Can't see the fatigue argument myself. You're still going to have 17 players playing an 80 minute match with 13 on the pitch at any one time (subject to sin bins and sending offs). There is no increase in game time just a slightly different requirement for tactics by coaches.

Can't you? In our current props we generally start with Peacock & Leuluai. Leuluai usually comes off before 15mins with Bailey replacing him. He'll usually come back on around half time for another 10 minute spell, before being brought off again. I think in a 12 sub world thats ok, and leaves you an interchange of 2 to cover injuries etc.

With only 10 interchanges allowed, you're using almost half to account for 1 player.

The way I'd play it would be to start with Griffin and Peacock. Griffin comes off to be replaced by Bailey after 25 mins, and comes back on to replace Peacock after 50 mins. Peacock comes back on after 60 mins for Bailey. Bailey is then on the bench if needed, or not. One of the second rows can fill a gap if needed too. Similar to how England worked their 3 props in the 4 nations

I was going to make exactly the same point.

It will just stop coaches making subs just to use them.

IMO just hinders the luxury possibly of resting key players at back end of walk-overs.

Even older ones will recall front rowers playing with broken arms because there weren't any substitutions.

Surely nobody is [ithat[/i old

Some of us are so old they haven't even got a word for us.

How do they manage in the NRL? - doesn't impact on the intesity there - maybe we just need to get our players upto their standards of fitness and endurance?

But we have got rid of him for this year.
My point is that he is much more likely to have more minutes on the field than Kylie is ever going to have.

IMO we should be looking to make life harder for attacking sides to encourage creativity and game craft, not making it easier for them by putting more tired defenders on the field for the little guys to run at from dummy half four plays out of six.

I think its short term vs long term. Short term there may be more tired bodies though the combined effort across the 17 should remain the same. IN the long term I guess you'd hope that the players would be conditioned to it better, and at least remain on a par with the aussies on that side of things

Not yet we haven't. Can't we recall him any time up to July?

This doesn't happen in Australia and they only have 10 interchanges - why is that? because the players are much fitter - perhaps if our players were fitter we would be making it harder for the attackers? If you fill your games with very average overseas players who could not cut it in the NRL and pay them more than their counterparts from the UK what kind of message does that send out.

The majority of our players would not be able to physically cope with training in Australia never mind the skills element of what is required - there is an excuse for lack of skill, there is no excuse for lack of fitness.