We most go to 6 interchanges a game ASAP.Shocking stat.

[WAPAU]

I also agree with bunniesman and have been saying this since I joined the forum.

Needs to be a place for small quick blokes in the game.

This will also reduce the severity of the collisions which leads to less brain injury for players later in life.

 

[BunniesMan]

Why 6? Why not 8 ? Why not 7 ?

Can you show me the statistics that point to 6 being the optimal number of interchange to ratify that shocking stat ? You can't just pick 6 because its an even number and it's less than 10, this rule change would have the ability to completely change the make up of the game. There needs to be some research done in regards to its effects on the player physiologically and psychologically.

I'm not married to "6". Obviously if experts were brought and said the perfect number was 4 or 5 or 8, I'd be all for it.

There is a happy medium where fatigue becomes a factor in the 2nd half, but not to the point where EVERYONE is buggered and nothings happening. At whatever interchange # that happens, I'm for it.

 

[Mader45]

Best game i watched last season was the first 60 minutes of Souths vs St George. Coopers try saver was better then 100 lucky dip 5th tackle bomb tries.

 

[The_Savage_1]

i don't know this for a fact but it seems like we've had quite a few wet games so far, especially for this time of the year. wet games usually see points at a premium.

 

[BunniesMan]

There was plenty of wet games last year.

 

[AuDragon]

I'm fine with less interchange to allow the smaller blokes back in the game, although you see plenty of "big humans" play 80 mins nowadays.

The current average no. of points per game is not a problem at all imo. As someone already pointed out, lots of points generally mean crappy defense, case in point: Toyota Cup.

A 16-12 game can, and often will be much better quality than a 50-36 tryathon, case in point: LOL@5(c)uff$ (at least, they increase the average score per game)