Aye, bring back unlimited interchanges then we'll see a much better game

It won't. But at least the sky team can comment on how the competition has improved in attack with all the extra sky games.



Don't think it's a great idea myself but on the Other hand makes the coaches work and be tactical with their changes

Does it bring us into line with NRL and International rules? If so then good.



I prefer fewer substitutions as it makes the game easier to follow now I'm getting on a bit.



On the issue of fatigue maybe it'll mean sides will be made up of more athletes rather than Paleassina like lumps that are fatigued after 15mins if they have fewer interchanges? Maybe it will actually drive up quality as a result?

I think I agree with this. The likes of Paliasina were effective because although they had defensive flaws you knew if they were on, you could get some good drives and hopefully get on the front foot, and expose yourslef to fewer defensive sets in your red zone. If your interchanges are going to have to be used for slightly longer stints then your one trick ponies, will have to become better players or become less effective and utilised

Am i the only leeds fan that believes that kirkes place will be taken by griffin nxt season, thus taking away the problem of less interchanges.

No you're not alone. Peacock and Bailey are probably the most secure of our front rowers. Leuluai will need to step up a gear, and Kirke is probably most at risk from being replaced in the 17 by Griffin.

Sounds about right to me

If we are already complaining that English players are fatigued at the end of the season then how does this help the international game???



Yet another terrible idea from the RFL

Because the Aussies are playing with 10 interchanges all year, then an international comes along, and they get 12 interchanges. So their big guys are getting an extra rest.



It will affect fatigue in the short term yeah, but into the future it's the correct decision. The younger forwards will just be naturally fitter, and we'll see less and less "wrecking ball" type props. Or the ones we do see will have a huge engine to power the huge machine.



It's a good thing IMO.

Maybe it will stop the silly, pointless substitutions that coaches make 3 minutes after a half time break, or subbing Peacock then bringing him back on 3 minutes later etc.



FFS, get up Hill 60 at Roundhay in the pre-season and grow a pair.

Quite. IIRC it was as recent as the early 90s when only 4 substitutions were allowed in tests. Things went to the extreme of the ludicrous unlimited interchange.



10 subs is about right IMO. Means that 10 minute lard s have to get fitter, which is no bad thing.

You'll know you're really getting on (or rather you won't) when you no longer realise that there have been any interchanges. This is an early stage of dementia; you'll no doubt have seen sufferers continue to boo a player whether he's on the field lor not.

Kylie`s in trouble then.

Maybe if this rule was known sooner we might have kept Amor and got rid of Kylie.

Just a thought mind.

We haven't yet got rid of Amor.



2 less substitutions isn't really going to make that much difference is it?



Bullseye, you and I no doubt recall there being only two substitutions and once subbed, you were done.



I'm sure older gets will remember substitutions only for injured players.

Can't see the fatigue argument myself. You're still going to have 17 players playing an 80 minute match with 13 on the pitch at any one time (subject to sin bins and sending offs). There is no increase in game time just a slightly different requirement for tactics by coaches.

Can't you? In our current props we generally start with Peacock & Leuluai. Leuluai usually comes off before 15mins with Bailey replacing him. He'll usually come back on around half time for another 10 minute spell, before being brought off again. I think in a 12 sub world thats ok, and leaves you an interchange of 2 to cover injuries etc.



With only 10 interchanges allowed, you're using almost half to account for 1 player.



The way I'd play it would be to start with Griffin and Peacock. Griffin comes off to be replaced by Bailey after 25 mins, and comes back on to replace Peacock after 50 mins. Peacock comes back on after 60 mins for Bailey. Bailey is then on the bench if needed, or not. One of the second rows can fill a gap if needed too. Similar to how England worked their 3 props in the 4 nations

I was going to make exactly the same point.



It will just stop coaches making subs just to use them.



IMO just hinders the luxury possibly of resting key players at back end of walk-overs.

Even older ones will recall front rowers playing with broken arms because there weren't any substitutions.

Surely nobody is [ithat[/i old

Some of us are so old they haven't even got a word for us.

How do they manage in the NRL? - doesn't impact on the intesity there - maybe we just need to get our players upto their standards of fitness and endurance?

But we have got rid of him for this year.

My point is that he is much more likely to have more minutes on the field than Kylie is ever going to have.

IMO we should be looking to make life harder for attacking sides to encourage creativity and game craft, not making it easier for them by putting more tired defenders on the field for the little guys to run at from dummy half four plays out of six.

I think its short term vs long term. Short term there may be more tired bodies though the combined effort across the 17 should remain the same. IN the long term I guess you'd hope that the players would be conditioned to it better, and at least remain on a par with the aussies on that side of things

Not yet we haven't. Can't we recall him any time up to July?