The Substitution Laws

The Substitution Law

In an older era, rugby teams started a game with fifteen players, and if a player was unable to continue, they played short. It was an accomplishment of stamina and toughness to finish a match. Each game had a sense of accomplishment attached to it. Later, changes were made to allow the replacement of injured players. This made sense, since playing injured could lead to further injury.
This was taken another step farther with the introduction of tactical substitutions. A quick summary of the laws, taken from Rugby Football History, is quoted below:

“The Replacement of injured players was added to the 1968-69 Laws (law 12: up to two players per team).
Mike Gibson replaced Barry John in the Lion’s first test against South Africa in 1968 was the first official replacement in a test match (although replacements happened unofficially in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia before that.
Tactical substitutions were introduced in 1996 (three replacements).”

Eventually substitutions were increased to seven per match. Some professional competitions recently adopted an eighth substitute that can only be a front row player to prevent uncontested scrums. The one caveat is that substituted players cannot return to the match, except as a “blood sub.” Just as in other sports, a player with blood must be substituted, treated, and may return. In rugby the player has ten minutes to be treated, and then may return if the referee deems their return clean and safe.
Last week’s story brings up the issue of substitutions with youth teams. Would allowing players to be substituted and then to return later, be better for the youth game? Certainly it would help more kids get on the pitch. Young players could more experience and coaching: they could be subbed out, and coach could immediately address situations in the game with the player. It could be a great teaching tool. Then, they could return to immediately apply what they’ve learned. Furthermore, newer or younger players could be given five or ten minutes of experience in the middle of a match. This would help keep players happier, more focused, and would improve their development. It may also have benefits for less fit players. They could contribute to the team as they continue to progress as athletes.
How many of you coaches have also felt unable to substitute a player out, because that player coming off is your backup 9,10, and 15 or some other combination that experienced players offer? Teams with that tricky middle number of 24 players could get everyone in the game. This would also be safer. Some young players just aren’t ready for the physical demands of a full sixty minutes of an a-side level high school rugby match.
Now, Wisconsin High School soccer allows players to be substituted in and out of matches, without slowing the match down. In rugby this could be done after a score, at injury minutes, or lineouts near one’s own sideline. That way the flow wouldn’t be interrupted.
On the other side of the argument is tradition and character. Would we be losing part of what makes rugby so unique and special if this change were made? Is it worth the trade off?
So, coaches and players, what do you think?