The 23rd man

[Presti35]

4 and a sub is fine.

But imagine this in 2010 or even 1990. We'd have a few more premiership players. Or even in 2011, we could have subbed off Reid.

[dalyc]

I hate the sub. It means there’s a player sitting on the sideline neither playing in the firsts or seconds for a week (depending on injuries and when the game is played).

I’d prefer 5 on the bench and that’s it. Never to be changed again.

[Born to Pie]

Agree totally

[robevpau1]

5 on the bench offers the most flexibility with all players allowed to return to the field of play if able to do so.

[Charlie Oneeye]

Put 5. Even more.


The speed of the game is very influenced by recruiting and training, not so much by bench size or rotation restrictions anymore.

And if other clubs don't have the depth to compete, let's not aspire to the lowest denominator.

Great to have options on the bench.
Start fast and put the talls on at the end. Opens up all sorts of interesting scenarios.

The game will evolve to its highest standard.

As it is now, the process is corrupted. We need to get rid of the sub, not make it even more convoluted.

[think positive]

yep

5 straight will do!

[Skids]

[BazBoy]

In some shape or form with regulations applied they have had 5 on the bench

So free up regulations and just have a rotating bench of five

[Culprit]

If it goes to 5 on the bench, rotation numbers have to increase.

[Boot]

[BazBoy]

With five on the bench it gives the opportunity to use certain players a little fresher with less time when on the field

Have some fresher than normal for close finish games

[barrackers]

After an early adjustment we ran out games well in ‘22. On face value we can run harder for longer with an extra interchange player, however there’s also the chance other sides will try and increase their late game running capacity against us by keeping a bloke fresh (minimal early game time) or by playing an extra mid.

[think positive]

[swoop42]

Surely the easiest solution would be that as soon as one team activates a substitute the other team can do so whether or not any player of theirs is injured.

This would stop any team being able to gain the system and use it as a tactical advantage.

Moving to a 5 man interchange would eventually only lead to the same reasons the medical substitute was first implemented and we'll have a situation whereby one side gets an injury early in the game and be a man down. Get 2 injuries and they'll be 2 men down instead of just 1 like the current system allows.

It's a stupid idea.

[swoop42]