Would rolling replacements lead to mass changes each time the ball changed hands like the NFL? © Getty Images

Enlarge

Related Links

Features: Ireland show the way

Features: Let's roll with replacements

News: Johnson weighs in on rolling replacements

News: Dallaglio backs rolling replacements

News: RFU reveals 'Image of the Game' findings

Features: More bloodshed looms for Quins

Players/Officials: Lawrence Dallaglio | Martin Johnson | Dean Richards | John Smit

Teams: England | Harlequins

The reputations of Harlequins, Dean Richards and Steph Brennan are shattered. They are also out of work and the club has lost a fortune but the fall-out from 'Bloodgate' continues as the rugby world tries to insure the game's reputation can never be sullied in such a way again.

The latest suggestion is to allow rolling substitutions, the argument being that they would cut out the need for cheating. I was appalled to see this week that both Martin Johnson and Lawrence Dallaglio (in his new role as a member of the RFU's 'Clean Up Rugby' committee) appear to believe (albeit reluctantly) that some sort of trial where players are allowed to go off and come back as the coach dictates is inevitable. That is what Dean Richards wanted and I think it is something we should all fight tooth and nail.

It would certainly change the game as we know it. I believe at worst it could be a disaster and everybody should think long and hard about all the ramifications before it is even trialled. Do we really want an American Football type of game? If you take rolling replacements to the logical conclusion you would have half the team changing places every time possession is won or lost.

We could be looking at a future where a team wins an attacking scrum and sends on the 'offense' - their most talented runners - to try to take full advantage. To counter the team who are not in possession send on the 'defence' - their specialist tacklers - to stop them. Richards wanted Nick Evans, his most talented kicker, back on the field and now he would have licence to do just that - the kicker would soon become an out and out specialist just as he is in the American game, only coming on when needed.

Surely, that is not how we want rugby to develop. I remember taking the American folk singer, Tom Paxton, to his first rugby game and he marvelled at the versatility of the players and the length of time they spent on the field. It was a particular thrill for him to see the props running with the ball. He had played guard through high school and admitted he had only touched the ball once in eight years!

One of the great strengths of rugby is that variety of skills a player has to master. There was a time when you did not expect props to be able to run and pass as deftly as the backs but not anymore.

Many people in the game believe substitutions should be reduced rather than increased and I have great sympathy with them. How many times have you seen a team lose all its shape and momentum when a coach suddenly decides to change half his players?

South Africa almost came unstuck last June in the first Test against the Lions when they thought they were home and dry so replaced John Smit, their captain, to rest him for the following week. Their scrum buckled as a consequence but in a series of events that have since been questioned by many an injury allowed the Springboks' talismanic skipper back on to steady the ship.

Props have been affected more than most. Scrummaging used to be a real trial of strength and the great scrummagers would gradually wear down their opposite number to give their team an advantage as the game opened up in the final quarter. Now as soon as they force one man into submission he is replaced by another. It would be even more farcical if the opposition could switch them back and fore at will.

The safety of the players is now, quite rightly, considered of paramount importance. I quite enjoyed the occasional challenge of having to move up to prop in the days when no replacements were allowed at all but it was probably madness and I certainly would not advocate a return to those days.

I would not even argue for a return to the days when you could only replace a player who was injured and had been certified as unfit to continue by the match doctor (although it worked very well) but the whole business of replacing players disrupts a game and should be discouraged.

I believe there is a case for limiting the number of replacements a coach can call on from his bench - as in football. Would the game suffer as a spectacle if you could only make four substitutions that were not injury related? I doubt it. But then we would be re-creating a cheats' charter - of course it would be open to abuse and players would be feigning injury on the instructions of a ruthless coach but, call me old fashioned, I just hate the idea of framing the laws to minimise cheating instead of trying to maximise the enjoyment for players and spectators.

If we sanction rolling replacements I think we are on a very slippery slope.