It's Official - Interchange to be Reduced to 8 for 2016

[southwalesrabbitoh]

it won't be touch footy as there'll be tackling!

It's 2015, not 15.

Also MMA and boxing should be banned.

And if we are to keep 13 on the park then IMO interchanges should go right down, might as well go all the way, and say 5.

Hooker to be called rake. Get rid of the scrums, No.13 called loose-forward and the five-eighth, outside-halfback.

 

[ouwet]

And there goes the George Roses and Sam Kasianos of our game. They will be missed.

I don't think so! Player's can adjust!

Kasiano can play more minutes... With 10 interchanges ATM it's not needed, a full off season, he'll be sweet!

 

[POPEYE]

Players like Kasiano with a little less time at the gym and more on the track should be able to play League the way Steve Roach had to, absolutely no reason why they couldn't do it better given today's advanced athleticism. All Kasiano has to do is concentrate on his Beetson like passing and forget falling on people for the sake of it

 

[Bulldog Force]

And there goes the George Roses and Sam Kasianos of our game. They will be missed.

Don't agree with 8 interchanges but that won't happen.

 

[Noname36]

I still fail to see how the powers that be have come to the conclusion that less interchange will discourage game slowing tactics.

If anything, this is only going to further increase holding down and wrestling tactics as teams desperately try to control the speed of the ruck to improve their forwards' endurance. Although really most teams only use 8 interchanges as it is on forward rotation and another 2 on rotating the hooker/utility, so really IMO the major change that we'll actually see from this is the development of more 80 minute hookers as opposed to more lean, speedy forwards.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the change as I think having an 80 minute hooker is not rewarded well enough at the moment, but surely if the aim is to reduce the wrestle they should look at actually targeting the f**king wrestle directly than by trying these roundabout tactics.

I agree 100%. They can lower the interchange by as much as they want but that's not the real issue. It's the ruck interpretations that really need to change.

 

[Canard]

People are nostalgically hoping the game reverts back to the unstructured randomness that was the game in the 70s.

It's never going to happen, the game is too structured, to coached and too professional for this ever come back.

 

[POPEYE]

People are nostalgically hoping the game reverts back to the unstructured randomness that was the game in the 70s.

It's never going to happen, the game is too structured, to coached and too professional for this ever come back.

That's bullshit as far as I'm concerned, every era saw the game developed to what it is today, there was plenty of 'structure', superior game plans have always won the day. What most people want to see today is the modern game decided by talent like it was in the past, players outlasting the opposition and stamina being the difference. . . 80 minute buffoonery is f**king the game for spectators and enterprising players alike

 

[DiegoNT]

People are nostalgically hoping the game reverts back to the unstructured randomness that was the game in the 70s.

It's never going to happen, the game is too structured, to coached and too professional for this ever come back.

People have got it into their heads that the interchange is the sole reason that we don't have flowing football like they had back in the 70s. While they did have structures, game plan's etc back in those days it was no where near the level of today. The game has evolved in all areas since the 70s, we have stronger defensive patterns, better strength and conditioning, bigger outside backs, detailed match analysis, bloody wrestling ... the list goes on, and to think that a change in the interchange rules will undo all the work in all those areas is a bit naive.
People say they want different body sizes in rugby league, well look up the wide shots of teams doing the national anthems in big games, there is already a huge variety in our game.
People want to bring back the bring back the smaller players in our game, but forget that guys like Thurston, cronk, hunt, milford, reynolds, keary, luke, Segaryo are all killing it at the moment
People want the talented players to thrive but they are, thurston, inglis, slater, Johnson are as talented as any players from any other era, but the game is now to professional and a guy like Sandow shows that talent can only get you so far

 

[johnny plath]

A lot of thought seems to be that the smaller footballers will benefit from tired defenders. Does anyone think that this does also open up an opportunity for a genuine impact powerhouse big forward. It seems if a coach can afford to carry one on the bench then a fresh powerhouse would dent or break the tiring defence line and create opportunities for good support players.

 

[POPEYE]

Why can't we have everyone except front rowers playing 80 minutes and even then limit their interchange. Has sfa to do with how professional the modern game is . . . men that can't cope should play something else

 

[ek999]

What teams are the winners and losers from this?

Any team that doesn't have an 80 minute hooker will be the biggest losers IMO. They would currently be using up 2 or 3 interchanges at the moment.

 

[gUt]

People are nostalgically hoping the game reverts back to the unstructured randomness that was the game in the 70s.

It's never going to happen, the game is too structured, to coached and too professional for this ever come back.

This.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Hmmm... I don't think it's going to effect big wingers.

Middle players are the ones which are going to have to adjust.

If anything it may force more teams to play big wingers... As they can come in and take some of the workload away from the guys under the pump in the middle.

The NRL need to be very careful they don't turn the game into glorified touch football.

This. Think of how valuable this makes a guy like Manu Vatuvei who plays 80 minutes and typically makes around 100m a game purely off tackle 1-2 hitups, these guys take a massive chunk of work off the forwards.

 

[undertaker]

I'm more concerned with 18th man for foul play/concussion replacements. Not sure what is taking so long with that.

They should've extended the bench to 5, and in your case, made a concession that the 5th bench player can only be used/interchanged for the circumstances you mentioned.

If the interchanges were dropped to 6 (like what the NRL were initially planning on doing, before compromising at 8), then the bench should've definitely been extended to 5 players irrespective of foul play/concussion.

 

[Sanchez]

Hate this. Interchange usage is a great interest of mine and this is basically on the road to killing it. Terrible

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I honestly think people overstate the impact of wrestling on the game today...

I reckon people are unhappy with the modern tactics of the NRL and have just found the ruck is the thing to bitch about. But really, messing with that is a "no win" situation:
- a slow PlayTheBall gives us the product we have today.
- a fast PTB means more DummyHalf running.
Either way, people will complain about the game because the ruck isnt the problem!!!

The problem is that the game promotes conservative play. Expansive attack in your own half has little benefit and huge risk; you are better of with 5 hitups and a kick (which is what the game has been reduced to).

Unless the game provides some incentive to run the ball (like a 40/20 or a forced dropout) the gameplay will continue to become progressively more boring, because THAT is how you win games today....

 

[Glen]

They make it 8, everyone says it should have been 6.

If they made it 6, everyone would say it should be 4.

It's just what NRL fans do.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

They should've extended the bench to 5, and in your case, made a concession that the 5th bench player can only be used/interchanged for the circumstances you mentioned.

If the interchanges were dropped to 6 (like what the NRL were initially planning on doing, before compromising at 8), then the bench should've definitely been extended to 5 players irrespective of foul play/concussion.

No, I think three on the bench is enough. But I'm ok with 4, I don't want more than 4.

I don't want to see players moping on the bench, they all should play some minutes. In the WC semi-final, England only used three off the bench, Carl Ablett didn't get on the paddock.

Also if there are 5 on the bench then coaches will tell their players they can be reckless as there's plenty of cover on the bench, so if u get concussed don't worry about, so going to 5 would increase the chance of people defending with their heads in the wrong place. Players have to take responsibility for themselves and obviously their opposition, it's not a free-for-all out there.

 

[darcy]

Between the banning of the shoulder charge and this move that will likely eliminate the big boppers from the game, we're only a few moves away from jersey grabbing AFL-esque 'melees' being the highlights of our game.

Could well be.

 

[chigurh]

They make it 8, everyone says it should have been 6.

If they made it 6, everyone would say it should be 4.

It's just what NRL fans do.

So true.