Definately a good idea. Maybe a rule which means at least one player must be 'home-grown' and under the age of 21?

That is a good idea, the 2 extra spots to academy trained players under 21. A great way to promote youth and academies

Now that I agree with. Perhaps the issue withthis though would be that the two academy players will miss their academy game but may not recieve game time during first team action.

That is what first led me to look at this. Also it may give long term injured a chance to be slowly reintroduced.

Agree with him.

I think it would be good for a few reasons.

It would make for a more exciting game with more players alot more fresh, they would not get tired.

It would be great seeing the impact of a young half-back coming on like we have done with Tomkins.

It would make for excitement with more big runs from the impact props as they would not have to play as long.

Young players would be more likely to get a game.

Why change something that isn't broke?
As it is i say.

No, its fine as it is

Could you imagine teams loading the bench with 6 forwards determined to batter their opponents. It would make a physical game even harder as fresher players run and hit harder. More injuries worse for players.

The only way i could see it would be something like in RU where you can replace a specialist wioth another specialist ie 4 on the bench but with 3 others available ie full back and a half back who could only come on to replace injured players .

Someone posted about more interchanges but having some earmarked for the backs - i.e. changing the halves and allowing youngsters to come through that way.

Would it make for a better game?

Ive been saying for a while that one of the reasons we arent producing the volume of quality backs as forwards is a direct result of clubs loading their benches with forwards.

The only chance kids get at 1-7 is when there are injuries or a brave coach as those positions in the main are expected to do the full 80.

In this way its harder to blood youngsters as forwards can be rotated if they are struggling in a game wheras backs are left in the firing line.

I would add just 1 more sub - keep the number of interchanges the same and designate 2 forward 8-13 and 2 back subs 1-7 with a utility sub who could play 1-13.

If just 2 of those subs were acadamy trained under 23 year olds it would be a start.

Was going to suggest this, only I would suggest 2 of the subs must be under 21.

But you could always put limits on the bench, as has been suggested.

Or we can just stop making up stupid contrived ideas and leave it as it is.

Here here. If coaches could come up with a new innovation since the 'impact hooker', then all the benches wouldn't look the same, and nobody would come up with...questionable ideas.