1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

18th man

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by mosto, Jul 17, 2012.

  1. mosto

    mosto I have a well known member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +1,262 /12
    As much as I don't like Kearney, or Parramatta, or anything that's not Manly tbh, I thought his idea of 18th man being able to sub for someone injured by foul play has some merit.

    For anyone that didn't hear it, Kearney said in his press conference that his side were disadvantaged by Moi Moi being sidelined for virtually the whole game after Kasiano's hit, and that maybe, in such a situation, the 18th man could be brought in. I've heard some commentators suggest it could be rorted and manipulated by some coaches, but I'm not sure how. If a player is injured by an act that is placed on report, or worse, his place in the 17 could be taken by the 18th man (which I believe all teams carry in the case of a player injured in warm up etc), therefore you couldn't just replace any injured player. The incident must have been put on report, which the coaches have no control over. Once replaced in the 17, the injured player cannot take any more part in the game, even if he makes a miraculous recovery.

    Just interested in what everyone's thoughts were on this.
  2. swoop

    swoop Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +1,543 /26
    I've heard some commentators suggest it could be rorted and manipulated by some coaches.

    ^this, coach could send a player out to take out oppositions best player.

    Leave it as is.
  3. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member

    +516 /0
    It's a tricky one to be sure. A whole game with only three on the bench meant that Parra were always going to do it tough. Was it a deliberate attempt to put a front rower out of the game? Probably. And with concussion, he probably could/should miss this week as well. Good luck Parra. Why couldn't a player come back on if he made a 'miraculous recovery'? The 18th man would just come off and take no more part in the game, until or unless another player was injured with an illegal play. It has merit as something has to be done to not disadvantage a team that's been dealt a blow illegally.
  4. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +7,250 /173
    Why have another man? Why not keep the 17 and only play 16. Having four reserves is overkill, as are 10 replacements.
    I;d be in favour of reducing interchanges to five, with two reserves.
  5. Disco

    Disco Well-Known Member

    +1,778 /48
    How bout switch it up

    The bulldogs could only use 16 players unless Moi Moi returns?
  6. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +3,875 /65
    It does have some merit, but I have no idea if it is actually workable either

    Would the 88 GF have been a different result if Balmain could've used an extra man after the grub took out Hanley ?
  7. Disco

    Disco Well-Known Member

    +1,778 /48
    Further to this, how about the player who is wiped out has there counterpart taken out unless that player returns

    IE if its Storm v Cowboys in a match and some crappy storm forward knocks out Thurston illegally the Cronk has to sit out the match unless Thurston returns.

    If Slater is knocked out Bowen is out, if the number 16 is knocked out the the other number 16 sits out
  8. castle eagle

    castle eagle Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +1,033 /9
    only problem is if a lesser known player is hit by a high profile player ie. jamie lyon is put on report for a suspect hit on jonathan wright this weekend. wright could fake the severity of the injury & leave the field for the game thus we lose killer for the remainder of the game.
  9. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,736 /120
    I think that this could be a good idea but could only be used in one of the following ways

    1: that an injury happened due to a reportable offense, such as the one with Fui fui on the weekend.

    2: you have 2 or more majore match ending injuries such as with us against parra the other year
  10. Jatz Crackers

    Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

    +1,475 /8
    How about we get Slater, Smith, Ennis & Hasler on the field and we collectively take them all out. Then go have a beer.
  11. Frogz

    Frogz Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +1,933 /43
    There goes that theory Mosto.....Wasnt foul play....so if they used an 18th man and won...Kasiano is cleared....WTF happens then.

    Problem is no one knows what foul play is till Wednesday night at the fools judiciary.
  12. mosto

    mosto I have a well known member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +1,262 /12
    Fair point Frogz. That is a bit of a grey area. Another point of dispute could be if the 18th man rule was in force, and the Kasiano tackle wasn't placed on report, but he was subsequently charged and found guilty by the match review committee, Parramatta could be entitled to ask why they were not entitled to use the 18th man.

    Anyway, that was the point of the thread, to discuss the pros and cons of the idea. To me it looks like it could bring up some grey areas, of which there are already too many of in the game.
  13. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    +5,619 /204
    you would find manly using 18,000 men in that situation
    • Like Like x 1

    Share This Page