Number of Substitutions - Event Date: 23 Jan 2020

Interesting article on the BBC website quoting Nigel Owens saying that the way to help reduce the number of injuries is to reduce the number of substitutions allowed. His argument is that players will need to be smaller (I guess not so much bulk) and will need to conserve their energy more, which in turn will reduce the size of the impact. Another factor is that players currently try to run through the tackler rather than avoid the tackle.
Another area of concern is around the ruck and namely high impact hits coming from players running into the ruck at pace.

I seem to remember that some of these views were voiced on RM some time ago, so clearly we are all ahead of our time

Personally, I think that this is a good thing. The hits can be quite spectacular, but IMHO we are seeing less skill and more beef. I think that the game will be faster and more exciting with higher skill levels.
Also, around the ruck area if a player is on his feet, then he is fair game to be cleared out, but players are being hit whilst off their feet (in the pile) by players joining late and at speed. I appreciate that new rules with regards to 'no arms' have been brought in (which is a good thing), but they should go further. If a player is off of their feet and effectively out of the game, then they should not be a target. If they need to be moved, a bit of leverage should be sufficient to do so, not by somebody sprinting in with pace, arms or no arms.

Hopefully, Owens is respected enough to be heard by the IRB and changes will be made....we shall see.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that fewer replacements is one of those things, like straight put-ins to scrums, that most of us would be in favour of but won't ever come about...

On the flip side having less replacements means players would have to play on with niggles and injury themselves further, or coaches may be reluctant to take them off as they don't want to be playing with 2 or 3 players less than the opposition.

Also what Nigel Owens is forgetting, since the game has gone professional you are seeing players carrying way more muscle, fitter and faster than the olden days, so you would still have huge players hitting one another.

Also some injuries occur from foul play, so the opposition could potentially benefit from foul play. With the team which has suffered the injury not having the right replacement to fill the gap. You could get backs having to play as forward or the other way round which would make the sport a potential joke, with lots of uncontested scrums etc..

8 replacements in my opinion is the right number.

The Blues wrote: On the flip side having less replacements means players would have to play on with niggles and injury themselves further, or coaches may be reluctant to take them off as they don't want to be playing with 2 or 3 players less than the opposition. Also what Nigel Owens is forgetting, since the game has gone professional you are seeing players carrying way more muscle, fitter and faster than the olden days, so you would still have huge players hitting one another. Also some injuries occur from foul play, so the opposition could potentially benefit from foul play. With the team which has suffered the injury not having the right replacement to fill the gap. You could get backs having to play as forward or the other way round which would make the sport a potential joke, with lots of uncontested scrums etc.. 8 replacements in my opinion is the right number.

You are missing the essence of Nigel Owens point - because more than half the side can be replaced players can muscle up knowing they will only play half a game, they also look to make contact rather than run at gaps.

The elephant in the room is the need for front row replacements.

Doctors at pitch side are good. However they can’t undo serious concussion, just stop it from getting worse. Also I have read that tired players are more likely to get injured and would welcome knowledgeable input on this point.