NRL Changes 2016...Interchange reduced

[Mickeyboy]

plus i also doubt forwards will get tired.. the sports science has gone too far for them to get tired playing longer spells imo

I agree 100%, most good coaches could really get through a game with 8 interchanges, barring injury of course. All it means is a different emphasis on pre-season training for the bigger guys. If they had the "once you are replaced you are off for the game" scenario that would be a different story…....

 

[glebe_tiger]

I don't think the new changes will affect the game in a huge way.

Thought they should have looked at the 18th man option for when a player is taken out of the game due to oppositions indiscretion or major injury.

 

[Tigermama]

Also Mr Greenberg can i request we go to 1 Ref and slow down checking the video Ref for every Try .

I can go to the toilet take a crap and there still reviewing it for the 5th time :brick:

It's become sooooooooo BORING. 😕 I'm so sick of it FT.
And I wish they would get rid of the " I have a TRY, No Try " garbage … :imp:
I like a shot clock to be introduced for the video ref too.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

plus i also doubt forwards will get tired.. the sports science has gone too far for them to get tired playing longer spells imo

You see tied forwards in games today. The obvious example is where rotations have been effected by injuries. The chances of this happening will only increase with less interchanges and dummy half running will be at a premium. There is currently 13 coaches in the NRL who use the fresh legs option now?

Either way, I'm hoping the Tigers can afford some of that science. Martin Taupau struggles to go 20-25min without blowing a gasket now… The times he has played bigger minutes, his effectiveness has been very poor. Hook him up!

 

[guyofthetiger]

As one of the articles suggests, forwards like the Roosters pack will not be as affected as much as other packs like the Bulldogs (e.g., Pritchard and Kasiano).

Very welcome decision. Faster game. More flair. And lets drop again to 6 if it doesn't deliver.

And as previous posters have mentioned, now fix the review system:

1\. Faster decisions
2\. Explained video ref decisions (as they're being made)
3\. If video ref required, no decisions/guesses to be made by on the field ref beforehand
4\. Standardising when/where video ref overturns other on-field decisions (e.g., whether fullback touched ball before going dead leading to either dropout or 7 tackle restart), ending the unfairly inconsistent and highly suspect ad hoc basis on which some of these on-field decisions are/aren't overturned by the video ref.

 

[diedpretty]

Changing the interchange from 12 to 10 made very little difference, I expect the same thing will happen going to 8\. I wish they had gone with 6.

Could possibly mean no chance of cherrington on the bench from next year.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I honestly think it will increase his chances, the reduction of interchange should boost the impact of these smaller players. He will be able to come on against tired out forwards whilst he is still fresh.

Agreed… This should see dummy half running being more attractive. Having a fresh injection from the bench will be perfect.

i thought that too but if farah can play 80.. i dont think JT would wanna waste 1 or possibly 2 interchanges swapping cherrington and farah.

I still think Farah could quite easily drop in to lock and give Marty a rest when Cherrington came on - he would still defend in the middle and adds an extra ball player/kicker around the ruck.

 

[diedpretty]

Could possibly mean no chance of cherrington on the bench from next year.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

I honestly think it will increase his chances, the reduction of interchange should boost the impact of these smaller players. He will be able to come on against tired out forwards whilst he is still fresh.
Agreed… This should see dummy half running being more attractive. Having a fresh injection from the bench will be perfect.

i thought that too but if farah can play 80.. i dont think JT would wanna waste 1 or possibly 2 interchanges swapping cherrington and farah.

I still think Farah could quite easily drop in to lock and give Marty a rest when Cherrington came on - he would still defend in the middle and adds an extra ball player/kicker around the ruck.

I just thought about that - you would probably want Marty on when Cherrington is on - quick darts from dummy half followed by barnstorming run in to backpedlling defences.

 

[foreveratiger]

I don't think the new changes will affect the game in a huge way.

Thought they should have looked at the 18th man option for when a player is taken out of the game due to oppositions indiscretion or major injury.

I totally agree with this.
I've said it in another thread a few Months back that it's an injustice that if a player can't return to the field after failing a concussion test cause they have been hit high and you have the other player playing the rest of the game who has only been put on report.
That is where they need to bring an 18th man so you don't play the rest of the game with 16 players.

This one's a no brainer really.

 

[happy_tiger]

I don't think the new changes will affect the game in a huge way.

Thought they should have looked at the 18th man option for when a player is taken out of the game due to oppositions indiscretion or major injury.

The big blokes have to play extra minutes

All your back rowers will have to be able to play 80 minutes

The current big 13 is probably dead

The wrestle will lessen , you will struggle to get three blokes in tackles continually

Little blokes will get their chances to run at the big blokes with fatigue

This will be big and when we drop to 6 interchanges in another couple of years it will even be bigger

 

[glebe_tiger]

They'll train accordingly to get more minutes where possible but there's always limits. When and if it goes to 6 interchange that will be huge. May not happen for ages or ever depending on how new system goes.

I thought the 18th man option would of been high on their agenda, obviously not.