Boks "Bomb squad" in doubt as ex-players target substitutes - again

[Grandpa]

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Are there more scrums and lineouts in todays game than say the seventies and eighties. Attacking rugby is stifled more by the rise of the defensive analyst and the conditioning of players. Modern defensive patterns mean counter attacking from kick ball and turnovers is the only time you'll really see attractive running rugby.

It's a fallacy that rugby has always been this game of exciting running. Only one team has been able to do that consistently and that is the All Blacks. France and Australia have had their moments but not year in year out like NZ. The rest of us play to our strengths and do what we can to win.

For what its worth I think that the players that South Africa is producing now are even better suited to an expansive game. Guys like Mapimpi, Fassi and Kolbe are electric. Our most improved player is Lukhanyo Am who at a push could still be playing at the 2027 world cup. These guys have been as influential in the Boks success as the big boys up front.

I agree... at least the All Blacks are proof you can play that way and still be reasonably successful.

Success shouldn't mean low risk, conservative rugby only... that's what we want the next generation to believe anyway...

I also agree the Boks have so much talent under-utilised...

[Tichtheid]

It's a fallacy that rugby has always been this game of exciting running. Only one team has been able to do that consistently and that is the All Blacks. France and Australia have had their moments but not year in year out like NZ. The rest of us play to our strengths and do what we can to win.

I'm not sure that's true, I remember the headline because it was kind of clever, after the ABs won the first world cup the headline in the paper the next day was "Captain Kirk's New Zealand lack enterprise" - bemoaning the ten man game they played.

In the pro era I'd agree that NZ have endeavoured to play faster and with better basic skills than anyone else.

It's interesting that the flaws people are finding in the suggestion are the ways the new laws could be manipulated or "cheated" - ie pretending players are injured etc.

Coaches are entirely to blame for the fact scrums are a series of shit resets and that refs allow for feeding into the second row, the players and coaches have to take responsibility for making the game not just about milking penalties.
One of the reasons for the suggestions is that referees do not always enforce the hits going in at rucks, I know proper rucking will never come back, but there is a problem with 120+kg players flying like a torpedo into a static player, even if they do attempt to wrap an arm as they hit.

[FalseBayFC]

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Teams would just have to adapt. Props that are expected to go the full 80 would naturally become smaller, fitter and more mobile. Which would also lead to less bone-melting collisions.

I disagree. You're just as likely to get concussed tackling a 98kg centre running at 23 km/h as you are tackling Frans Malherbe running at you at 9km/h. The best international props of the pro era have been around 120kg max. The 140kg + monsters like Tameifuna, Uini Antonio etc tend to end up in France and only exist because of the tactical sub laws. They almost never succeed as regular players at international level.

I don't think that reducing a props average weight from say 120kg to 110kg will reduce the force of collisions at all. They'll just get faster and have more momentum.

[assfly]

I disagree. You're just as likely to get concussed tackling a 98kg centre running at 23 km/h as you are tackling Frans Malherbe running at you at 9km/h. The best international props of the pro era have been around 120kg max. The 140kg + monsters like Tameifuna, Uini Antonio etc tend to end up in France and only exist because of the tactical sub laws. They almost never succeed as regular players at international level.

I don't think that reducing a props average weight from say 120kg to 110kg will reduce the force of collisions at all. They'll just get faster and have more momentum.

They may get faster, but if there is no sub for them then they will also slow down in the second half.

I'm not advocating a smaller bench to reduce injuries, I'm advocating it to make players more tired. Players will get injured either way, that's the nature of the game. But I think a side result of players getting more tired may be less collision injuries.

[Grandpa]

It's a fallacy that rugby has always been this game of exciting running. Only one team has been able to do that consistently and that is the All Blacks. France and Australia have had their moments but not year in year out like NZ. The rest of us play to our strengths and do what we can to win.

I'm not sure that's true, I remember the headline because it was kind of clever, after the ABs won the first world cup the headline in the paper the next day was "Captain Kirk's New Zealand lack enterprise" - bemoaning the ten man game they played.

In the pro era I'd agree that NZ have endeavoured to play faster and with better basic skills than anyone else.

Did you not watch the 1987 World Cup? The All Blacks played pretty exciting rugby for the time throughout the tournament.. John Gallagher and John Kirwan were the stars...

NZ changed after the 74 Lions tour...

[Grandpa]

I disagree. You're just as likely to get concussed tackling a 98kg centre running at 23 km/h as you are tackling Frans Malherbe running at you at 9km/h. The best international props of the pro era have been around 120kg max. The 140kg + monsters like Tameifuna, Uini Antonio etc tend to end up in France and only exist because of the tactical sub laws. They almost never succeed as regular players at international level.

I don't think that reducing a props average weight from say 120kg to 110kg will reduce the force of collisions at all. They'll just get faster and have more momentum.

They may get faster, but if there is no sub for them then they will also slow down in the second half.

I'm not advocating a smaller bench to reduce injuries, I'm advocating it to make players more tired. Players will get injured either way, that's the nature of the game. But I think a side result of players getting more tired may be less collision injuries.

I agree. Be interesting to see what the studies show...

[Slick]

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

There is a balance that has been lost.

9-6 games can be brilliant just as the old Super Rugby games that ended 87-63 I found really dull

I agree... 9-6 can be brilliant... but not if it is stop start unambitious low risk dementia inducing rugby...

Let's encourage a bit of ambition...

Balance is good...

Yup, agree

[FalseBayFC]

If you want to reduce stoppage time and promote continuity then make the breakdown more competitive. Penalties are the ultimate game killer. They often result in a kick to corner and lineout maul for try, kick for posts, kick for position and ensuing lineout. Also encourages smaller loose forwards who are quicker to the breakdown. Turnover ball is great for attack. Defenders out of place and Christian Cullen, Shane Williams types become a more valuable asset in your back 3.

[inactionman]

I'd have thought speeding up set pieces would also be a useful thing to look at - get the fatties having to at least jog to lineouts and scrums, and not to have a cup of tea and biscuits whilst the tight 5 slowly assemble.

IT's bene said so many times, but looking back at games from even the 90s shows just how quick the scrums are - gather, bind, ball in out and away in a matter of seconds. Have a timer for when the ref blows whistle and when the front rows are ready to engage?

Again, I'm sure there will be tactical injuries, but it's another way of getting the whole game to be anaerobic rather than a test of static strength.

[Grandpa]

If you want to reduce stoppage time and promote continuity then make the breakdown more competitive. Penalties are the ultimate game killer. They often result in a kick to corner and lineout maul for try, kick for posts, kick for position and ensuing lineout. Also encourages smaller loose forwards who are quicker to the breakdown. Turnover ball is great for attack. Defenders out of place and Christian Cullen, Shane Williams types become a more valuable asset in your back 3.

If refs enforced players staying on their feet... especially the attacking side... it would help make it more of a contest... though if it becomes too much a of a contest it can stop teams being ambitious, they keep it in close near support so they are less likely to lose turnover ball..

So how do you make rucks more contestable without dampening ambition?

[inactionman]

If you want to reduce stoppage time and promote continuity then make the breakdown more competitive. Penalties are the ultimate game killer. They often result in a kick to corner and lineout maul for try, kick for posts, kick for position and ensuing lineout. Also encourages smaller loose forwards who are quicker to the breakdown. Turnover ball is great for attack. Defenders out of place and Christian Cullen, Shane Williams types become a more valuable asset in your back 3.

Absolutely.

I think the use of penalties in the round needs some rethinking - tedious, arcane scrum penalties for just getting bested, and (to your point) dubious, interpretive penalties for simply trying to compete at breakdown.

I'm wondering if we need to adjust some offences from penalties to free kicks, and keep penalties for the more cynical. It's a bit weird to just offer a shot at 3 points or a lineout drive because one prop managed to get a good hit on another.

[Grandpa]

I'd have thought speeding up set pieces would also be a useful thing to look at - get the fatties having to at least jog to lineouts and scrums, and not to have a cup of tea and biscuits whilst the tight 5 slowly assemble.

IT's bene said so many times, but looking back at games from even the 90s shows just how quick the scrums are - gather, bind, ball in out and away in a matter of seconds. Have a timer for when the ref blows whistle and when the front rows are ready to engage?

Again, I'm sure there will be tactical injuries, but it's another way of getting the whole game to be anaerobic rather than a test of static strength.

Bring back rucking!

And teams must be ready to scrum in 5 seconds...

[Blake]

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Teams would just have to adapt. Props that are expected to go the full 80 would naturally become smaller, fitter and more mobile. Which would also lead to less bone-melting collisions.

But possibly worse scrums, with more resets and maybe horrific injuries.

Every change has a consequence and it's difficult to predict what they will be. Which is why I am glad the study is being done. At least find out if the premise (that subs are allowing players to get bigger and more powerful while not having to play the full 80 mins is actually causing players to get injured) is true, before making changes that will have other unforeseen outcomes.

[Blake]

I'd have thought speeding up set pieces would also be a useful thing to look at - get the fatties having to at least jog to lineouts and scrums, and not to have a cup of tea and biscuits whilst the tight 5 slowly assemble.

IT's bene said so many times, but looking back at games from even the 90s shows just how quick the scrums are - gather, bind, ball in out and away in a matter of seconds. Have a timer for when the ref blows whistle and when the front rows are ready to engage?

Again, I'm sure there will be tactical injuries, but it's another way of getting the whole game to be anaerobic rather than a test of static strength.

Agree 100% on this.

Need to find a way to speed things up rather. 45 seconds for a scrum / lineout setup. Team that's late gets a free kick against them. Injured player has X seconds or needs to be subbed. Same player goes down 2-3 times, forced sub. Stuff like that should be trialed.

[sockwithaticket]

If you want to reduce stoppage time and promote continuity then make the breakdown more competitive. Penalties are the ultimate game killer. They often result in a kick to corner and lineout maul for try, kick for posts, kick for position and ensuing lineout. Also encourages smaller loose forwards who are quicker to the breakdown. Turnover ball is great for attack. Defenders out of place and Christian Cullen, Shane Williams types become a more valuable asset in your back 3.

Absolutely.

I think the use of penalties in the round needs some rethinking - tedious, arcane scrum penalties for just getting bested, and (to your point) dubious, interpretive penalties for simply trying to compete at breakdown.

I'm wondering if we need to adjust some offences from penalties to free kicks, and keep penalties for the more cynical. It's a bit weird to just offer a shot at 3 points or a lineout drive because one prop managed to get a good hit on another.

I genuinely think the breakdown and it's endless stream of penalties could be largely sorted by enforcing the existing laws about players being on their feet and shoulders not dipping below hips.

[sockwithaticket]

I'd have thought speeding up set pieces would also be a useful thing to look at - get the fatties having to at least jog to lineouts and scrums, and not to have a cup of tea and biscuits whilst the tight 5 slowly assemble.

IT's bene said so many times, but looking back at games from even the 90s shows just how quick the scrums are - gather, bind, ball in out and away in a matter of seconds. Have a timer for when the ref blows whistle and when the front rows are ready to engage?

Again, I'm sure there will be tactical injuries, but it's another way of getting the whole game to be anaerobic rather than a test of static strength.

Agree 100% on this.

Need to find a way to speed things up rather. 45 seconds for a scrum / lineout setup. Team that's late gets a free kick against them. Injured player has X seconds or needs to be subbed. Same player goes down 2-3 times, forced sub. Stuff like that should be trialed.

Would be very much in favour of this. From the whistle being blown, you've got 20 seconds to set up for your scrum or lineout. Fail and you cede possession via free kick. If it's the team not in possession dicking around, then the team in possession gets a free kick. Can still be called as a scrum if they want so as to avoid teams getting pumped deliberately slowing things down so as to cede free kicks and avoid having to scrummage.

[Tichtheid]

One thing I'd like to see referees enforce (and this is not the only thing, the laws are actually pretty good when the refs enforce them) is that when a team gives away an penalty in the red zone the defending side decide that the damage is done and they can re-offend with impunity in order to stop a try being scored, the ref will go back to the original offence or offer a choice to take the penalty from the site of the new offence.

For me that should be an automatic yellow, no matter if it's the first five minutes and without warnings from the ref.

[Grandpa]

Absolutely.

I think the use of penalties in the round needs some rethinking - tedious, arcane scrum penalties for just getting bested, and (to your point) dubious, interpretive penalties for simply trying to compete at breakdown.

I'm wondering if we need to adjust some offences from penalties to free kicks, and keep penalties for the more cynical. It's a bit weird to just offer a shot at 3 points or a lineout drive because one prop managed to get a good hit on another.

The scrum has become a game within a game... it never used to be this way... I swear some teams would be happy if one scrum lasted for 80 minutes...

Maybe have a new sport called Scrum... a 16 man game with no ball...

[Niegs]

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Teams would just have to adapt. Props that are expected to go the full 80 would naturally become smaller, fitter and more mobile. Which would also lead to less bone-melting collisions.

There are already massive blokes, the South Africans mentioned, and heaps of Fijian and Polynesian lads who can do a full 80. I’d argue those types, rather than front rowers, are putting in the biggest hits.

Some would be bit smaller and fitter, but I suspect a lot now would be able to do 80 mins if forced. I suspect changes are mostly made now to get fresh legs on, not because the guy is knackered and can’t go on.

[inactionman]

INteresting new rule in RL for 2021 (Taken from the world-renowned St Helens Star newspaper - https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/19 ... will-work/

3. Lateral position of scrums

Where play is recommenced by a scrum, both teams must be properly bound and packed within 30 seconds from the time the Referee has verbally indicated that the “scrum clock” has started.

The team with the loose head and feed may elect, within 5 seconds of the Referee verbally indicating that the scrum clock has started, to move the scrum to: (a) 10m in from touch (b) 20m in from touch (c) Centre field Each team must nominate two players on the team sheet prior to the match as able to inform the referee where the scrum should be set.

Not quite sure what the second clause is about? Might be to help open the game out a bit.

[Grandpa]

One thing I'd like to see referees enforce (and this is not the only thing, the laws are actually pretty good when the refs enforce them) is that when a team gives away an penalty in the red zone the defending side decide that the damage is done and they can re-offend with impunity in order to stop a try being scored, the ref will go back to the original offence or offer a choice to take the penalty from the site of the new offence.

For me that should be an automatic yellow, no matter if it's the first five minutes and without warnings from the ref.

I agree.. a glaring loophole...

[Tichtheid]

Absolutely.

I think the use of penalties in the round needs some rethinking - tedious, arcane scrum penalties for just getting bested, and (to your point) dubious, interpretive penalties for simply trying to compete at breakdown.

I'm wondering if we need to adjust some offences from penalties to free kicks, and keep penalties for the more cynical. It's a bit weird to just offer a shot at 3 points or a lineout drive because one prop managed to get a good hit on another.

The scrum has become a game within a game... it never used to be this way... I swear some teams would be happy if one scrum lasted for 80 minutes...

Maybe have a new sport called Scrum... a 16 man game with no ball...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... d-43168465

[inactionman]

One thing I'd like to see referees enforce (and this is not the only thing, the laws are actually pretty good when the refs enforce them) is that when a team gives away an penalty in the red zone the defending side decide that the damage is done and they can re-offend with impunity in order to stop a try being scored, the ref will go back to the original offence or offer a choice to take the penalty from the site of the new offence.

For me that should be an automatic yellow, no matter if it's the first five minutes and without warnings from the ref.

Agreed - I'll admit to being quite impressed by the way the All Blacks in particular would just kill an advantage through committing an immediate game-stopping second infringement to avoid the 'double jeopardy' of advantage, whilst being simultaneously disappointed that the ref almost never called it out for what it was.

[Grandpa]

INteresting new rule in RL for 2021 (Taken from the world-renowned St Helens Star newspaper - https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/sport/19 ... will-work/

3. Lateral position of scrums

Where play is recommenced by a scrum, both teams must be properly bound and packed within 30 seconds from the time the Referee has verbally indicated that the “scrum clock” has started.

The team with the loose head and feed may elect, within 5 seconds of the Referee verbally indicating that the scrum clock has started, to move the scrum to: (a) 10m in from touch (b) 20m in from touch (c) Centre field Each team must nominate two players on the team sheet prior to the match as able to inform the referee where the scrum should be set.

Not quite sure what the second clause is about? Might be to help open the game out a bit.

I'm guessing if no blindside due to scrum being called close to touchline?

But first paragraph should be used in Union!

[Grandpa]

Absolutely.

I think the use of penalties in the round needs some rethinking - tedious, arcane scrum penalties for just getting bested, and (to your point) dubious, interpretive penalties for simply trying to compete at breakdown.

I'm wondering if we need to adjust some offences from penalties to free kicks, and keep penalties for the more cynical. It's a bit weird to just offer a shot at 3 points or a lineout drive because one prop managed to get a good hit on another.

The scrum has become a game within a game... it never used to be this way... I swear some teams would be happy if one scrum lasted for 80 minutes...

Maybe have a new sport called Scrum... a 16 man game with no ball...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... d-43168465

Brilliant

[Niegs]

Has anyone seen the proposed method(s) for this study? Any of us could say that players are bigger since non-injury subs were allowed, but no way that’s causation.

A study would have to examine a whole season or even seasons where teams are limited in their subs. How does the game change as a result? More tries from open play? Fewer injuries from collisions? More injuries to tired players late in the game? More matches where teams run out of subs / have depowered scrums?

[Grandpa]

Has anyone seen the proposed method(s) for this study? Any of us could say that players are bigger since non-injury subs were allowed, but no way that’s causation.

A study would have to examine a whole season or even seasons where teams are limited in their subs. How does the game change as a result? More tries from open play? Fewer injuries from collisions? More injuries to tired players late in the game? More matches where teams run out of subs / have depowered scrums?

See if you can find it? I have done a search on Rugby Injuries, but maybe nothing has been published yet? But they do a lot of work around rugby injuries generally...

https://www.bath.ac.uk/search/?query=ru ... art_rank=1

[FalseBayFC]

Has anyone seen the proposed method(s) for this study? Any of us could say that players are bigger since non-injury subs were allowed, but no way that’s causation.

A study would have to examine a whole season or even seasons where teams are limited in their subs. How does the game change as a result? More tries from open play? Fewer injuries from collisions? More injuries to tired players late in the game? More matches where teams run out of subs / have depowered scrums?

Yes some actual hard evidence would help. From my own observations it strikes me that we're seeing fewer HIA's in our local domestic game. We do have some weak defence issues though. I'd love to see if the head contact laws are bearing any fruit. I think this is one law that's going to result in a game with more passing and running. The lower the tackling the more chances of offloads in contact. So called dominant tackles which seek to dislodge or tie up the ball very often result in penalties and scrums.

[Biffer]

The fundamental here is that there are some positions where you're no longer conditioned to play 80 minutes. That means that those players can be bigger and heavier, and that's where the idea comes from, in the belief that bigger, heavier players will cause more impact injuries.

I understand entirely where they're coming from. Difficult one to resolve though. I'd like to find a way that all players should expect to play 80 minutes. We all could point at professional players who would barely be able to do it.

As an aside, the whole eight man bench thing has led a lot of rugby clubs to put few sides out each week as they would need, for example, 3 lots of 23 players instead of 3 lots of 15 like they did in the past.

[inactionman]

The fundamental here is that there are some positions where you're no longer conditioned to play 80 minutes. That means that those players can be bigger and heavier, and that's where the idea comes from, in the belief that bigger, heavier players will cause more impact injuries.

I understand entirely where they're coming from. Difficult one to resolve though. I'd like to find a way that all players should expect to play 80 minutes. We all could point at professional players who would barely be able to do it.

As an aside, the whole eight man bench thing has led a lot of rugby clubs to put few sides out each week as they would need, for example, 3 lots of 23 players instead of 3 lots of 15 like they did in the past.

It's also the case that fresh players are brought on with only 30 minutes to play, and they can go balls-out against tired opposition - not just that they're not 80-minutes-fit. It's a mismatch and where I'd see the greatest risk of injury - tired players getting in the wrong position for a tackle against a spritely opposite number, for example, which I understand to be one of the main causes of concussion.

<facetious face on> Maybe insist subs in the pro game get on the crosstrainer from kickoff, so they're a bit knackered when they're brought on?

[Big D]

Well, drop the size of the bench would be a simpler way.

3 forwards 2 backs.

Keep 8 subs but only allowed to use 3 and it keeps replacements available if players need HIA's.

We absolutely can't be in a position where concussed players are kept on because of a limitation on subs IMO.

[sockwithaticket]

The fundamental here is that there are some positions where you're no longer conditioned to play 80 minutes. That means that those players can be bigger and heavier, and that's where the idea comes from, in the belief that bigger, heavier players will cause more impact injuries.

I understand entirely where they're coming from. Difficult one to resolve though. I'd like to find a way that all players should expect to play 80 minutes. We all could point at professional players who would barely be able to do it.

As an aside, the whole eight man bench thing has led a lot of rugby clubs to put few sides out each week as they would need, for example, 3 lots of 23 players instead of 3 lots of 15 like they did in the past.

It's also the case that fresh players are brought on with only 30 minutes to play, and they can go balls-out against tired opposition - not just that they're not 80-minutes-fit. It's a mismatch and where I'd see the greatest risk of injury - tired players getting in the wrong position for a tackle against a spritely opposite number, for example, which I understand to be one of the main causes of concussion.

<facetious face on> Maybe insist subs in the pro game get on the crosstrainer from kickoff, so they're a bit knackered when they're brought on?

I'm sure plenty of them would rather do that than the post-game fitness sessions subs with too few minutes and squad players who didn't play have to go through!

[inactionman]

The fundamental here is that there are some positions where you're no longer conditioned to play 80 minutes. That means that those players can be bigger and heavier, and that's where the idea comes from, in the belief that bigger, heavier players will cause more impact injuries.

I understand entirely where they're coming from. Difficult one to resolve though. I'd like to find a way that all players should expect to play 80 minutes. We all could point at professional players who would barely be able to do it.

As an aside, the whole eight man bench thing has led a lot of rugby clubs to put few sides out each week as they would need, for example, 3 lots of 23 players instead of 3 lots of 15 like they did in the past.

It's also the case that fresh players are brought on with only 30 minutes to play, and they can go balls-out against tired opposition - not just that they're not 80-minutes-fit. It's a mismatch and where I'd see the greatest risk of injury - tired players getting in the wrong position for a tackle against a spritely opposite number, for example, which I understand to be one of the main causes of concussion.

<facetious face on> Maybe insist subs in the pro game get on the crosstrainer from kickoff, so they're a bit knackered when they're brought on?

I'm sure plenty of them would rather do that than the post-game fitness sessions subs with too few minutes and squad players who didn't play have to go through!

The pressup and shuttle drills? Looked horrible, and not pleasant to be doing at 10:00pm on a freezing January night at the rec, especially when every other sod is in pub or in hot bath.

[sockwithaticket]

It's also the case that fresh players are brought on with only 30 minutes to play, and they can go balls-out against tired opposition - not just that they're not 80-minutes-fit. It's a mismatch and where I'd see the greatest risk of injury - tired players getting in the wrong position for a tackle against a spritely opposite number, for example, which I understand to be one of the main causes of concussion.

<facetious face on> Maybe insist subs in the pro game get on the crosstrainer from kickoff, so they're a bit knackered when they're brought on?

I'm sure plenty of them would rather do that than the post-game fitness sessions subs with too few minutes and squad players who didn't play have to go through!

The pressup and shuttle drills? Looked horrible, and not pleasant to be doing at 10:00pm on a freezing January night at the rec, especially when every other sod is in pub or in hot bath.

That's it. I think it was Danny Care on the Beeb podcast I heard saying, not entirely facetiously, that avoiding those is part of the motivation to keep playing well enough to start.

[Sards]

Oh dear. That's just silly trying to tamper with reducing Substitutes.
What it does emphasize is the importance of good depth

[Tichtheid]

Oh dear. That's just silly trying to tamper with reducing Substitutes.
What it does emphasize is the importance of good depth

To my mind that is a very good reason for changing things up as the depth issue hampers Tier 2 sides.

[Slick]

Oh dear. That's just silly trying to tamper with reducing Substitutes.
What it does emphasize is the importance of good depth

To my mind that is a very good reason for changing things up as the depth issue hampers Tier 2 sides.

Yup, and the amateur game

[Sards]

Oh dear. That's just silly trying to tamper with reducing Substitutes.
What it does emphasize is the importance of good depth

To my mind that is a very good reason for changing things up as the depth issue hampers Tier 2 sides.

Yup, and the amateur game

The amateur game is long dead. School kids are targeted nowadays.

Tier 2 sides must change their thinking and look for ways to compete. You do not take the lowest common demoninator to set your standards.

[Blake]

The fundamental here is that there are some positions where you're no longer conditioned to play 80 minutes. That means that those players can be bigger and heavier, and that's where the idea comes from, in the belief that bigger, heavier players will cause more impact injuries.

I understand entirely where they're coming from. Difficult one to resolve though. I'd like to find a way that all players should expect to play 80 minutes. We all could point at professional players who would barely be able to do it.

As an aside, the whole eight man bench thing has led a lot of rugby clubs to put few sides out each week as they would need, for example, 3 lots of 23 players instead of 3 lots of 15 like they did in the past.

It's also the case that fresh players are brought on with only 30 minutes to play, and they can go balls-out against tired opposition - not just that they're not 80-minutes-fit. It's a mismatch and where I'd see the greatest risk of injury - tired players getting in the wrong position for a tackle against a spritely opposite number, for example, which I understand to be one of the main causes of concussion.

It seems intuitive, sure, but I'd like to see some data on this. I still maintain that most injuries occur in the first 30-40mins on the field currently, and I'm also not convinced that most head-injuries happen when fresh players injure tired players. More often it is the other way around, when fresh players come on, and get injured in that first 30-40min on the field window; but again, this is anecdotal. I'm sure Bath university will have access to actual data on this.

When you look at the Bok squad, it's pretty much only a couple of props that will struggle to get through a full 80. The rest of the team and a prop like Kitshoff could easily manage it if needed and often do. But have we considered the risk for injury and scrum resets for spent front-rowers if we insist in getting a full 80 out of them? I submit that trimming down props to get 80 mins our of them might make scrums more of a shitshow in the latter stages of the game and cause more injuries.

I also don't buy the notion that players are getting bigger. Stronger and fitter, sure; but our current Bok team is dwarfed by the 2007 squad. The pack alone is about 100kg lighter than it was under Jake White's tenure. The backline is also about 75kg light, although it is skewed by Faf and Kolbe. I actually think our pack is also lighter now than our 1995 World Cup final pack, but I'll have to check on that.

[Tichtheid]

To my mind that is a very good reason for changing things up as the depth issue hampers Tier 2 sides.

Yup, and the amateur game

The amateur game is long dead. School kids are targeted nowadays.

Tier 2 sides must change their thinking and look for ways to compete. You do not take the lowest common demoninator to set your standards.

On the first point the last time I looked the number of amateur players, teams and leagues in every country vastly outnumbers their professional counterparts, it’s not even close.

On the second point, that’s fine if you want to run a protectionist hegemony where there are only ever two real contenders at a world cup, perhaps three depending on location, with cricket scores being rattled up in the pool stages.