Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Number of subs, specialist kicker


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 sigesige00

sigesige00
  • Coach
  • 224 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:21 AM

When I suggested the increase the number of subs from 4 to 8 and unlimited substitutions, my suggestion was dismissed.

However, I do not see the reason.

The number of subs is 8 in RU.  Since RL is tougher than RU, there is no reason for RL to have smaller number of subs.

And, even if the number of subs is not increased to 8, there is still a good reason for RL to have a specialist kicker.

Rugby (both League and Union) are sports for large people, except RU's 9 (scrum half).  However, if there is a specialist kicker, short/small people can play as a specialist kicker.



#2 LineBall

LineBall
  • Players
  • 66 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:06 AM

I would suggest that most people who have followed rugby league for a long time, would be dead against going back to unlimited interchange.  Eventually it becomes ridiculous, with a never ending stream of big men running onto the field for 10 minute bursts.  It totally takes away from the endurance aspect of the game, which would also sound the death knell for the smaller players as well.   

 

I would be happy to see each team have 6-7 subs on the bench, and to be used just as a substitution, so that once a player comes off, they are off for good.  This would make the use of subs much more tactical.  It would also advantage the smaller players, as in the latter part of each game, they would be able to take advantage over their heavier, slower opponents.  



#3 South Wakefield Sharks

South Wakefield Sharks
  • Coach
  • 2,190 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:57 AM

I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. Seems to be working quite well to me.

#4 latchford albion

latchford albion
  • Coach
  • 308 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:58 AM

Don't reply to the troll. He has already posted the same thread elsewhere.

#5 YCKonstantine

YCKonstantine
  • Coach
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:00 AM

Seriously do you ever stop? Why do you feel the need to bring this up again? Are you gonna bring it up again in another couple of weeks after everyone's said no?

It's time to park the camels.


#6 sigesige00

sigesige00
  • Coach
  • 224 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:15 AM

I have a serious question.

Why can I not discuss my ideas?

I do not disturb any other topics.  If you do not want to discuss my ideas, you can simply ignore them.  No one is obliged to debate me.



#7 bearman

bearman
  • Coach
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:41 AM

Good idea, we could also have a defensive team and an offensive team. Just bring the kicker on when needed.
We could get away with having as few as 35 players per team,
Ron Banks
Bears and Barrow

#8 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 592 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 10:35 AM

where would these extra players come from? there are several players who have had successful careers who are small. why would anyone want to specialise in kicking when there is so much more to rugby league game play? if you like kicking play football or union. the fundamentals of the game would change, needing 14 players per team, because of this a big part of the sports identity is lost. although kicking can be crucial it does not require a specialist.

#9 superten

superten
  • Coach
  • 364 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:03 AM

When I suggested the increase the number of subs from 4 to 8 and unlimited substitutions, my suggestion was dismissed.

However, I do not see the reason.

The number of subs is 8 in RU.  Since RL is tougher than RU, there is no reason for RL to have smaller number of subs.

And, even if the number of subs is not increased to 8, there is still a good reason for RL to have a specialist kicker.

Rugby (both League and Union) are sports for large people, except RU's 9 (scrum half).  However, if there is a specialist kicker, short/small people can play as a specialist kicker.

Didn't they try unlimited in aus a few years ago and it turned into a farce all change every time they had or hadn't got the ball bit like American footy. COULD try having 5 on bench with 10 inter changers and may be try the specialist kicker .


Chief Crazy Eagle

#10 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,088 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:24 AM

sigesige00, on 28 Oct 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I have a serious question.
Why can I not discuss my ideas?
I do not disturb any other topics. If you do not want to discuss my ideas, you can simply ignore them. No one is obliged to debate me.


Absolutely - there is no need for people to be rude.

Treat each thread on it's merits is the right way to go - this one, of course, it utterly, utterly idiotic and not worth discussing, but that's no reason to call you a troll.
People called Romans they go the house

#11 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:32 AM

When I suggested the increase the number of subs from 4 to 8 and unlimited substitutions, my suggestion was dismissed.
However, I do not see the reason.
The number of subs is 8 in RU.  Since RL is tougher than RU, there is no reason for RL to have smaller number of subs.
And, even if the number of subs is not increased to 8, there is still a good reason for RL to have a specialist kicker.
Rugby (both League and Union) are sports for large people, except RU's 9 (scrum half).  However, if there is a specialist kicker, short/small people can play as a specialist kicker.


Rugby union needs so many subs because of modern scrums being dangerous. Essentially you must have specialist props and hookers because in the modern era, it is not considered safe to ask a non-specialist to cover those positions if the original player is injured. Broken spines just aren't funny.

Modern rugby league doesn't have competitive scrums and thus scrums are not dangerous and therefore there is no need to have specialists props and hookers on the bench.

A specialist kicker would be anathema. The kicker position in American football is rightly considered a joke in the UK.

#12 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:34 AM

I would be happy to see each team have 6-7 subs on the bench, and to be used just as a substitution, so that once a player comes off, they are off for good.  This would make the use of subs much more tactical.  It would also advantage the smaller players, as in the latter part of each game, they would be able to take advantage over their heavier, slower opponents.


Yup. Legends such as Davies and Burrow for example.

#13 GaryO

GaryO
  • Coach
  • 418 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:03 PM

I would go to only 4 subs allowed per team, for all the reasons stated above that the half backs and the creative guys will be allowed to be more expressive as the game goes on and the juggernauts tire.

 

This is what our game is and was always about and what made us more entertaining than the tripe played by 15 a side.


"If Rugby League had never been Invented, today we would only have Rugby League"

#14 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

Team already have a specialist kicker. He's usually the guy that erm kicks the ball for goals and conversions and on 5th tackle. he is usually the best kicker on the team. Tell Burrow, Brough, Sammut, Kear etc etc that it is a game for large people.



#15 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,650 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:33 PM

 

Rugby (both League and Union) are sports for large people, except RU's 9 (scrum half).  However, if there is a specialist kicker, short/small people can play as a specialist kicker.

 

Think you're dreaming here.  If I was a short/small person, I wouldn't be enthused about coming on for one play every ten minutes or so. I'd question whether that was a reasonable use of my time.  If I'm playing - whether as amateur or professional - what I want is game time.  The more subs, the more likely I am to be bench-warming.

 

There's only so far you can go down the road of inclusivity.  What next ?  Old folk ?  People who aren't very good at Rugby League ?


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#16 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:45 PM

Think you're dreaming here.  If I was a short/small person, I wouldn't be enthused about coming on for one play every ten minutes or so. I'd question whether that was a reasonable use of my time.  If I'm playing - whether as amateur or professional - what I want is game time.  The more subs, the more likely I am to be bench-warming.

 

There's only so far you can go down the road of inclusivity.  What next ?  Old folk ?  People who aren't very good at Rugby League ?

A small person would be a bobbins kicker, their short legs wouldn't be able to kick as far as a tall person. Find it funny that he thinks only small people in "rugby" are ru  hookers.



#17 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,650 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:02 PM

Bobbins ? :O


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#18 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:05 PM

Bobbins = rubbish.

 

"The Red Red Robins are bob bob bobins, says me, and little Frank, you know they're not, they're really not"

 

See?



#19 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,650 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

No - but I'll let it pass.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#20 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:35 PM

The opposite of bobbins is bazzing, in case you wanted to know.

 

"that's not bobbins, that's bazzing"






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users