Thursday 23 April 2015 12:06, UK
Sky Sports pundit Phil Clarke asks if rugby league should consider reducing the amount of interchanges in a game...
I’ve just come off the phone from Brian Carney who’s convinced it’s ten to six. Not the time, but the number of interchanges that a team should be allowed in a game of rugby league.
It’s a subject of great debate down under and there’s a feeling that a change is just around the corner. They want to reduce the forces involved in some of the impacts and encourage the gladiatorial element of the game which makes players push themselves when fatigue sets in.
Over the last 20 years the sport has encouraged and rewarded size and power, but the shift could now take place to reward stamina and test the physical endurance of the 17 players selected for the match. That’s assuming that we don’t alter the number of players, but that could also be up for debate.
If it means that we’ll get more players like Rob Burrow enjoying the sport then great, but if it excludes the giants and makes it a ‘one size fits all’ then we need to rethink it.
Brian Carney’s knowledge of the NRL is greater than mine and he says that there is a desire to free up the game in the southern hemisphere and bring an element of fatigue back into the sport. Forcing players to play for longer, taking less rests on the sidelines may lead to more tries, or possibly more exciting tries, but we don’t know. I’m told that research is taking place, commissioned by the NRL, to look into the pros and cons of such a change.
One of the theories behind the plan to reduce the interchanges is that it will reduce the amount of the three-man tackles and ‘wrestling’ within the game. It is thought that fewer players will run to join a tackle as the third man, although we have no evidence to support this. In fact any of the evidence that does lead to this change will come from down under anyway, which in itself is a slightly different game from the one in Super League.
But you don’t always need evidence to know that the balance isn’t right. It is unfair to expect players like Rob Burrow, Gareth O’Brien or Tim Smith to tackle men like Mose Masoe, Alex Walmsley and Kyle Amor when the three big men can rotate with a rest on the sidelines. We’ve allowed this for too long and this possible alteration to the rules redresses that imbalance. The big men would have to run for longer and attempt to tackle the smaller, faster players without the chance of filling up their lungs with oxygen.
I think that the fundamental question that we need to answer is “what do we want the game to look like?” That’s not just people like coaches, players and commentators but supporters as well. Obviously we need to ensure that it’s safe, accepting that injuries will happen and accidents will occur, but what effect will reducing the number of subs have?
I would imagine that the medical officers within the game will have a large impact into the eventual decision. Let’s hope that we don’t end up with a system that gets abused like the blood bin. Without going through the full history of substitutions, it’s worth remembering that in 1992 a team were allowed to make just six interchanges from four named substitutes. Blood bin injuries did not count as interchanges and the game recognised that this system was open to abuse.
In 2003 we doubled the interchanges to 12 but said that all blood bin replacements were included in this 12. Three seasons ago we made the first step in reducing this when we went to 10. Nobody knows the perfect number because it doesn’t exist but the general consensus seems to be that 10 is too many.
One also needs to consider the increased number of players treated for head injuries. We are going to see even more of these in the future, so if a team had two players removed to be assessed, would that count as two of the six? If it didn’t, then I fear that the rules would be abused and some big men would come off conveniently after a heavy collision.
We’ve already had nine games this season when teams have used more than 10 interchanges due to possible concussion or injury caused by foul play. I think that it’s important to try to keep the rules as simple as possible so that they can be standardised across all levels of the sport and made easy for the supporters to follow and understand.
When I looked back at last season’s interchanges in Super League it was fascinating to see how similar most teams were. On average Wigan made the least - 8.3 per match, and St Helens the most - 9.8. The average for the whole of Super League was 9.2 interchanges per match and that’s increased slightly this season to 9.4 at present. Some coaches seem automatically programmed to use all of the interchanges that they have and it’s as if they’re not doing their job if they don’t rotate through them all.
We have a lack of evidence to make medical decisions like this in the game and I’m fascinated to know if an increase in player fatigue, by asking them to stay on the field for longer, may increase the overall number of injuries? Do more players get hurt when they’re tired?
It’s impractical in this country to expect games to have independent doctors to make these decisions, which is what has been suggested in Australia. We don’t have the money and how could you introduce that across the professional game? It’s impossible.
There is a longer-term argument about what the sport should be about. I like to see tries scored through skills yet some enjoy the ones when it’s sheer strength that takes a player over the line. There are some clubs that have been successful with the ‘Big is Better’ approach but it might not make an exciting game for the masses. The history of the sport has been punctuated with changes to the rules and laws to help make it a better game to watch.
There is a fear that defences are getting too good, although I’m not sure that’s a big problem over here. The four games played last weekend in Super League all had over 50 points scored in them. I’m worried that we might tinker with something and increase that up to 80.
Unfortunately this isn’t the best ‘opinion’ piece I’ve ever written as I’m not sure of what my opinion is! If it means that we’ll get more players like Rob Burrow enjoying the sport then great, but if it excludes the giants and makes it a ‘one size fits all’ then we need to rethink it.
The current rules allow the bigger men to run at the smaller ones and then take a rest and that’s always felt unfair to me. I just worry about the medical implications and that it may lead to basketball-score results.
Well, it’s six points for a try and a goal and we have six tackles in a set, so maybe Brian’s right, six interchanges sounds about right.
