It's been suggested rugby league needs to reduce the number of player replacements /interchanges during the course of a match to increase the fatigue factor in our game.
The thought is that by wearing out the bigger man, the skilful little player will prosper, thereby producing a more entertaining product.
It's a reasonable theory, but unless the concept of interchange football is considered along with many other factors in the game, I doubt this one change to our rules will produce the desired effect.
A counter-argument could be that if we increase fatigue levels, we will see more errors. Yes, more errors can produce a higher number of turnovers and therefore greater unpredictability to the play. It can also produce a fairly shoddy product. This needs more thought.
The moment you introduce measures to limit the number of replacements, coaches will immediately introduce other tactics to slow the game, create stoppages, flout the concussion rule to gain free interchanges, or encourage laying down in tackles to cause opposition players to be penalised and put on report. It's no good shaking your head, because that's what coaches do. They are doing it right now.
Basically our aim is to increase the amount of time the ball is in play, increase the extended intensity of the play, and reduce the amount of time it actually takes to play the game.
This last point is significant.
The NRL has been proactive in trying to produce more "ball in play" time during the course of the 80 minutes. The NRL now claims the ball is in play on average for around 55 minutes per game. They suggest this represents an increase of around 1½ minutes per game on the previous year.
However, the main problem is that the game is sometimes taking over 100 minutes to play. The large number of extended delays we have in our game, even while the clock has stopped, is the major reason why much of the fatigue factor has been eliminated.
A huge increase in the number of video referrals, the amount of time the video referee takes to make a decision, deliberate loitering to restarts and the ridiculous amount of time it takes to pack a scrum are all significant delays to the action. I realise we have time-off during many of these periods so it's not reducing actual play time. But extended delays allow players to rest. These athletes only need a couple of minutes of inactivity to bring their heart rates down to an almost fully recovered level. When play restarts, they are fresh and ready to go.
So, let's look for ways to reduce the number of video referrals and the amount of time it takes to make a decision.
My personal view is to limit video referrals to the actual put-down of the ball over the line for a try and in certain cases to determine how a play should be restarted if the ball goes dead in-goal. Let's leave all general play calls to the officials on the field; after all, we now have four of them. If you are worried about policing the obstruction rule and coaches taking licence with their decoy runners, then simply ban the second-man play and remove it from our game. I promise our game won't suffer as a result.
Obviously not everyone will want to go to these extremes, but I certainly think there are opportunities to reduce the number of video referrals and the time taken to reach a decision.
As for scrums?
Back in time, before the Earth cooled and dinosaurs walked the planet, scrums were actually a contest and this was one area of the game where forwards worked their hardest. The two front-rowers would carry the full weight of their hooker as he dangled his arms around their necks and lowered himself into a good position to strike for the ball. The back-rowers would bind the scrum and provide the push and weight against their opponents.
Sometimes each scrum would pack three or four times before the referee was satisfied. In those days, it wasn't uncommon to have as many as 30 scrums a day. That's a lot of pushing and shoving. It was hard work.
Today's scrums are no contest. There's no physical exertion. The players merely bind – the halfback rolls the ball back to the hooker who is now playing in the lock position – and play goes on.
The suggestion we need to keep scrums because it's a good chance to house all the forwards in one area so the back line players can go head-to-head in a show of speed and skill is also somewhat overstated. If you view the line-ups at most scrums these days, there are just as many forwards in the respective back lines as there are in the scrum.
Our biggest problem with scrums is the amount of time it takes to actually pack them. Whenever a scrum is called, this appears to be the signal for the two teams to come together in a hug-fest. They linger in their huddles, trainers produce the drink bottles, the offending team lingers around hoping for an impromptu video review to overturn the decision, and the crowd waits. Honestly, this process can sometimes take up to 90 seconds. Multiply this time wastage by the number of scrums – it's bloody ridiculous.
The integrity of our scrums has gone forever. They are an embarrassment to our code. If scrums are being kept to maintain some emotional link to our traditional past, then perhaps it's time to take a photo for the rugby league museum and move on.
My opinion – remove all scrums from the game. We will save a truckload of time right there. What's your opinion?
The NRL has now commissioned the services of a prominent professor to examine several years of GPS data to assist in the process of reducing time wastage.
Before the professor weaves his magic, most commentators have already formed the opinion that reducing the number of replacements from the current number of 10 down to something like six will be the magic elixir for providing greater entertainment.
I don't think the solution is as simple as this theory would suggest.
Replacements or interchanges are used by coaches for three main reasons. In order of priority:
1. Rotating the bigger players who play in the middle of the field, simply because these are the men doing the most work and they try to keep them as fresh as possible.
2. Coaches may well have a player on the bench who is injected into the game at various stages as a strategic measure.
3. Coverage for injuries. In the olden days, this was the primary use of replacements. To cover for those who sustained an injury and could no longer continue in the contest.
Point No.3 is the big one to consider here. Any change we make to the number of interchanges must always keep in mind the fact we never want to get to a situation where a team is forced to finish the game with less than the full complement of players, and that no player is forced to stay on the field with a serious injury because the number of available replacements has already been exhausted.
If we limit the number of replacements too drastically, we can also see a situation where a player who is injured early in a contest will be left on the field a little longer hoping he will come good, rather than being replaced so as to conserve the number of interchanges available. This of course risks further injury to that player.
So, let's look at what we're trying to do here.
We want more "ball in play" time. We want to reduce the amount of time it takes to actually play the game. We don't want the game dominated by big blokes who can only play 15 minutes at a time before being replaced by a bloke just as big. We want the small skilful players to have their time in the sun. We want to remove the unnecessary and extended delays to the action.
If we believe increasing the fatigue factor will open the game up to more skill and more entertainment, then we need to find a way to produce more high-intensity action; but at the same time we must consider the welfare of the player and allow coaches the opportunity to replace a player who is genuinely injured.
An analysis of the interchange rule is only a small part of the puzzle.
So far as providing changes to produce better entertainment, I think reducing extended delays, reducing video referrals, taking the second-man decoy plays out of the game, and perhaps even removing scrums altogether, are measures more likely to achieve the desired result than simply reducing the number of replacements.
I think I've given you enough to argue about for one day.
Enjoy your footy.
