Did a bit of research into the laws around substitution and how they've changed over time, I was kinda pissed with the pearl clutching of the Irish media, what Rassie is doing is well within the law. I thought i would share my findings. Most of the history is from [1] in 1892 it was written that 'rugby should be played with 15 players' that meant the 15 who started would see the game through. There were some games that had unofficial subs, but there was an incident in 1966 when a man called David Perry was captaining England vs France in the 5 nations and injured his knee but played through the pain with the help of pain killer. This caused irreversible damage and apparently made one leg shorter than the other and ending his career. So 1 year later the law was introduced that two players could be subbed in case of an injury, with approval of a doctor. This was limited to international matches but soon expanded too all matches. 1990 the total came up to 3. The reason for blood subs being a thing (while completely natural in hindsight, no one wants another player to bleed on them) was because of the HIV epidemic in the 90s. 1996 then was the first time tactical subs became a thing. 2015 the HIA was introduced and the sub limit was increased to 8 Now some analysis [2] from the world rugby website; "In RWC 1987 only 8.4% of points scored per game were scored by substitutes. By RWC 2003 that had increased to 15.3% of points and in the last tournament (2011), just over 19% of points were scored per game by replacements. " "The number of tries scored has generally increased as well. While fewer than one try per game was scored by substitutes between 1987 and 1999, in 2003 replacements averaged over one try per game. The impact peaked in 2007, when players coming off the bench scored just over 24% of all tries." So it is clear even before the time of Eddie Jones and his finishers that rugby was moving towards full utilisation of the bench. Published in the international Journal of Sports Science & Coaching [3] 2019 (sorry if you cant get access to it, I'm able to get it through my work account) "Results revealed forward substitutes performed more total (p = 0.001, ES = 0.61), attacking (p = 0.026, ES = 0.32) and defensive (p = 0.023, ES = 0.31) involvements than forward starters; however, there were no differences found for backs (p = 0.819–0.911). In addition, it was observed that an increase in score margin at the time of substitution led to a decrease in the total and attacking involvements per minute that a substitute performed, but an increase in defensive involvements for both forwards and backs. These findings provide a platform for coaches to make tactical decisions regarding substitution patterns during International Rugby matches. Specifically, coaches should prioritise forward substitutions over back substitutions, and implement tactical changes earlier in the second half to gain an advantage over the opposition." So it seems as if Rassie is on the money with the forward orientated bench, should he want to maximise effectiveness, but there is the downside of unforeseen injury scuppering his plans. But to note the player in all of this, back before professionalism, most players would not be able to spend the amount of time in the gym that they do now. in 2015 the BMJ did a study to see how the body of the international rugby player has changed since professionalism [4] they set it out as two timeframes, 1955-1995 and 1995-2015, the heights did not really change, so I'll leave that out Position 1955-1995 % Change 1995-2015 % Change Prop 14.5 10.2 Hooker 5.1 11.4 Second Row 12.5 3.8 Back Row 11.9 6.7 Half Back 0 12.3 Centre -2.3 16.4 Back 3 -2.9 10.2 To summarise, boys getting bigger They go onto say "Increases in body mass, player speed and fitness are not, to the best of our knowledge, matched by parallel increases in the tensile strength of bone, tendons and ligaments. Head injuries are rightly currently the focus of much attention in RU, causing a spate of early retirements from the professional game and considerable concern regarding long-term neuropsychiatric health and player welfare. Shoulder injuries also occur frequently, and dislocations are a cause of significant absence from playing, and it has been suggested that players with greater BMI have greater injury incidence and severity" So my thoughts on all of this; Is Rassie 'morally wrong' - No. He is playing within the laws and giving himself a tactical advantage. But its a gamble, if three backs go down, then he might be a bit scuppered. But if it pays off he'll be hailed as a genius Will the laws be changed - Probably But not as some anti South African conspiracy, the laws have changed in the past when it was deemed a health risk. I hope a Perry situation won't spark the change but who knows Will Saturday be a good game, and controversy free - Not a fucking chance Thank you all for coming to my ted talk   submitted by   /u/Wizardhhh [link]   [comments]