Time to defuse the bomb squad.
World Rugby has a dedicated, specialist group studying the whole issue of replacements. It’s brief is to “determine options which might create more space on the field while improving injury rates.” The outcomes, due soon, are eagerly awaited. Meanwhile, here are some thoughts to consider.
When RG Snyman flattened Craig Casey in the first Test against South Africa in July, the secondrow had been on the pitch for just 13 minutes. Casey’s stint at that point was 63 minutes. The tackle led to Casey being stretchered off with concussion and was, strangely, not formally reviewed by referee Luke Pearce or TMO Ben Whitehouse.
Snyman was one of six forward replacements introduced in that game by Rassie Erasmus on the dot of 50 minutes. The current laws allow that to happen, even if it was never the intention. It must send a shiver down the spines of halfbacks who may well be expected to play the full match. Former Ireland and Lions Test hooker Keith Wood puts it very well, comparing it to a heavyweight boxing match when just as you are finding some inroads against a huge opponent and have him on the ropes and suddenly he is swapped for a fresh fighter.
With fatiguing opponents facing what amounts to a new opposing pack, the status quo can hardly be considered safe. If Snyman had started the match, by the time minute 63 came around it’s extremely unlikely that he would have had the energy to chase the scrumhalf down, and certainly not with anything like the same force. So many fresh legs also have the effect of shutting down space. Conversely, with everybody tiring at the same time, more gaps would open up and defences become stretched.
Should rugby's bomb squads be outlawed?
The current use of the bench in the form of bomb squads is the unintended consequence of over-generous replacement laws which try to cover every single eventuality. Remember, none of it was supposed to happen. When these laws were framed, nobody envisaged where it would end up. So, a better balance is sorely needed.
Replacements were first introduced to cover injuries so teams would not be disadvantaged by a player being forced off. Then came the permission to introduce tactical replacements, and it all snowballed from there. It has dramatically altered the shape of the game.
If every player who starts a match was obliged to stay until the finish, it’s likely they would be reconditioned to enable them to be effective throughout a full 80 minutes. Currently, a lower ranked team, Fiji for example, who manage to get a higher rated opposition on to the ropes and are chasing a famous win, suddenly find themselves having to start all over again with a whole new challenge.
It starts with the front row players, where each position has to be considered ‘specialist’. In other words, a tighthead prop will very rarely replace a loosehead; a hooker won’t often play prop or vice versa. There aren’t many props who can play on both sides of the scrum, so there has to be replacement cover for all three front row positions.
In seeking a solution, the first thing is to have a compulsory split ensuring that there are only five forwards in the eight replacements permitted, even though that would still allow the whole front five to be replaced. So, why not stipulate that, of the five, only four can be used, inclusive of the frontrow. That’s just one of several possible permutations involving the pack, and a far cry from putting six or seven on to the pitch. It would also reduce the non-stop brute force which the current system allows from the first whistle to the last.
Another element is the number of tactical changes which are allowed at any one time. At the moment, up to seven forwards can be introduced together. Perhaps a maximum of two, with a 10 minute gap before the next two arrive, might work. The backs present nothing like the same problem and could well be allowed to stay with three usable players on the bench.
A suggestion which landed in my inbox recently was to go back to replacements for injury only, which was first allowed in 1968. Until then, teams would have to play with reduced numbers if there was an injury. Ireland’s iconic Mike Gibson was the first such international replacement, coming on for Welshman Barry John in a Lions test against South Africa.
But, of course, we can’t go backwards. We had our fill of injury-feigning in the past. The well-documented ‘bloodgate’ incident undoubtedly is the most infamous, Harlequins using a fake blood capsule to enable a replacement against Leinster in the 2009 Heineken Cup quarter-final. When the cheating was uncovered, it resulted in a heavy suspension for coach Dean Richards.
To prevent any sleight of hand, the law in this area has become hellishly complicated. You’d need a Masters in Higher Maths to comprehend it all, particularly what happens when uncontested scrums are necessary.
The defusing task is a very tricky one, while at the same time it is a hugely important issue. Here’s a fervent wish that the specialists snip the right wires.
