Rugbyfan564
Academy Player
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2023
- Messages
- 303
Yes or no. For all forms or for only club or international. Allow injury replacements or not at all.
Last edited:
Brian Moore is calling for non injury replacements to be banned. And progressive rugby are long term supporters of the policy due to the dementia riskOf all the stupid clickbait takes out there, this is a top tier one.
Yes or no. For all forms or for only club or international. Allow injury replacements or not at all.
I can only see it increasing injury risk. Tired muscles are more likely to get injured and tired players are more likely to tackle high and loose.
This.Genuine question.
Has there been any conclusive research into whether that's overall worse than fresh players smashing into tired players? Instinctively, to me, differing fatigue levels doesn't sound great, especially when you think about how powerful players now are.
I can be persuaded if the science says otherwise but I'm not sure it does yet? Until it does I'm sticking with my reduced numbers / continuity position.
Wouldn't a weight limit also help do that. Either individual or team one.This.
Also, if more players (especially the gargantuan forwards) are expected to play 80 minutes rather than 45-50 then they'd have to lose weight and muscle mass to last that long. As a result you'd see players become smaller/weaker and the impact of collisions would be reduced, thus causing less injuries.
Banning all subs would be dumb. But I'm all for reducing them.
Anyone who leaves the pitch injured (or "injured"), has an automatic 10-day R&R?South's Africa would just fake injuries to get subs on. Just wouldn't work.
To add to this, reducing the numbers of players, will automatically reduce the size, weight and power output of starters.Genuine question.
Has there been any conclusive research into whether that's overall worse than fresh players smashing into tired players? Instinctively, to me, differing fatigue levels doesn't sound great, especially when you think about how powerful players now are.
I can be persuaded if the science says otherwise but I'm not sure it does yet? Until it does I'm sticking with my reduced numbers / continuity position.
Oops, my thoughts echo thisThis.
Also, if more players (especially the gargantuan forwards) are expected to play 80 minutes rather than 45-50 then they'd have to lose weight and muscle mass to last that long. As a result you'd see players become smaller/weaker and the impact of collisions would be reduced, thus causing less injuries.
Banning all subs would be dumb. But I'm all for reducing them.
I like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.giving this more air time than it might deserve, i have thought a bench like football would be good. so you have 8-10 on the bench....but can only make 3-5 subs
so you can still have that injury cover...but generally we will bring a little more fatigue into the last quarter creating more space
definitely, so you're always going to keep at least one front row and one back/loosie reserve until the last 5-10 minutesI like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.
How about rugby league style of limited interchanges.I like that idea but if they get an injury they have to drop to 14 and can't bring a player on. Otherwise injuries will be faked and abused.