Standardise bench positions!

[The Observer]

In Rugby League, we have a system of naming positions from fullback all the way up which which everyone understands, and a numbering system of 1-13 where each number represents a position. 1 is fullback, 2 is wing, that goes up to 7, the halfback. In the forwards, 8 is prop, and this goes through to 13 which is lock.

The system for naming players on the interchange bench is a mess. It should be cleaned up to make it easier for fans, officials and the media to tell who is playing where. Players are put on the bench in random order, all the clubs do it differently to each other. When a team is named in order 1-17, and the number 1 walk out onto the field for any club, there's a strong chance he'll play fullback. When the 14 runs out, it could be a prop, centre or a dummy half. Who knows? Nobody wants a system like basketball or gridiron where the numbers don't mean anything.

We need a system for the bench where the players are named in sequence, where the position corresponds to a playing position AND the number corresponds to that playing position. Rugby Union does it - they have
16 - reserve hooker,
17 - reserve prop (covers loosehead prop and tighthead prop),
18 - reserve lock (covers left and right lock),
19 - reserve back row (covers blindside flanker, openside flanker and number 8)
20 - reserve scrum half
21 - reserve inside back (often covers fly half and inside centre)
22 - reserve outside back (cover the centres, wing, maybe fullback)

RL could use the following system
14 - reserve prop
15 - reserve forward or "tight forward" (RU name for position 1-5 calls (covers prop and second row)
16 - reserve utility (covers dummy half and other positions)
17 - reserve back/back row

 

[The Observer]

WHY THIS SYSTEM?
1) every bench always has a guy that's going to come on to play prop.
2) There is almost always another 'tight' forward, whether that player is another specialist prop, or cover the second row and prop.
3) there's nearly always a player that covers dummy half. From the benches named last week, they fit into two categories
a) the half/hooker, who cover the halves and dummy half - guys like PJ Marsh, Casey mcGuire, Shayne Dunley, Michael Sullivan.
b) the backrow/hooker. Guys like Leigh McWilliams, Alan Tongue, Glen Turner, Mark Minichiello fit this mould. There are starting players like Riddell and Betham who can fit this mould.
4) a player that can cover the backs. This might be
a) a player that can cover the centres and second rower like Jensen, Toopi, Mellor, Halatau.

We could name the bench front to back or back to front. I'd prefer going from prop because the interchange prop will almost always come onto the field first.

Now interchange players can drop out of a squad before kickoff after succumbing to injury, OR they may be rotated with players in the starting lineup, like Parra does. You'd name the players corresponding to the position on the bench: reserve prop, then reserve forward, then utility, then back/backrow.

Last week, Canberra named their bench in a order that was easy to follow.
14 Weyman (prop), 15 Hodgson (prop/second row), 16 Tongue (back row/dummy half), 17 - Gafa (outside backs, lock at a pinch). It may have changed later, but it was a start - if it held up, the punter could have picked where the players would play.

Nth Qld and Manly did it too, just the opposite way, from back to front.
14 - Jensen (covers outside backs and back row)
15 - McWilliams (covers dummy half and back row)
16 - Luck (covers second row and prop)
17 - Tronc (prop)

 

[The Observer]

SO HOW WOULD THE NEW BENCHES LOOK?

Eels
WERE 14 Marsh, 15 Graham, 16 Peek, 17 Cannings
NOW 14 Cannings, 15 Peek, 16 Marsh, 17 Graham

Storm
WERE 14 Kaufusi, 15 Turner, 16 Cronk, 17 Donnelly
NOW 14 Donnelly, 15 Kaufusi, 16 Turner (covers back row/lock), 17 Cronk (reserve back - covers 1-7)

BRISBANE
WERE 14 Thaiday, 15 McGuire, 16 Mapp, 17 Carlaw
NOW 14 Thaiday, 15 Mapp, 16 McGuire, 17 Carlaw (covers back row, centre at a pinch) Carroll in the starting lineup provides the utility value of a centre/backrower

Warriors
WERE 14 Latu, 15 Te Mata, 16 Toopi, 17 Guttenbeil
NOW 14 Te Mata (reserve prop), 15 Guttenbeil (reserve forward - covers prop/second row), 16 Latu (utility - covers dummy half), 17 Toopi (reserve back - covers 3/4s and backrow)

SOUTHS
WERE Minichiello, Faalogo, Rigon, Young
NOW 14 Faalogo (reserve prop), 15 Minichiello (reserve forward - covers prop/second row for this game), 16 Young (utility - covers dummy half), 17 Rigon (reserve back - covers centres and backrow)

SHARKS
WERE Maiava, Mellor, Williams, Sullivan
NOW 14 Maiava, 15 Williams, 16 Sullivan (half/hooker), 17 Mellor (back/ backrow)

BULLDOGS
WERE Cutler, Czislowski, Myles, Brideson
14 Czislowski (prop), 15 Myles (reserve forward - covers prop/second row), 16 Brideson (utility - backrow, has played hooker in PL), 17 Cutler (reserve back, a winger)

ROOSTERS
WERE Flannery, Fa'aoso, Rose, Hannant
NOW 14 Rose (reserve prop), 15 Hannant (reserve forward - covers prop/second row), 16 Flannery (reserve utility - covers lock, 5/8), 17 Fa'aoso (reserve back - covers centre and lock)

MANLY
WERE Williamson, Dunley, Harris, Leuluai
NOW 14 Leuluai (prop), 15 Harris (second row/prop), 16 Dunley (halves/hooker), 17 Williamson (centres/backrow)

Wests
WERE Farah, Halatau, Harrison, Gibbs, Heighington
14 Gibbs (prop), 15 Harrison (second row/prop), 16 Farah (dummy half), 17 Halatau (centres/backrow), 18 Heighington (reserve prop)

When Gibbs dropped out with injury, Heighington came onto the bench. Instead of using the order 15-18, it should go 18, 15-17 to show Heighington's position as the bench prop.

Newcastle, Dragons, Penrith all named a bench full of big forwards. They should name their players to correspond approx to the system from big to small.

SO, what do people think? Would it help?

 

[slava]

nah. too complicated and not a big change, nor advantage.

 

[Bazal]

Not so sure it would be a good idea, or that it would work. Obviously you've thought a lot about it, so apologies for disagreeing, but I think the system works as is, and there could be problems with teams who name just props, or just back rowers, or 4 hookers should someone decide to do that.

 

[nqboy]

Or select their bench on merit - 17 being the last man picked, whatever his position. If you need to know what position a player wearing a particular number is likely to play, buy a program.

 

[Hurriflatch]

You should be able to have whoever you want on the bench it leaves gameplans open.

The ONLY change to the bench I would even consider bringing in is a allowance to bring in someone if an injury happens.

For instance.

5th min into the match your winger breaks his leg

before the match 3 props and a back rower were named on the bench.

you can replace one of the bench players with a winger and still have the 12/4 system.

Even that in all honesty I can't see really being accepted but that is as far as I'd go, if anything.

 

[Striker]

You should be able to have whoever you want on the bench it leaves gameplans open.

The ONLY change to the bench I would even consider bringing in is a allowance to bring in someone if an injury happens.

For instance.

5th min into the match your winger breaks his leg

before the match 3 props and a back rower were named on the bench.

you can replace one of the bench players with a winger and still have the 12/4 system.

Even that in all honesty I can't see really being accepted but that is as far as I'd go, if anything.

I can see what you are saying here. Like in Football(soccer) each team names 5 on the bench but can only make three subs. In league you could name 17-20 players but the first four reserves that take the field are the only ones then for the rest of the game that are allowed to participate.

I could see the advantage in that, as a coach may be able to slightly change his tactics to suit that particular match. Also they dont have to name 20 players they just have the option.

 

[League Freak™]

I see the general idea here...I like it, but at the same time I think it would eventually be phased out.

I think its just easier for teams to name 14-17. If this system was brought in it would take a while to catch on, you'd find that with someone like say Sonny Bill Williams, he might be named on the bench and numbered as a second rower but he might actuallly come onto the field as a center.


It would be good with guys that have one position....but in reality there are so many versatile bench players these days...I think the system wouldntn work how you intend it to work.

Its an interesting idea though. ;-)

 

[RICHO]

Who's going to dictate what position people are picked to play in? Could be some issues there.

For example, if Sullivan was named as the "reserve hooker/halfback" for the Sharks, and then came on and played as a winger, what could they do about it? Nothing really.

Numbers don't mean anything, apart from giving the referees, spectators and commentators something to identify players by.

 

[gaterooze]

Rubbish idea.

It removes some of the strategy and felxibility from the coaching game. Some teams have utility players in their run-on squad (e.g. Flannery or Abraham in the back row), so they can afford to use 4 big boppas on the bench if they're facing a very physical encounter.

Seriously, why would you want to borrow an idea from Rugby Yawnion :lol:

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Wouldn't work in League IMO. It's ok for Union because union players are specialised and almost invariably take the field in their intended positions, but League players often shift position when injuries or send-offs dictate. Second rowers will often play at centre, 5/8s at fullback, second rowers at prop, or halves at hooker. It kind of makes having set numbers a bit pointless. Also some teams occaisionally decide to run with four-forward benches which would screw things up a bit.

 

[Matt M]

I think its a bad idea. It wouldn't work at all either, what is to stop a coach naming for props and calling them utility players or whatever? You can't enforce it and there is no point to it.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

You should be able to have whoever you want on the bench it leaves gameplans open.

The ONLY change to the bench I would even consider bringing in is a allowance to bring in someone if an injury happens.

For instance.

5th min into the match your winger breaks his leg

before the match 3 props and a back rower were named on the bench.

you can replace one of the bench players with a winger and still have the 12/4 system.

Even that in all honesty I can't see really being accepted but that is as far as I'd go, if anything.

This I think is a good idea, it would help to reduce the significant disadvantage that an injury early in a game can inflict on a team, without really altering the way that the current interchange works too much. All they'd need to do would be to allow the 18th man to swap with an unused bench player if necessary.

 

[rugged]

They pretty much do that in RU.

 

[Special K]

how much time do you have on your hands :shock: !

 

[Fluffy]

Manly will play this week with King, lulu, willo and Harris - how does the system work then??

 

[j_tig]

not much point really. its only numbers!
however hurriflatch's idea sounds good, cant c it happening but

 

[Lego_Man]

Crap idea.

Well thought out, but still crap.

 

[gregstar]

Crap idea.

Well thought out, but still crap.

LOL!