News 18th man??

[Valheru]

In our game Kris passed his initial HIA but the doctor was unsure about it after a second thought

The result of this was Scott had to play 70 minutes with a broken rib. This is probably not great for player welfare

Why not extend the bench to 6 but keep the amount of subs the same ?

Yes I think 6 man bench is the way to go with same number of interchanges.

Has the same effect as 18th and 19th man without the grey area.

 

[Twizzle]

yes from me, Sharkies were very hard done by and if its all about players safety then they should not have to stay on the field and play injured

something needs to happen

 

[BadnMean]

I'd say yes in general. The fact it's the same number of interchanges and that often your 4th bench player only sees 15-20 mins game time anyway means I don't think it'd be exploited too much.

It'd be interesting how it affects the make up of the benches- would coaches still keep a utility in the #14 or just roll with 4 forwards & then half + an outside back as 18/19?

 

[nick87]

If we are serious about head trauma, and 18th man available to replace a player ruled out from a HIA is a the next logical and natural step
And should happen sooner than later

by allowing this, it will also lessen the pressure on players, coaches and doctors to keep guys out of the protocol, because they’ll have a replacement available
It’s not going to be perfect, because like in our game yesterday, we had two guys go off, but at the very least had we the ability to replace at least one of them with a body, we probably could have gotten Curtis Scott off the field who was playing with broken ribs, which is certainly not safe either

the extended bench option is not bad either. I’d be happy with either
But we do need to address it one way or the other if the game is serious about player safety

edit the more I think now actually the extended bench might be better as it’s more flexible for teams and requires less changes to actual rules/protocols

 

[Smug Panther]

Penrith have the world's best 14 in May so I'm against this move

 

[franklin2323]

I'd say yes in general. The fact it's the same number of interchanges and that often your 4th bench player only sees 15-20 mins game time anyway means I don't think it'd be exploited too much.

It'd be interesting how it affects the make up of the benches- would coaches still keep a utility in the #14 or just roll with 4 forwards & then half + an outside back as 18/19?

Still need the cover if a winger does an ACL or something

 

[AnonymousLurker]

You wouldn’t need 18th or 19th man , if replacements were only used for injuries in the first place .
The game has too many knee jerk reactions and as usual coaches fool everyone
Interchange was increased for “player safety “
- blood bin
- head bin
-unlimited interchanged
- when HIA introduced weren’t teams taking the piss at 20 minute mark to get free replacements

Maybe if the game actually penalised players for the maiming the do ( by sending off and suspensions) a lot of the crap will stop

Anyway it’s round 3 , first month every year heaps of injuries and the shortened off season hasn’t helped

 

[LineBall]

I voted no.

Coaches might need to rethink their interchanges and keep a few up their sleeve for later in the game.

 

[franklin2323]

I voted no.

Coaches might need to rethink their interchanges and keep a few up their sleeve for later in the game.

Sharks had no bench to interchange though.

You are right if one guy goes off but if you get multiple guys then the game is pratically over

 

[LineBall]

Sharks had no bench to interchange though.

You are right if one guy goes off but if you get multiple guys then the game is pratically over

The sharks were very unfortunate, no doubt.

I'd like to wait and see how often this situation occurs though before adding an extra man to the bench.

 

[_snafu_]

I wonder whether it is the recent rule changes that have increased the chances of these types of injuries.

 

[franklin2323]

The sharks were very unfortunate, no doubt.

I'd like to wait and see how often this situation occurs though before adding an extra man to the bench.

Canberra too. Roosters had a couple in Round 1

 

[franklin2323]

I wonder whether it is the recent rule changes that have increased the chances of these types of injuries.

I don't think the rules as such

more so being more strict on these. Nikora wanted to go back on. Kris past it but the doctor was being cautious.

If you want doctors and clubs playing ball then need to limit how much they are disadvantaged

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No to emergency 18th man. Yes to extending bench to 5/6.

 

[_snafu_]

I don't think the rules as such

more so being more strict on these. Nikora wanted to go back on. Kris past it but the doctor was being cautious.

If you want doctors and clubs playing ball then need to limit how much they are disadvantaged

I was thinking of the rules which speed up the game introduced last year. The game being playing quicker and players playing under more fatigue.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

If they give a shit about player welfare and not about having fresh players etc
- no player would play when they have niggles
- hunt wouldn’t have played with broken leg
- Curtis Scott had his rib busted and the raiders did have someone on the bench why wasn’t he replaced

This 18th man additional interchanges is just the latest rort they try to Implement

 

[Valheru]

If we are serious about head trauma, and 18th man available to replace a player ruled out from a HIA is a the next logical and natural step
And should happen sooner than later

by allowing this, it will also lessen the pressure on players, coaches and doctors to keep guys out of the protocol, because they’ll have a replacement available
It’s not going to be perfect, because like in our game yesterday, we had two guys go off, but at the very least had we the ability to replace at least one of them with a body, we probably could have gotten Curtis Scott off the field who was playing with broken ribs, which is certainly not safe either

the extended bench option is not bad either. I’d be happy with either
But we do need to address it one way or the other if the game is serious about player safety

edit the more I think now actually the extended bench might be better as it’s more flexible for teams and requires less changes to actual rules/protocols

Add to this that in yesteryear Kris would have kept playing and probably James as well. With what we now know about concussions that just isn't an option so we have to come up with an alternative and increasing the size of the bench without changing the number of interchanges is most logical IMO.

 

[franklin2323]

I was thinking of the rules which speed up the game introduced last year. The game being playing quicker and players playing under more fatigue.

I would agree if it was at the end of the game. Sharks had an empty bench by halftime. Ryan James had like 5 mins then was out of the game

 

[franklin2323]

Add to this that in yesteryear Kris would have kept playing and probably James as well. With what we now know about concussions that just isn't an option so we have to come up with an alternative and increasing the size of the bench without changing the number of interchanges is most logical IMO.

Sharks too. Nikora was trying to go back on when up the tunnel

 

[Slackboy72]

No.
Unless your name is the roosters.