about?? If you have a reputation as an impact player all that means is your not good enough to be picked in the first place. "Impact player".... my bum.

I would go back to substitution being only for injury. Yes you run the risk of players feigning injury but I don't think that will get out of control. Rugby is an 80 min contest and getting tired both physically and mentally is part of the contest. Ban tactical substitution all together.

by **Biltong** Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:33 am

I disagree, with the amount of rugby being played these days, coaches can limit over exposure of players. In theory this can lengthen careers.

by offload Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:35 am

Well I would advocate less rugby too. I'm sure that view won't win much support though.

by doctornickolas Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:07 am

What about at local level though.

If you run a local team and have 7 guys on the bench then you are pretty much going to keep everyone happy by giving everyone some game time.

Would you turn up week in week out with the prospect of never getting on the field. I'd get pretty fed up of that to be honest. every sports man wants to play whatever their sport.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:10 am

We're talking about at pro level here not amateur rugby.

by beshocked Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:16 am

I agree with doctornickolas.

If you just have first XV where's the squad mentality?

Rugby is a team sport.Good teams need strength in depth.

If you reduce the number of players you reduce the opportunities available for people to play.

E.g. much harder to fight for a 1st XV place than a 22 place. Sometimes it's good to blood youngsters by putting them on the bench to give them a taster of club or international rugby.

MBTGOG wouldn't that lead to player burnout?

I think it's the structures in countries which want to prove at rugby which need more scrutinising.

by red_stag Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:18 am

I don't understand what peoples problem with subsitutions are.

Seems to me to be looking for a problem where none exists.

by Portnoy Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:19 am

welshjohn369 wrote:
MBTGOG wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Five quality players against fifteen are always going to be up against it subs or not - forget the once in a blue moon when they keep the game close.
The logical conclusion of this argument is that Union keeps reducing numbers until it's our champion against yours - mano a mano.

There will soon be 23 man squads at Test level because fans don't want to see uncontested scrums rather than fewer subs.

I don't like the '1 minute caps' that have crept into the game so I'd have a one point scoreboard cost for every substitution made. At least in that way the coach would give some changes a bit more thought.

How often are there actually uncontested scrums at international level? I can't remember the last time it happened.

The 2nd Test between the Lions and SA on the last tour after the Boks had battered some of the packin off the ball incidents.

I am old school and would like to see us revert to no subs unless the dr says so.

Down that shady lane there be demons. It used to be that even in the amateur days, there was the odd example of fake injuries. And with blood injuries and the fear of HIV contamination there was the inevitable Bloodgate scandal.

I would prefer the extra prop sub and a maximum of four changes from the bench in first class games.

If players can't do the full eighty, then it's time to give up. And in a way refers back to a very, very old argument of mine that international half caps should be awarded to players that don't play half the game. At the extremity players that a full cap be awarded to players who stay on the paddock for a minute or less is ridiculous. It makes 50 caps look impressive until you peel game time stats back.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:26 am

Just like to say it wasn't me who wrote that bit about no substitutions, that was WelshJohn.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:27 am

red_stag wrote:I don't understand what peoples problem with subsitutions are.

Seems to me to be looking for a problem where none exists.

My problem is that at the moment, we have an 80 minutes game, yet half the team aren't lasting 80 minutes. That's where the problem is.

by red_stag Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:30 am

If thats the case Munsty I reckon its more to do with bigger players, harder hits, faster pace of game etc.

Any of our professionals could last 80 minutes of what rugby used to be.

by Thomond Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:35 am

As rugby becomes more physical,there are going to be greater injuries,you're going to need a few subs. I don't see the problem here.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:35 am

red_stag wrote:If thats the case Munsty I reckon its more to do with bigger players, harder hits, faster pace of game etc.

Any of our professionals could last 80 minutes of what rugby used to be.

Which are brought about through substitutions because some player know they aren't going to play 80 minutes so play 60 minute rugby. What I used to like about rugby was how it opened up in the latter stages as players go tired but that is not the case anymore.

by geoff998rugby Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:54 am

As a counterpoint I think front rows need to be treated differently.

A tiring prop being kept on because he cannot be substituted is dangerous

by doctor_grey Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:36 am

Good morning, afternoon, evening all.

I read the comments here with a huge professional and personal interest. I have been a bone guy for about twenty years and have seen a lot of change in the nature of sports injuries. We treat many Rugby players, including pro players, and keep as current as possible about medical trends across Rugby as well as other sports. We have seen a lot of change in Rugby injuries. Since I still play and also coach my boys, my interest reaches home. So, if you will, I will break my comments down into the medical and non-medical.

On the medical front, we treat many athletes, the injuries I generally see are in the following mains areas:
torsional - spinning, twisting, vutting stressing joints
contact - tackling
head injury - concussions and the like

Most pro, but also recreational athletes to a lesser extent, are bigger, faster, and stronger. This puts greater stresses on the the joints which eventually tear the muscles, ligaments or break bones. In many cases, the athletes bodies are not up to carrying the extra muscle and bulk and are able to go for a full 80 minutes, match after match. The biggest increase I have seen over the years are the torsional injuires, which are also what could be considered continual or additive stresses. Injuries from tackling do not appear to be increasing, but the stresses in the tackle, especially at the pro level, are huge. The combined impact over a full season, and actually season to season is massive.

The good news is - and this is my opinion only - is the number of concussions is decreasing. But I believe we see an increase in concussions which are reported due to significantly improved awareness. This is a great thing.

There is bad news is we can never be 100% sure if an athlete is faking an injury as a match is unfolding. Although bloodgate should have a positive broad ranging impact on policing injuries.

Considering the medical stresses put on our Rugby players today, I absolutely believe we need subs. And I am comfortable with the current number, at 22/23. With the huge number of matches played by our Rugby players, and we know that won't be going down, the demands on our boys is terrific. I would rather see a top player for 60 minutes than not at all.

On the non-medical front, I do not at all like the automatic bringing on players with a few minutes to go. This kills the end of matches and is wholly not necessary to any particular match. I like the extra prop. If this helps in any way prevent an neck injury, then I am a huge supporter. but this is different than the extra player being brought on in order to keep the bench happy.

To sum up, I believe we need subs as the pro game has evolved past the old days of 15 - 15, mano a mano. As athletes put more and more stresses on bodies not designed for these increased stresses, injuires will increase in some areas. We do need better training and assessment, which is improving currently. But the ultimate culprit is the number of matches. If this stays the same, the injuries will continue. And careful player management is needed.

by emack2 Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:45 am

Back in the 1950/60`s I think in Nz substitutes were used in club /Provincial games but not against international opponents.
A sort of ad hoc arrangement in case of injury,game stopped
player goes off to be checked by a doctor.
According to all the experts here,amateur players would never
live in the modern game.NO?in the match in 1963 D,B. Clarke
playing for the All Blacks versus Wales . He had 4 shots at
goal,3 from 50+metres hit both posts[above the bar],the cross
bar,and a succcessful one from 25 yards.He pulled a Hamstring
with the first kick.Not only did he stay on he continued kicking.
Clive Rowlands had he known [a great tactical kicker]would have
run him all over the field.A Cripple foled wales that day.
Conditioning and sports medicine has advanced by bounds but
now a team is 22 not 15.
You don`t want uncontested Scrums so an extra prop is required
simple amend the rules.Lineouts will be taken for scrums in that instance
or free kicks.
First you want to look at the setting of the scrum. .THEN you want
to look at reverting to Shirts where players can get a grip.THEN
you want to look deliberatly collapsing scrums to win a penalty.
Tired Props you`re having a laugh arn`t you? you`re talking about
professional athletes they should be able to go 120 minutes if required.
Scrums seldom went down in those days,because props had TECHNIQUE
not just sheer weight.YES they had all the dirty tricks of the front row
mafia.
BUT they were two proud todeliberately collapse scrums,they usually held
up weaker props so they could scrummage against them
PLUS a collapsed scrum was extremely dangerous possibly causing back injuries.
Now it is a coached thing,because most refs can`t pick the culprit and it`s milked for penalties or free kicks.
How often have you heard some one being told go flat out you`re coming off at half time or 60.minutes.
Because of the wear and tear of so many matches played a year,it is now
mandatory to have substitutes,What should happen if a man needs treatment.Game stopped,player taken off,injury time added treatment carries on ,Game resumes with 14 men[avoiding tactical injuries].
How often have you heard phrases like" impact player," "flair player"or "Bench Warmer".
In other words there not good enough for the starting side or fit enough.
How you use the bench is now a major Tactical skill,BUT what should`nt happen is just clearing the bench[especially in a RWCfinal]just to give a player another cap.
Is he already capped technically if he is picked for the squad but does`nt start?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:48 am

The number of things that have ruined rugby in recent years is starting to outweigh the number of theings that cause/cure cancer according to the Daily Mail.

Money
Club Rugby
Too Much rugby
Too little rugby
TV coverage
Not enough TV coverage
Use of soccerisms (REPLACEMENTS!!!!)
Professionlism
Movement of players
Investment
Lack of investment
Kicking
Drop goals
Mauls
Removing the maul
The scrum
Depowering the scrum
Refereeing
The ruck
Refereeing of the ruck
The ruck laws
Interpetation of the ruck laws
Cheating
England in general
The RFU
England again
The IRB
The IRB being run by the RFU
The premiership
Relegation
Lack of relegation in the Celtic league
The playoffs
Lack of playoffs in the Celtic league
Dean Richards
Drugs
Alcohiol
Celebrity players
Lack of personalities
Fighting
Gouging
ELVs
The PRL
Big players
Good players
Bad players
The World Cup

Im sure you can think of more. Its ruined.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:08 pm

doctor_grey,

That was a really interesting read. Cheers.

by Portnoy Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:17 pm

The scrum engagement CTPE routine hasn't exactly improved the game has it?

I do have a fear that RU will slowly meld into RL.

by MBTGOG Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:18 pm

Why? Is it scrums that are the only difference? They certainly need to be fixed mind.

by Trevor Brennan Rugby Tour Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:19 pm

Portnoy wrote:
I do have a fear that RU will slowly meld into RL.

Bloody scaremongering. I've seen nothing to convince me of that remotely happening.

by offload Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:09 pm

Since the start of 606v2 the general behaviour on here has been good. Now out of the blue we have some foul language. I can't believe somone has actually mentioned the other code. Disgusting. Mods - please step in with a lifetime ban!

by Sponsored content

Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?

Re: Are substitutions ruining rugby?