The 24th man

Simple one.

Should the IRB change it to a 24 man squad? All teams now go with a

Prop
Hooker
Prop
2nd Row
Back row
Scrum half
Fly half
Utility Back

I personally think this is cutting the enjoyment from games by limiting the backs available on the bench!

Unless we see a change teams will start picking MASSIVE fly half a with little skill on the bench because the can also cover 12/13

What chance has a winger/full back such as Wade got of being on the bench, when in reality a pick like Goode can cover 4 positions

Its a fair point , but where do you stop ?

If you were to take your argument to the extreme, we would end up with 15+ players on the bench. and we all know that it would end up like a certain sport that our yank cousins like to play.

  

Ignoring the deesperate attention seeking form our very own almost village wit (well he is halfway there), I have to say please god no. No increasing of matchday squads.

I feel it is a shame we arrived at the current situation due to coaches and teams cheating and faking injuries. Now we get players in key positions (such as front row, but also back row) who seem to train for just 55-60 minutes of action, coaches who cannot decide between options so effectively have both players available etc.

I still yearn for the day when it was XV vs XV over 80 minutes and may the best and fittest team win. I accept we needed injury replacements but soon we will start to see rolling replacements similar to American sports or RL if we are not careful.

There's also a risk of coaches using it for another back row forward anyway. Sometimes you see a 5-2 bench split already...

I don't see any issue. As the physicality and number of games played in a season goes up then the bench may need to too.

Not a bad idea, but too many subs can break up the flow of the game. I marginally favour the status quo.

No we'd end up with that rolling subs nonsense you get in league - which ruined that game too.

It would also see a specialist type impact player evolve and a decline in fitness standards in certain positions - bigger, more powerful players, particularly in the pack, who can't play 80mins. More injuries a la NFL.

How can going from a bench of 8 to a bench of 9 make it like League?

In League you only have a bench of 4.

Notch wrote:Not a bad idea, but too many subs can break up the flow of the game. I marginally favour the status quo.

I completely favour the status quo. The 60 minute mark is becoming a bit of a joke.

I'm in the "only subs for injury camp". It may be a camp of one but I'm happy.

offload wrote:I'm in the "only subs for injury camp".  It may be a camp of one but I'm happy.

Serge Blanco is with you. I'm not even sure he wants replacements for injury.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3559_8803549,00.html

 

Rugby Fan wrote:

offload wrote:I'm in the "only subs for injury camp".  It may be a camp of one but I'm happy.

Serge Blanco is with you. I'm not even sure he wants replacements for injury.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3559_8803549,00.html

Oh dear...I've suspected for years that I crossed the fine line betweeen genius and madness. If I am now aligned with Blanco it is confirmed.  

As was mentioned earlier it was better years ago when teams could only make a sub if a player was injured. All the stop start in games around the 60 min mark with subs really spoils the games some times. Games that can often be exciting and flowing suddenly loose that flow when teams start making lots of substituitions!

The Millenium has that special ball boy waiting in the wings.