« Olivier Azam adds to his history of ultra-violence | Main | Exclusive! Gavin Henson's Diary »
To roll or not to roll, the subsitutions are the question..
We're a bit late on this, but we thought we'd throw our opinion into the ring anyway...
The 'let's all behave better' committee has spoken, and they have come up with 16 recommendations to make sure that the game of rugby never again does terrible things involving blood, winking, England-playing legend revisionism and the like. Most of them are so couched in the language of the administrator as to be impenetrable to the fan; for example recommendation 1. "Gamesmanship, foul play and cheating", which has the definition: "Include a definition of cheating in the Rules of the RFU and create a specific regulation covering this issue with severe sanctions associated" No, me neither.
The one that stands out like a beacon among a muddy sea of membership-justifying committee speak is number 7. "Rolling Substitutions". Before anyone gets too carried away about this starting next week, they are suggesting another committee (of course) to look at this and a trial in the Guinness Premiership.
The voices for (Dewi Morris) and against (Stuart Barnes, Shaun Edwards, and our mate) have come out thick and fast, but what do we think of them?
Rules changes in principle are not wrong. However, rule changes as a knee-jerk to a single issue are if they do not benefit the game in the round. So where will the data and evidence for this greater analysis come from? Rugby League probably. As much as RU don't like it, RL have led the way with such things; sin bins, play-offs and citings, whatever you may think of them, started life in the northern code, so it is to league that we must look to check out the damage that could occur.
The introduction of rolling subs in Australia was a disaster, for the main reason that they were unlimited and no-one had a scooby of what was going on as players went back and forth like a busted toilet door. But, the subsequent change to a limited number of twelve has had benefits. Most of the interchanges are reserved for the front-five, the main carriers and hitters in the game: four props on each side who play 20 minutes each, likewise for two locks; also the half-backs tend to be mixed around, which offers some rebuttal to the opinion that bringing on more bulk is the primary outcome of such a rule.
This change would of course completely get rid of the issue of criteria-based subs, i.e. blood and front-row, where there can be cheating and lies, as we found out in the summer and in every game when the Wasps scrum is not going well. Also, more fresh legs makes for faster rugby for the full 80 minutes. The counterpoint to this is that in a game that is already weighted towards defence, having less knackered defenders in the last 20 minutes will simply exacerbate the problem. Remember, in RL there are only 13 players, that plus the 10-metre offside rule means more room to operate in even when players are fresh.
So, some positives, some negatives. But any decision made anywhere has to be done with the balanced scorecard approach as other than when selling Iain Balshaw, a totally obvious and unarguably positive course of action is rare. Remember that no decision has been made yet, the recommendation is to have a committee to consider it, a sensible approach with regard to an issue of such great change as this.
Yes, I did just say that the RFU had done something sensible.
TweetWhy not subscribe to Blood and Mud? You can get all our updates fresh in your inbox via email and add us to your favourite feedreader. You can also follow us on Twitter.
Like this this post? Why not like bloodandmud.com on facebook and tell your friends?
October 8, 2009 in Aviva Premiership, Laws and the like | Permalink
