Subs - why they are bad for the game

who agrees that the number of subs (7) per game is bad ?

Ie.

1. Enables richer teams and bigger playing countries to dominate by having larger pool of players
2. Allows players to become specialist in half a game or less. Ie american football. brawn over athleticism .
3. slows the game down
4. breaks up the continuity
5. increasing being used as a defensive tactic to super sub front rows when under 5m scrum line pressure.


Shouldn't this be for blood replacements and real injuries only ?

Discuss ?

This is a very good discussion.

Its not a bad point except how do you account for "real injuries".

Will we see fakers?

alive555 wrote:who agrees that the number of subs (7) per game is bad ?

Ie.

1. Enables richer teams and bigger playing countries to dominate by having larger pool of players
2. Allows players to become specialist in half a game or less. Ie american football. brawn over athleticism .
3. slows the game down
4. breaks up the continuity
5. increasing being used as a defensive tactic to super sub front rows when under 5m scrum line pressure.


Shouldn't this be for blood replacements and real injuries only ?

Discuss ?

Its a good topic for discussion, Alive555.

1. I don't mind that.
2. I hate seeing that. Its going to mean more bigger, unfit players coming on and thats too close to American football for comfort. I believe Super rugby don't want 8 subs mainly because of this reason.
3 + 4. Subs don't slow the game down too much but if it does start to happen maybe there should be a rule where you have a maximum of 6 sub windows. That would complicate things a bit though.
5. I don't really mind that either. My main concern would be bigger, less mobile players coming into the game and slowing it down as well as forcing other teams to pick bigger players.

1. Enables richer teams and bigger playing countries to dominate by having larger pool of players

To be honest the richer club would still have larger squad, but just more rested, and probably rotated more often. A poorer team would have to play against a better side for a full 80 mins, as opposed to being able to pull a knacked player off and putting some fresh legs on to deal with the better quality opposition.

2. Allows players to become specialist in half a game or less. Ie american football. brawn over athleticism .

I can see that being a bit of an issue. At the moment is does seem that teams will either start with a lump of a prop or have one on the bench, whereas a few seasons ago, before the 23 man squad, the front row were starting to look slimmed down and more like back rowers. Now it does seem that teams have a fat lump front row and a convereted back-row front row, horses for courses and all that.

3. slows the game down

I am not too sure about that, sometimes a change at fly/scrum half totally changes the pace of the game and the ball is flung around more and the game opens up more.

4. breaks up the continuity

Defensive patters can end up falling apart, but this is at the cost ofhte side making the subs, so I guess it is to the advantage of the opposition, in which case it leasds to a more open exciting game (unless its the Scarlets that are doing it).

5. increasing being used as a defensive tactic to super sub front rows when under 5m scrum line pressure.

Like I said before there has been a shift to having some lumps that scrummage and that is it, however, once they are on the pitch that is it, so I guess that is the teams decision to go for pack power and lose out on open play skills, which a good opposition side would turn to their advantage.

1. Enables richer teams and bigger playing countries to dominate by having larger pool of players
Overall squad size is the true determining factor here, not the size of the bench. The real advantage of richer teams is that they should allow for players to be rested altogether from fixtures.

2. Allows players to become specialist in half a game or less. Ie american football. brawn over athleticism .
Until you can specialise in solely restarts, defence or offence, there isn't much of a risk here. Mind you, you only have to watch old games to see how often there was a lineout/scrum/restart to a game. Even in the good old days there was a lot of stop start.

3. slows the game down
It does partly, but then subs tend to come on as a penalty is awarded, a score has occurred, a lineout has been awarded, a knock-on has occurred. So the substitution itself doesn't add a crazy time onto any of these events, you don't see the 60 seconds to stroll from the field that you would in wendyball.

4. breaks up the continuity
Definitely, the biggest risk of substitutions is that it breaks the focus and fluidity and cohesiveness of a team. However, getting players to try and play at ultimate intensity for 80 minutes, creates fatigue which leads to mistakes, knockons and stoppages, so there is a double edged sword there.

5. increasing being used as a defensive tactic to super sub front rows when under 5m scrum line pressure.
But it can only be done twice, no matter whether it is 7-8-9 substitutions that would be allowed, because your replacement winger, scrumhalf, secondrow, flanker can't usually scrummage in the frontrow (usually). If the sub is a better scrummager than the starter, then surely he should be starting. If the sub didn't start that means that by him coming on, there is some other attribute on the sub which isn't as good as the starter and that presents an opportunity to the opposition to exploit.

I do understand where you are coming from on this, but I'd suggest a little tweak on the scrum substitutions that props can't come in where it is going to be a scrum restart (be it knockon, or an elected scrum from a penalty) unless enforced by the defending team needing to bring on a prop in exchange for another player in order to have the required number of front row position players on the field in order for the scrum to be allowed to be contested.

I cringe whenever a team replace their loosehead right before a scrum in the 2nd half and it comes out he destroys the tired tighthead in front of him.

Is it fair play? not at all and i wouldn't be proud or anything if the team i support do this.

One thing I like about subs is it increases the number of tactical options the coach has. It rewards tactical acumen and gives the astute coach the ability to change the pattern of a game.

I do feel we would need replacements regardless given the high injury rate we see in the modern game. Stags point is a good one- we will have replacements given the risk of injury, so how do you confirm injuries are genuine? Obviously faking injuries has already been a problem in the front row leading to a change in the laws about front row replacements and uncontested scrums.

Can the genie be put back in the bottle?