Nigel Owens Calls for Fewer Substitutions

lostinwales wrote:Great idea in principle. In practice you still have the odd Billy V - huge and keeps going all day.

You also have to resolve what you are doing with front row players. I know we don't have so many scrums these days but asking props to be lighter and fitter and still withstand scrums is hard.

Noble-Surfer wrote:I don't think the current rate/ severity of injuries sustained by players can necessarily be (solely) attributed to each individual player's fitness.

2. The number of games played.

The number of games in a season is now much greater than it used to be. Combined with the greater physicality of the game, this means greater demand on players' bodies, both in increase of workload, and decrease of recovery time between games.

TightHEAD wrote:If player welfare is an issue then maybe scrap the Italy game this 6 nations and allow the players to have a rest.

Would anyone miss them?

tigertattie wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:If player welfare is an issue then maybe scrap the Italy game this 6 nations and allow the players to have a rest.

Would anyone miss them?

Scotland will. We don’t like getting the wooden spoon every year

tigertattie wrote:Sorry Nige but this is nonsense.

1. How would even an independant doctor know if a player genuinley had a sore knee or was simply saying he had a sore knee at 55 mins?

"is it sore when I bend it this way"
"arghhhhhh, yes it is"
"ok you better come off"

Any doctor worth his training would never over-rule a player saying they were injured or in pain. A doctor would never say that you cant come off because I think you are faking it. If there is even the slightest chance that there is a real injury there and playing on would make it worse, the Doctor is right in the doo doo.

2. Theres studies to say that players would continue to "bulk up" and hit harder even if they had to last 80 mins. The theory is that if you are bigger and stronger than your opponent then you will tire them out quicker making them try and stop you. You use your size to knacker your opponent before you knacker yourself.

What this can then lead to is huge big hulking players running around on an empty tank and they cant be subbed. Then the tired player makes a tired tackle and either hurts themself or thier opponent becuase they are too knackered to carry out an effective and safe tackle!

We also need to remember that rugby is brutal and you'd get to a stage where teams are trying to injur players knowing that some poor winger would need to play on with one leg because they can't be subbed off.

Old Man wrote:Others have also called for less subs, keeping 8 subs on the bench but only permittedto use half.

I think this whole idea stems from the 6/2 bench of the Boks during the RC.

Not wanting teams (Boks) to field two superior tight fives.

It seems Nigel and the others want to eliminate the tactical use of a bench.

The bench was increased to eight to improve players management initially, and to add the extra front rower.

Now under the guise of player safety this nonsense comes up.

Ridiculous

Old Man wrote:Others have also called for less subs, keeping 8 subs on the bench but only permittedto use half.

I think this whole idea stems from the 6/2 bench of the Boks during the RC.

Not wanting teams (Boks) to field two superior tight fives.

It seems Nigel and the others want to eliminate the tactical use of a bench.

The bench was increased to eight to improve players management initially, and to add the extra front rower.

Now under the guise of player safety this nonsense comes up.

Ridiculous

LondonTiger wrote:Something that different people say regularly.

profitius wrote:

Old Man wrote:Others have also called for less subs, keeping 8 subs on the bench but only permittedto use half.

I think this whole idea stems from the 6/2 bench of the Boks during the RC.

Not wanting teams (Boks) to field two superior tight fives.

It seems Nigel and the others want to eliminate the tactical use of a bench.

The bench was increased to eight to improve players management initially, and to add the extra front rower.

Now under the guise of player safety this nonsense comes up.

Ridiculous

We've been discussing it on here for years.


I think its ridiculous that teams can bring on almost a new fresh pack of forwards. It's not far off American football.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But as pointed put south africa havent pioneered this and the suggestion was around before the world cup.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But as pointed put south africa havent pioneered this and the suggestion was around before the world cup.

Yes, I agree it has been used before, however more people are now vocal about it.

Old Man wrote:Explain to me how the reducing the bench is going to affect the three compulsory front row players?

123456789. wrote:The complications come further down the line though. Say Ireland and Italy are both in with a shout of a grand slam on the fourth week of the Six Nations. Sixty minutes into the game, Ireland are 20 points up, home and hosed, an Italian back row smacks Sexton with a late cheap shot but they've already used their 3 substitutions. He could play on but at the risk of further injury causing him to miss the decider against France the following week. Does he qualify as injured?
I suppose you could say that it's the same in football and that they cope alright.

SecretFly wrote:I think in this age there is a bit of an addiction to complicating issues as it's in the added complexities that 'good stuff' gets discussed and debated.  
Just as 123 and others here allude to, can't we all guess the level of intrigue and downright debating fire-shows that would take place on sites such as this,and in the wider media world, on such decisions taken in games about who gets substituted and why.  A whole new anorak section for the eternally never-satisfied to go through with the fine tooth comb and video footage: 'Sexton was clearly injured, you can see he looks out of sorts in that shot at 33.52." - "Sexton was fine.  He was screaming at the ref just seconds before being subbed.  It's a scam!  Ireland are abusing the subs rules.  They weren't meant for this.  This means war!"

So....for some... a whole new delicious debating channel.  For others, more needless, boring wiffle waffle by habitual hot heads.

My solution therefore would be to simplify rather than to complicate.  Let's face it, what Nigel and others mean when they bring up this topic is a heavy suggestion that less BIG players should be allowed play.  So the topic already infers a bias against BIG men - in the interests of safety and 'the game'.  There may be an obvious there after such pronouncements, but that's the basic premise.

So, rather than being messy about numbers on a subs bench verses numbers that can be used from a bench divided by genuine injury etc etc....; why no just have a specified, allowed, sanctioned combined maximum weight per 23.  
Such a common weight restriction would be averaged out to ensure no one team could have a continuing sequence of Massive men either on the field at one time or taking to the field later as subs.  And if a certain team insisted on keeping Big men on the field, they'd be forced to choose more diminutive players elsewhere to keep within team weight restrictions.
That means there would be no avenue for debate about subs used and why. Teams would be free to use their subs any way they like within the current rules.  But for every extra BIG man they wanted, they'd have to choose less meaty players who themselves would then be at risk of being roughed up by the opposition's BIG men.  Equatable Balance throughout teams would I feel be the inevitable consequence.
Certain players might be sacrificed to the new restrictions - but as I already say, that's basically the debate anyway, to lessen the numbers of BIG players playing the game.

Rugby Fan wrote:Post-Christmas fixtures might see some radical squad restructuring if there was a weight limit.

Bill Beaumont, the World Rugby chairman, is backing the introduction of a trial law that would mean a return to replacements being used only for cover for injured players, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

The move is designed to improve player welfare by potentially reducing the intensity and impact of the physical collisions in the professional game.

Beaumont, who has announced his intention to stand for another four years as chairman, is concerned that the use of eight replacements for tactical reasons has turned the game into one increasingly dominated by “big people... and big hits”.

Beaumont, the former Rugby Football Union chairman who captained England to the 1980 Grand Slam, is keen to protect the game’s tradition of being a “game for all shapes and sizes” and is supporting a review of the use of replacements in conjunction with medical evidence.

Beaumont believes a return to the pre-1996 law, when replacements could be used only for verified injuries, could lead to a change in the body shape of professional players, create more space for attacking rugby and reduce the number of tackles, which is the cause of 50 per cent of injuries.

“I do worry that it has become a game for big people,” Beaumont said. “You have got players who only play for 50 minutes because of the use of substitutes. In the old days, in the last 20 minutes of the game it opened up because fatigue came into it. But fatigue doesn’t come into it now because teams just make wholesale changes.

“In the game between Northampton Saints and London Irish on Friday night, both sides just changed their props simultaneously. It is more about whose bench is more impactful.

“We need to look at it – not in a smoke-filled room, but do it in a proper trial and make sure that medical and player welfare is paramount. I just wonder if it would take the big hits out of the game.

“I do find it slightly disturbing at matches I go to when there is a bigger cheer when somebody gets cleaned out in a tackle than when someone scores a brilliant try. That is not the game of rugby that I was brought up to play in.

“It is an idea and we need to look at it in a controlled manner as opposed to an emotional one or someone writing on the back of a fag packet. You can only do it by trialling it and doing so at a top level, in conjunction with the medics.

“Player welfare is paramount and if you are injured, the player should come off. But do you look at saying, ‘Do we need a different shape of player?’

“We have to ensure we don’t become ‘reckless’ in what we do. We have to make the game as safe as we can and so players, whether it is in the community game or professional game, have longer careers and can enjoy the game.”

Beaumont, 67, said his decision to stand for another four years was based on support and his eagerness to implement “controlled and progressive” change to ensure that the sport continued to grow and meet global challenges. He has confirmed he is standing with French federation president Bernard Laporte as his candidate for vice-chairman.

It is not yet clear if Agustin Pichot, Beaumont’s vice-chairman for the past four years, is to stand against him at the elections at the World Rugby council in May.

Beaumont pledged to introduce a number of reforms as part of his manifesto, including a governance review for World Rugby to “sharpen it up”, with the idea of appointing two vice-chairmen to represent the northern and southern hemispheres and better representation of the game, increased funding for tier-two competitions and more meaningful matches for those countries outside of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship.

“I would be looking at significant increases in funding into the regional competitions,” Beaumont said. “If you look at Canada, a few players in Japan were playing in their third World Cup and only had around 16 caps. That is not right.

“So we have to look at the windows when they play, their availability and make sure they get more meaningful fixtures played at times when they can get their best players available, so you have the best against the best.”

He accepts that World Rugby has “learnt lessons” after having to abandon its plans for a Nations Championship last year, but insists dialogue will continue with all stakeholders about introducing a competition structure to the autumn Test matches, for tier-one and tier-two countries.

“There is a huge world out there that doesn’t play in the Six Nations or the Rugby Championship and we only see at a World Cup,” Beaumont said.

“At World Rugby, we need to look to see if by the 2027 World Cup we have 24 teams that are capable of competing. Fiji and Japan have already qualified for France in 2023 and what we have to do is look at funding so we can put money into regional competitions. The more teams that we have competitive, the more it is a global game and more attractive for people to play.”

Beaumont has also called for greater transparency about the future of the professional game, following the investment by private equity firm CVC in Premiership Rugby, Pro 14 and negotiations with the Six Nations.

“I think it is in everyone’s interests that there is openness and transparency,” he said. “Ten years ago, this [private equity investment] wouldn’t have happened, but the game is evolving and I think it is important that World Rugby are at the front of the change.

“We have to look at the global game because if we don’t have a global game, eventually there are global sports who are out there who will move into our markets.”