Reduced interchange?

[lockyno1]

Good idea. Should be limited to 6 at the most imo. Too often injuries happen becuase of the silly system that we have at the moment where props bash each other for 15 mins, get a break..etc

 

[Pierced Soul]

love to see interchanges reduced. it would bring back the gladatorial aspect and it would also benefit from little blokes like bowen and gidley being absolutely damaging in the back end of the game.

would a compromise be like what happened in superleague? Whereby you had 4 reserves, two could only go on once (and the players they replaced were doen for the night), and the other 2 were unlimited? I cant remember whetehr this worked well or not. It did make it more important to work out who was permanently replaced

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Why not?

Lets reduce the interchange, and see how the game goes, and hope it prevents injuries.

 

[borat]

I would be happy to keep the 12 interchnages but go back to the system where we have 2 permanent replacements on the bench, and 2 interchange players.

 

[RL1908]

I guess there are a heap of possible variations that could be used to modifying the inter-change.

Another bonus in reducing it is that many current players at the top clubs who are regularly on the inter-change bench may want to move to another club to get more game time. Might help spread the talent a bit further.

Perhaps the inter-change could be limited to using only two players in the first half, and then increasing it to four in the second (and possibly requiring the 3rd and 4th interchange player to have played in the Under 20s game).

As an example of the difference a reduced interchange could benefit the game, have a look at the Qldrs in Origin 3 (put aside the Johnston concussion issue) - dug deep, and everyone applauded their gutsy effort. I'd like to see more of it.

 

[The Engineers Room]

lol that is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard...the modern game has dramatically been influenced by creativity from dummy half, take that away and we will be in for some boring rugby league...

Also there would be next to no use for markers

and next to no reason for there to be a quick play the ball

Wrong.

You can still run from dummy half but the useless runs by wingers and centres with no intent on passing would be removed. Less interchanges will mean tired defenders and without the rule I suggested the game would be like touch football with teams getting quick play the balls and just running from dummy half 5 rucks in a row looking for holes up the middle.

Markers are not only to combat dummy halves but also forward hit ups. I guarantee that if you change the interchange dummy half running will increase.

The whole idea of less interchanges is that the defence will not be as strong as they are tired and so the teams will be able to spread the ball and not meet fresh reserves everywhere.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I am a fan of the interchange but I don't want to see continual dummy half running. The other aspect is that the defence should go back to moving once the ball clears the ruck not once the ball touches the ground. This would give the attack more chance to be expansive.

 

[Raider_69]

Id say drop it down to 8. But allow 2 extra interchanges for injuries... the current system where by a reporting gives a free interchange, but the 2 injury interchanges come into effect when a player is injuried and is unable to return to the field, this would help off set the impact unavoidable injuries have on a side...

 

[Jono078]

Just on injured players Raider, I reckon if a player leaves the field in the first 5-10mins then you can bring in another guy to replace him if he is ruled out and doesnt return in the match.

 

[greenhat]

If you had specific rules for injured players though, would it encourage tired players to dive and stay down for a free interchange with a fresh player?

Jono78s idea would sort that out i spose.

 

[roopy]

One of Gould's ideas was that each player could only go on the field twice - meaning starting players could be replaced and come back on - but if they went off a second time that was it for the day - so no props getting 3 or 4 10 or 15 minutes spells during the game, and also a coach would need to keep a track on who had finished for the day and keep a forward and a back up his sleeve to cover for injuries.
That takes out a lot of 'impact' bench player tactics I think - including guys like Wing etc

 

[JW]

Reducing it sounds good in theory but for starters I wouldn't take it below 10 changes. Wiping off 1/3 of a team's alloted changes could present numerous crucial problems that haven't been covered yet. If they're going to do it, take off 2 first and see how it goes.

 

[t-ba]

Another disadvantage is that the hookers will run rampant as the forwards will be more tired.

I think the only way it can work is if the dummy half run is limited. I have suggested a number of times that if the play the ball is outside your own 20m and the dummy half runner is caught with the ball, then it is a changeover.

This would not remove this play but make it more difficult to continually make the opposition forwards backpedal.

If a Dummy half runner gets caught, call a dominant tackle. That'd be the simplest solution imo. Should happen now.

 

[Holla]

t-ba,
please don't start on the dominate/surrender bul***it.
That's something else that has to go. A tackle is a tackle, nothing more & nothing less.

Note to Gus.
How about you put your name up for David Gallop's job. Maybe a few things would happen a lot quicker to take this game back to what it should be.,

 

[dallymessenger]

yep, 6 is the right number of interchanges for me.

RL is a game for fit players.

players should do at least 60 mins min. per game.

benefit is as playes tire, the game will open up a big and the backs can play proper RL.

 

[The Engineers Room]

benefit is as playes tire, the game will open up a big and the backs can play proper RL.

The problem is that the game will open up through the centre behind the ruck and teams will just keep plugging away at the play the ball area. This would make the game go backwards.

Dominant tackle is a good idea but calling dominant and having that enforced are two seperate things.

On the subject of dominant tackles if a player tackles low one on one then they should get a dominant tackle call.

If the defence is made to wait longer to advance then good teams will head wide and play deeper, especially if the dummy half run as an attacking weapon is punished.