NRL NRL Rules

mrblonde · Dec 31, 2025

roguei said:
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...

NZWarriors.com

roguei · Dec 31, 2025

mrblonde said:
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

Hitro · Thursday at 9:25 AM

mrblonde said:
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 would’ve thought the main point is to carry more reserves in key positions so if you lose say both halves early you can rejig your subs accordingly.

It’s great for development ( as long as the additional two still play cup) because you can carry young guys on the bench, and if the game is going well, give them the last 10 or so. Previously you’d be less likely to do it as that bench spot might be key to your middle rotation.

NZWarriors.com

Jonno13 · Thursday at 12:35 PM

Yes it’s a big change but I quite like the idea of the 6 man bench. I can see coaches going with legit hooker and outside back cover. For us that could well be Healy and TT. Not sure where TMM would fit into this as he’s really now a halfback 1st and about 4th/5th fullback option for us.
Coaches always leave their 8th interchange until past the 70th minute, so can also see teams with 80min hookers run out with 4 forwards.
Like the try scoring 6 again change but the other 2, I’m probably a bit ho-hum

Ferdie · Thursday at 1:11 PM

I don't mind the 6 man bench, but it will slightly weaken the NSW cup teams, as there is now 19 players required for first grade, rather than the current 18.

wizard of Tauranga · Thursday at 2:47 PM

Ferdie said:
I don't mind the 6 man bench, but it will slightly weaken the NSW cup teams, as there is now 19 players required for first grade, rather than the current 18.

They were talking about extending the 30 man squad. What happened to this?

With 2 extra in the team every week we’re going to be using players outside the top 30 more.

NZWarriors.com

Mrgrumps · Thursday at 4:15 PM

I think it’s great for us, we can run Healey on the bench every week which we need. If Egan looks like he is going to play the 80 we could even run Taine or Healey at lock and run an X-factor style for the last 15-20. It’s something the we had in our arsenal last year, but could never use with a conservative/injury cover bench.

The broncos won the premiership and X-factor had a large hand in it. I think we are a tier down in this department and this will allow us to catch up to how the NRL has evolved

jonesy101 · Thursday at 5:55 PM

I somewhat agree with the 6 man bench due to the stricter concussion protocols. Too many times this season a team was disadvantaged when there were head clashes etc that took two of their players from off the field which made it near impossible to make like for like substitutions. The 6 tackle restart one makes sense but every other proposal is absurd. There have been a lot of changes in recent times and it will reach a tipping point if they tinker much more.

JustLikeStartingOver · Friday at 12:20 PM

after the Katoa situation you have to give these deranged coaches less excuses when it comes to leaving players out there, 6 man bench very good.

NSW cup will change, but for a team like us which is trying to produce a stack of youths, it's probably good more of them can play up a grade. at full strength it was kind of hard for some players to even get into the cup team last year.

NZWarriors.com

Jonno13 · Friday at 1:14 PM

I haven’t looked at our draw recently but we have 9 games at Go Media and thinking 7/8 of those are Friday night 8pms. So guessing our 2 players who didn’t get game time will be on the RedEye that night to Sydney for any Saturday Cup games. Guessing there’s gonna be a few where this doesn’t work out when, especially when we’re playing in Aus. Did our 18th man get to play any Cup games this year when schedules allowed or was that just not a done thing?

mrblonde · Monday at 1:08 PM

If the You Have A 6 Player Bench But You Can Only Use 4 Players Rule comes in, won't that mean coaches will be really conservative about picking who and when the 4th Player is introduced, therefore making certain players who might be expecting a break after 40-50 minutes have to play longer? And, of course, meaning the 4th Player will get at most 10-15 minutes between 65M mark and Full Time.

NRL NRL Rules

NZWarriors.com

NZWarriors.com

NZWarriors.com

NZWarriors.com

Similar threads