Has decreasing player rotations off the bench from 120 to 90 really improved the game?

[GVGjr]

Who cares if 4 players run off the ground? How does stopping that improve the game.

No one here has put up a valid argument on changing the rotation numbers which was supposed to improve the game.

KB is calling for 50 only rotations - I don't get the point.

Because you don't want to get the point. I've raised the benefits of having limited rotations. To get rid of the sub, the IC limits had to come in.

[Ghost Dog]

The ridiculous wave of players running to the bench
It means teams that cop an injury early in the game aren't as disadvantaged as they were previously

I could go on.

Not to mention players with the ball being continually caught out by players leaping off the bench to tackle them unawares. That really annoys me.

[bornadog]

Because you don't want to get the point. I've raised the benefits of having limited rotations. To get rid of the sub, the IC limits had to come in.

I don't think so. No one has pointed out that having 90 rotations is better than having 120 How does getting rid of the sub = IC limits coming down?

[jazzadogs]

As far as I'm concerned all of the benefits attributed to the interchange cap are aesthetic only. I also don't have access to Champion Data or other stats but would love to see yearly trends for TOG percentage per player, number of interchanges per player and number of soft tissue injuries.

I couldn't care less if four people interchange after each goal, but I do care if Jack Macrae is expected to run at 100% for 10% longer and it causes him to tear his hamstring (not saying this was necessarily the cause).

I am far more concerned on the impact this cap could have on our players (particularly if it gets dropped further) than on the aesthetics of rolling mauls and mass interchanges.