Andrew Johns has called for the NRL to overhaul its expanded interchange system after Nathan Cleary’s foot injury exposed a significant flaw in the six-player bench rule during Penrith’s qualifying-final victory over the Sydney Roosters.
The Panthers carried six reserves into the 19–12 win at CommBank Stadium but were permitted to use only four of them.
By the time Cleary began struggling with a stress-related issue in his right foot, Penrith had already introduced Isaah Yeo, Scott Sorensen, Billy Phillips and Billy Scott.
That left Freddy Lussick and Jesse McLean unavailable even though both players were fit, dressed and sitting on the bench.
Johns believes teams should be allowed to use any of their six reserves while remaining restricted to eight total interchanges.
The rugby league Immortal argued that Penrith had been disadvantaged by a regulation introduced to provide coaches with greater flexibility.
“I don’t understand why you can’t use all six,” Johns said, according to Yahoo Sport Australia.
His proposed change would not increase the number of interchanges. It would simply allow coaches to access their entire bench when an unexpected injury changes the requirements of a match.
Cleary Injury Exposed the Rule’s Weakness
Cleary remained on the field after hurting his kicking foot during the closing stages against the Roosters.
He had already made an enormous contribution, returning from a sin bin to kick the field goal that placed Penrith ahead before Brian To’o’s late try secured the result.
However, Cleary declined the final conversion attempt and handed the ball to Dylan Edwards.
“I copped a little bump on the foot and it was a pretty important kick so I just wanted Dyl to take it,” Cleary said after the match.
“I wasn’t sure how the foot was going to hold up so it was just precautionary to be honest.”
Scans subsequently identified what Penrith described as a “stress-related bone issue”.
The club has not publicly provided a precise recovery period and will continue assessing Cleary before its preliminary final against either the Warriors or Knights.
Cleary may have remained on the field regardless of Penrith’s interchange situation. A finals match was hanging in the balance, and removing the team’s most influential playmaker would have carried an enormous tactical cost.
The important point is that Ivan Cleary no longer possessed the option.
Penrith’s four permitted bench players had already entered the game, meaning Lussick and McLean were effectively spectators.
NRL Expanded the Bench Without Expanding Access
The Australian Rugby League Commission changed the interchange rule before the 2026 season.
Teams can now name six players from numbers 14 to 19 but may use only four of those reserves across a maximum of eight interchanges.
The expansion was intended to give coaches greater positional coverage.
A team can carry an extra outside back, hooker or half without sacrificing the forward depth traditionally required to survive the physical demands of an NRL match.
However, the system forces coaches to make binding decisions as the game unfolds.
Once four different reserves have entered the contest, the remaining two cannot be activated—even if a subsequent injury makes one of them the ideal replacement.
Penrith’s experience demonstrated the problem.
Ivan Cleary understandably used four forwards as his side attempted to withstand the Roosters’ powerful middle rotation.
When Nathan Cleary suffered his foot problem late in the match, the Panthers could not access the fresh back sitting among their reserves.
The rule provided theoretical flexibility before kick-off but removed it when Penrith actually needed it.
Johns’ Proposal Would Preserve the Eight-Interchange Limit
Johns is not calling for the NRL to return to an era of unlimited substitutions or increase the eight-interchange allowance.
That distinction matters.
Allowing all six reserves to participate would not necessarily reduce fatigue or permit coaches to continually rotate their largest forwards.
Every change would still count towards the existing limit.
A coach using six different replacements would consequently have only two additional interchanges available for players returning to the field.
That creates a legitimate tactical trade-off.
Teams could spread their eight changes across six players to cover injuries and specialist positions, or continue relying upon four forwards who can be rotated more than once.
The decision would remain with the coach.
Johns’ proposal would merely prevent two healthy members of the match-day squad from becoming unavailable because four teammates had entered earlier.
It is a logical amendment to a rule that already acknowledges teams require broader positional insurance.
There Are Potential Integrity Concerns
The NRL would still need to consider whether completely opening the six-player bench could create unintended consequences.
Clubs may use the additional access to introduce specialist players for brief periods rather than responding to genuine injuries.
A team could carry a defensive player for a crucial late set, a long-range kicker for a field-goal situation or a specialist dummy-half to exploit tired defenders.
However, those possibilities are not necessarily damaging.
They could introduce genuine tactical variety while forcing coaches to carefully manage the eight available changes.
Using a specialist for five minutes would consume an interchange and potentially leave the team exposed if another player were injured.
The current system also creates integrity questions of its own.
A player can be selected in the official match-day squad, complete the entire warm-up and sit on the bench for 80 minutes, yet remain unavailable when the team requires someone in his position.
That is difficult to explain to supporters and appears inconsistent with the purpose of expanding the bench.
Panthers Earned Crucial Recovery Time
Penrith’s victory means Cleary has two weeks to manage the foot problem before the preliminary final.
The Panthers will face the winner of the sudden-death match between the Warriors and Knights.
That break could prove decisive.
Stress-related bone injuries vary significantly in severity. Some can be managed through reduced training loads and pain relief, while others require an extended period away from running and kicking.
Penrith has not ruled Cleary out, but the injury being located in his right foot creates an obvious concern for a halfback whose kicking game is central to the team’s attack.
The Panthers have already faced a broader fitness battle involving Cleary, Yeo and Edwards during their finals campaign.
Jack Cole, Blaize Talagi and Jack Cogger provide possible alternatives if Cleary cannot play, although none can replicate his combination of game management, kicking accuracy and late-match composure.
Johns has previously argued that Penrith looks like a completely different team when Cogger partners Cleary.
Replacing Cleary altogether would be a considerably greater challenge.
The NRL Should Review the Rule
Penrith survived the Roosters match and secured a direct path into the preliminary final, so the bench restriction did not ultimately cost the club victory.
That does not make the issue irrelevant.
Rules should be assessed according to how they operate under pressure, not only whether the affected team manages to overcome the disadvantage.
The NRL expanded benches because coaches needed greater protection against positional injuries.
Preventing access to two selected reserves after four others have entered undermines that objective.
Johns’ proposed solution is straightforward: retain the eight-interchange limit but allow coaches to use any of the six available players.
It would increase tactical choice without guaranteeing teams additional rest or reducing the importance of fatigue.
Most importantly, it would ensure a healthy replacement can enter when a player is injured late in a match.
Cleary played through his foot problem and helped Penrith advance.
The next player caught in the same situation may not be capable of doing so.
MORE NRL NEWS: View Our NRL News Here
