Would a cut in substitutions allowed per match improve the game and player well-being?

Alan (Emack) wrote a piece yesterday on squad sizes and it made me think about squad sizes, substitutions and it’s impact on player conditioning and physical well-being.
Not sure about posters on here but I imagine the consensus is probably that players are probably now too big and it’s having a negative impact on the game. We now see packs of 920kg as standard, prior to say the 2008 season it was probably rare to see packs above 900kg with only say ENG and SA ever reaching those heights.
Teams can make 8 substitutions a game, often make at least 6 and coaches like Meyer regularly making wholesale changes at the 55-60 min mark. Surely this is developing an impact player philosophy around size and conditioning which is almost certainly causing the weight and strength of players to increase and with a few assumptions here, increasing injuries and concussions.

Perhaps if the number of substitutions was cut to 3-4 do posters think we would see a reduction in the size of players and coaches prioritised endurance over strength? I do acknowledge that injuries do occur regularly in this sport but there could be an allowance for further substitutions if an injury was verified by an independent touchline doctor say? Perhaps to mitigate a capsulegate type scenario to bend the rules.
I think it would have a number of additional positive outcomes too. There are so many games now, so many options to gain caps that guys such as Joe Worsley can build 70 odd caps even though he was only a regular player for what 2-3 years max. Lowering the number of substitutions would increase the value of caps IMO.

Additionally if players spent less time in the gym trying to get their 1 rep max I think they would improve as rugby players immensely with extra time on the grass. Skill for skill I still think those of 25 years ago could teach today’s players a thing or two. It’s not that they were better, it’s that things were more natural in the old days, plays were less scripted and players had to think on their feet rather simply play chess.

In essence, players would spend more time on the field but I think they would have longer careers due to reduced injuries and less health issues in their retirement.
It also encourages coaches to pick brawn over creativity. Wingers are now as standard at least 190cm and 100kg at test level. Would guys like Shane Williams and Jason Robinson have made it today? Probably yes but I could easily see coaches such as Gatland, Lancaster, Meyer picking a drone over those celebrated players just because they suited their no nonsense, WWI trench warfare styles given the above.

Finally I think it would improve the competition around the game. Teams like Argentina cannot compete with say NZ if they need to find 23 world class players, I think they would reduce the gap if they only had to compete with 18. The top teams can replace quality with quality, this isn't the case for all.

Was rugby any less enthralling even 15 years ago when packs were at most 880kg compared to the 920 test standard of today and backlines averaging over 15st a man??? The glory years of the sport was IMO 1997-2004, there was a great balance between defence and attack, players were professional and sizes weren’t that much bigger than the past. Today we are seeing 13 190cm and 110kg Ivan Drago’s play in every XV, with arguably reduced creativity and a terrible frequency of concussions which no one wants to see.

People say it can’t be done, can’t be reversed but things like substitution restrictions would/or at least should in theory help to rebalance the sport? Or have I taken too much Xanex this morning???

Not a bad idea Fa, I think you are on to something.

It is actually quite mathematical thinking really. It reminds me of the story of maths professor Abraham Wald who used mathematical reasoning to help design more robust warplanes during World War II. Military officers had noticed that planes that made it back to base tended to have more bullet holes in the wings and fuselage than in the engine. So they figured to make the aircraft more survivable the key was to add armor to parts that were taking more frequent hits.

Wald disagreed based on the fact that those planes that had taken more hits around the engine did not make it back at all. They added extra armour around the engine and saved lives.

Sometimes what seems to be the most obvious logical answer to a problem is actually not the answer at all. I think what you are getting at is that while they originally thought that more subs would mean less injuries the opposite has proved to be true. A bit like in boxing when boxing gloves were introduced to make the sport safer. However, gloves actually make boxing much more dangerous as boxers can now hit a lot harder and there are more deaths as a result.

There is a lot of sense in this. What I would say is that with advances in understanding of conditioning and preparation I am not sure if we'd see as much as a shift as we'd like.

Case in point is Billy Vunipola, probably the biggest guy in the England team, who played every minute of the 6N. Maybe he is an exception, or maybe we would enter a more extreme version of the current 'arms race' where the best teams with the best science behind them would move further away from the next tier down.

Well put fa0019. I've been saying the same thing for years.


Reducing the number of subs = Players would have to last longer

Players would have to last longer = Fitter players

Fitter players = Smaller (less bulky) players

Smaller players = Bigger pool to pick from

Bigger pool = Better athletes and higher skilled players


You see this particularly in French rugby where their benches are full of massive, unfit players whose job is to come on with 30 min to go and use bosh tactics against the opposition.

lost makes a valid point, noone will take a backward step, for fear of losing the physical battle, I think reducing the number of subs would ultimately bring to the fore a versatile supersub style player.

I've always wondered why props don't throw into lineouts, or why height is a reuirement of the back row, I get a few inches helps, but with timing and athletic ability from back rowers this can be negated!

I think the key to getting back to varied games and more athletic players are in the set peice, begate the importance of the scrum and tight 5's get lighter, and are forced to do more around the park.

The scrum has become this era's gym, everyone is so afraid of losing matches based on 1 area of play they can effect so easily they over focus on it, it is easy to quantify the drive, the push or the scrummaging ability, that results can come easily and coaches / conditioners can justiy their ability!

Take the ELVs for instance. Everyone thought it would lead to smaller players as it required more fitness, but the problem is the rules which finally were settled on were not the ones which were tested. Things such as the quick tap short arm penalties were taken off which reduced the necessity for instant reactions every play. It was a good idea as it made the game a joke but what was left was rucks become judo battlezones and players needing to work their guns & core to the max ala Pocock, Brussow etc to compete.

Fanster wrote:lost makes a valid point, noone will take a backward step, for fear of losing the physical battle, I think reducing the number of subs would ultimately bring to the fore a versatile supersub style player.

I've always wondered why props don't throw into lineouts, or why height is a reuirement of the back row, I get a few inches helps, but with timing and athletic ability from back rowers this can be negated!

I think the key to getting back to varied games and more athletic players are in the set peice, begate the importance of the scrum and tight 5's get lighter, and are forced to do more around the park.

The scrum has become this era's gym, everyone is so afraid of losing matches based on 1 area of play they can effect so easily they over focus on it, it is easy to quantify the drive, the push or the scrummaging ability, that results can come easily and coaches / conditioners can justiy their ability!

Probably right in the short term. But say you're only allowed 3 subs... means you can't change your starter front row  at 55 mins every game if at all. Props and esp. tightheads are huge today but ask guys like Mako to complete 80 mins and there is no way he would stay the same size. Same goes for the Willem Alberts of this world. 120kg and 6'3 in the backrow would quickly become surplus to requirements compared to someone carrying 10kg less.

What you would see is teams not conforming running out of steam (well at least in my own head).

I'm not so sure it would have that significant an effect on player sizes. I certainly don't see it affecting the size of backs at all.

Mako Vunipola was given as an example of the sort of player it might have an effect on. I did a quick check on his match durations last season in the AP. He played in 14 matches, starting 12 of them. In those 12 matches he averaged 69 mins. That he lasted the full duration or close to in a number of them (and those were against some of the more testing sides like Bath and Exeter) suggests him coming off earlier is not a necessity. Even if it was, how much weight would he really need to lose to squeeze that extra 5-10 mins out of him? And having become a couple of kgs leaner and fitter is he really going to have that much less force in contact or will the small drop in mass be evened out by an equivalent small increase in acceleration, or simply being able to be present at more events rather than leaving it to smaller players?

We also have to consider what approaches coaches would take to being limited to 3 subs but still with a full bench at their disposal. If they haven't had to make injury or tactical replacements in the first 3/4 of the match they're probably still going to look to be using their sub options on refreshing the bigger guys in the last 1/4.

If they have had to make their subs earlier on and a FR player is injured towards the end of the match you either go to uncontested scrums or have exceptions for technical positions which would undoubtedly see abuse through feigning (independent verification would slow the game down too much and claims of muscle strains would be near impossible to refute, plus the possibility of more serious injury and compensation claims if incorrectly refuted meaning almost no medic would). Also, in trying to find the sweet spot between fitness and size in props could we see them pushed to their limits, resulting in more tired players seeing out games rather than subbed as soon as their energy levels dip, and therefore more scrum collapses, meaning slower paced last quarters and maybe more FR injuries?

fa0019 wrote:Or have I taken too much Xanex this morning???

I think you must have................

But, getting away from your medical problems, clearly, the ever increasing size of players is a concern. The rates of certain impact-type injuries is directly attributable to the size, speed, and muscle development of our Rugby players. Making players last longer would certainly reduce the size of some players. Would it improve the play we see? Not sure. We certainly don't want to lose our front row replacements and then see uncontested scrums. But as a jumping off point for discussion about injury rates, it is a good place to start. I am not sure it can be practically implemented, but injury replacements evaluated by neutral sideline docs is also an interesting suggestion.

doctor_grey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Or have I taken too much Xanex this morning???

I think you must have................  

But, getting away from your medical problems, clearly, the ever increasing size of players is a concern.  The rates of certain impact-type injuries is directly attributable to the size, speed, and muscle development of our Rugby players.  Making players last longer would certainly reduce the size of some players.  Would it improve the play we see?  Not sure.  We certainly don't want to lose our front row replacements and then see uncontested scrums.  But as a jumping off point for discussion about injury rates, it is a good place to start.  I am not sure it can be practically implemented, but injury replacements evaluated by neutral sideline docs is also an interesting suggestion.  

I seem to recall a recent study showed that a game of pro rugby involved collisions similar to a car accident at about 35mph!

The counter to any reduction in subs will always be one of player safety. The only way I can see it working would be to ban tactical substitutions and make all substitutions subject to a 10 minute medical assessment in which an independent doctor confirms whether they are fit to play on, as with head injuries today. You'd also probably have to say that a full substitution carries with it a mandatory week off playing or return to play protocol, to reduce the incentive for players and coaches to feign injury.

That could just about work, though it would allow for massive props to have a ten minute breather from time to time.

By the way, Graham Rowntree - who's usually ahead of the curve on these things - was quoted at the start of England's training camp as saying that forwards have probably reached the point where at international level there is no value in them getting bigger, because the need for forwards who can contribute to a fast game in open play limits how big they can get.

I would say the best thing for player well being are more rest periods,less training and game management.

The way to getting improved fitness and seeing the value of smaller players is to speed up the game and reduce the stoppages IMO.

Rolling subs in RL hasn't stopped a little man like Rob Burrow making an impact. Okay it might be partly down to 13 men on the pitch too but also it's because there are less stoppages.

Things I think that could be encouraged - wider pitches meaning more space. Quicker decisions on scrums - too many collapsed scrums would see the two props sin binned. Less time to take a penalty kick - would reduce to 30 seconds. Reduce the time on TMO to 60 seconds. Encourage the use of the quick tap more. Penalise teams more who slow the ball down. Encourage quick ball from everyone.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/latest/iain-morrison-size-of-players-is-wrecking-rugby-1-3215377

Beshocked,
You are right about the rest periods and season length, but that won't be coming along soon.  The slowly increasing money in the game, and the need for more drives our players to the extreme.  I agree, and almost all medical experts agree, there are simply too many games.  I wrote in another string on this subject that the NFL Players Association recently voted NOT to allow an increase in their season from 16 to 18 games, simply because of the physical strain and increased injuries.  This is also despite the increase in salaries which would accompany the two additional games. They know the end result.  I believe we have long since crossed the line and it is bad.  They won't accept 18 games and we are lucky if our boys play less than 30.  Brain dead thinking.

On the other hand, larger pitches is a non-starter.  Most stadiums have fixed dimensions which cannot easily be increased, even if just 5 yards wider.  There needs to be a safety factor outside touch and in many places it already tight.  

I think the unknown question is if a reduction in subs will actually increase injuries (likely in the short term) or decrease injuries (long term?).  I wish I had a practical answer.  Perhaps the best short term answer is for aggressive and standardised medical evaluation applied equally to all players forcing them to sit when they might be able to soldier along.  I understand this is completely contrary to the ethos of sport as well as ripe for abuse (except if I am involved), but some movement along those lines will help.

There is no evidence to suggest that reducing subs would improve the game or player welfare. It would be just as easy to argue that with fewer subs there would be more cynical play to take players out of the game, and more players 'soldiering on' aggravating injuries and playing well below par for longer.

Calls for bigger pitches are pie in the sky - it would be much more logical to reduce the number of players on the pitch, to say 13. This isn't a move to RL which simply has 13 big men running straight, but rather preserving the essence of the game by still keeping the scrum and lineout as is. The difference would be that the pack would have to work a lot harder and so there would not be such a premium on size.

One thing that should happen is outlawing body armour, because it just encourages bigger hits.

The Great Aukster wrote:One thing that should happen is outlawing body armour, because it just encourages bigger hits.

I'd agree with that. I think body armour gives a false sense of security anyway. I coach a bunch of kids, most of whom wear body armour but with a decent number who don't. I don't think there's a correlation between how hard they tackle (or who gets injured) and who wears body armour. The hardest tackler we have doesn't wear body armour and doesn't get injured much.

Rolling benches actually makes much more sense from a welfare perspective, although there would have to be some form of control to avoid "speical teams" substitutions for set plays.
It would also serve to get rid of the farce of blood subs and some of the complexities regarding props.

American sports almost exclusively have these, its just a concept thats alien to europeans.

Player management is likely one of the biggest challenges in professional rugby.

The fact is the Club wants their money's worth, then the national team wants their pound of flesh.

It becomes an even bigger challenge if your national team's players play for another country's club.

There is virtually no synergy between what the national coach wants and the club coach.

The only way you will limit match time is by virtue of a World Rugby law that likits the number of minutes a player is allowed to play, but even then the player will have to have it written into his contract as well.

As for less subs, I agree that more subs allow for coaches to select much bulkier players that can do the "brutal or softening up"

Consider players like Willem Alberts or Will Skelton, they simply do not have the aerobic fitness for 80 minutes of play.

But reducing replacements will go against the World Rugby's thinking of having an extra frontrow, so even though you have 8 replacements, 3 are booked for frontrow duty.

That leaves 5, you always have a back up 9 and a back up utility back, that leaves three forwards.

Usually one is for line outs and the other for back row duty, which means you could possibly remove him.

Whether that will change rugby is debatable,.

The best way to change rugby is to go back to injury replacements only.

Its not reducing the numbers you can have on the bench BB, its reducing the number you can use in a given game. In football world cups I think the entire bench of 12 are available at any one time. But they can only use max 3.