NRL NRL Rules

[mrblonde]

Surprised that there isn't more people talking about the rule changes in the forum. That 6 man bench could be a massive change this year. Which, on one side means massive improvments for the warriors. Where we no longer "need' that TMM type player on the bench, just incase their is an injury, but instead we could carry both himself and Healey. Where Healey comes on normaly assuming there are no injuries. Allowing for a shake up every game on attack with a x-factor spine player running wild for 20-30 mins while also giving Egan a well needed rest. Then TMM only comes on if there is an injury to any non-hooker spine players, plus center/wing in a pinch. And a backup prop in TSS/EIT so we never lose that winnig pack. Allowing bench selections to be less consertive for when an injury happens and more reactive to the game itself.

But does this put less value in dual position players like capes if the interchange may always carry a backup center/winger? I think not as that allows us to carry TMM as a utility who does not cover center usually. But is that for the best? How do we also manage players growing by playing NSW grade but also needing now two extra players who will not get any game time (as you can still only use 4 from side bench)? If it does mean three players now missing out on key devlopment in NSW grade, how do we manage making sure FG has the best people there for every game without also impeading our best rookies from getting good game time? This makes me think Ivan got a good deal on Ale here as he is exactly who you want in that 18/19 jersey as a backup prop. Someone who does not need the devlopment of NSW grade games but is good enough to step in at anytime. Which is a direction the warriors have gone against, moving out exprence for more youth to get into the NSW team.

What does your 6 person warriors bench look like?

Does a 20th man need to exist if they extend the bench to 6?

I get that the other possible rule changes are huge too. But it feels like this interchange one is the most interesting and possibly team changing. Benefiting

AIUI, you have a 6 man interchange but you can only pick 4 of them to make up the 8 interchanges you have at your disposal.
So, what if Webby chooses due to sensible tacital reasons - NO LAUGHING AT THE BACK, LADDIES! - to use 3 middles/edges and TMM and after those 4 have had their first stints, CNK falls over?
I see Webby being forced to move RTS to fullback, Rocco moving to cover RTS' movement from wing and Capewell coming on to cover Rocco's movement from centre - as he was one of the four interchange players that Webby's utilised - and, as we know, centre is not Capewell's best position. So the "like-for-like" replacement theory doesn't end up being practice.
I can see this meaning that any interchange usage will be 2 forwards/2 back utilities. I'm not particularly against that, except that I suspect it might run the risk of the 2 utilities getting bashed in ways they don't now. Only one does now, so it doubles the injury risk.

As it stands, I don't see the point of a 6 Man Interchange unless you can use all 6. That might make things interesting, especially if the number of Interchanges stays at 8.
You'd probably see more Substitute-like replacements, players going off for the rest of the game and players going on for the rest of the game.
Which might be the NRL's end game...

 

[roguei]

AIUI, you have a 6 man interchange but you can only pick 4 of them to make up the 8 interchanges you have at your disposal.
So, what if Webby chooses due to sensible tacital reasons - NO LAUGHING AT THE BACK, LADDIES! - to use 3 middles/edges and TMM and after those 4 have had their first stints, CNK falls over?
I see Webby being forced to move RTS to fullback, Rocco moving to cover RTS' movement from wing and Capewell coming on to cover Rocco's movement from centre - as he was one of the four interchange players that Webby's utilised - and, as we know, centre is not Capewell's best position. So the "like-for-like" replacement theory doesn't end up being practice.
I can see this meaning that any interchange usage will be 2 forwards/2 back utilities. I'm not particularly against that, except that I suspect it might run the risk of the 2 utilities getting bashed in ways they don't now. Only one does now, so it doubles the injury risk.

As it stands, I don't see the point of a 6 Man Interchange unless you can use all 6. That might make things interesting, especially if the number of Interchanges stays at 8.
You'd probably see more Substitute-like replacements, players going off for the rest of the game and players going on for the rest of the game.
Which might be the NRL's end game...

I'd argue it'd be a massive change. I think most coaches would be more aggressive with the bench selections and therefore use. Where as before having healey on the bench instead of TMM is risking 80 mins of possible injury. But im this new system you'd be able to pick how many mins to directly risk. I.E you could decide that with 40 mins left in the game, you could go without the injury cover via a utility and sub on a Healey. Could even do that at the final 20 mins of the game. It no longer is an all or nothing gamble but a gradient of risk vs reward as the game progresses. And from just pure vibes and nothing backing it, I think most injuries we would want utility cover for happened within the first half.

So I do think this adds more pressure on an in game coach adapting to what is directly in front of them. If webster is able to weigh that risk vs reward correctly is questionable as many have doubts on him making in season risky decisions. But this added complexity to me is quite a cool idea