As outgoing World Rugby Chairman Bill Beaumont contemplates retirement and the state of the game, it is curious that of all the things wrong with rugby, he chose the one thing they’re getting right to bemoan.
Beaumont, in a recent interview in The Times, said he believes the game has too many substitutes.
Beaumont pointedly singled out the Springboks’ famed “bomb squad”, the first team to introduce six forwards among the replacements. The Boks have even gone as far as using seven forwards.
The laws of the game don’t prescribe the make-up of the bench, other than that a specialist prop and hooker must be included among the eight reserves.
“My view is that we allow too many substitutes,” Beaumont told The Times.
“I don’t know if I’m looking through rose-coloured spectacles but in years gone by the game always opened up in the last 20 minutes, and games were often won in the last 20 minutes.”
“Two subs makes it lower still, compared to two starters (or fatigued players). So, risk comes down with subs, it doesn’t go up” — Ross Tucker
Off the top of my head, the Boks won both Tests against the All Blacks this year, with scores in the last quarter. And in 2023, the Boks came back to beat both France and England in the Rugby World Cup quarter and semifinals in the last 15 minutes.
And I’m fairly sure that if we went through multiple games from any of the last five years, you’ll see many of them won by a team coming from behind to win in the last quarter, despite the amount or subs.
“The bomb squad are very effective at what they (South Africa) do, and very successful — they have won two World Cups. I will not criticise that at all because it suits their game,” Beaumont said, before offering some criticism, disguised as fatherly advice.
“But maybe they could run for a bit longer and a bit further,” he suggested.
What does “run for a bit longer and further” even mean in the modern game?
It’s staggering to think that Beaumont, who has presided during a period when rugby is facing huge crises because of concussion-related legal action, inconsistent officiating, dithering over red card laws, and financial instability at most of its prominent members, believes the increase of replacements is a major regret.
There are many other hills to die on.
Bill Beaumont watches Jessica Bouzas Maneiro of Spain during her match against Marketa Vondrousova of Czech Republic in the Ladies' Singles first-round match at Wimbledon 2024 on 2 July 2024 in London. (Photo: Visionhaus/Getty Images)
First used
The bomb squad was first used by Rassie Erasmus and the Boks in 2019. Grumbling started then. But When the Boks went further and used a 7/1 split against the All Blacks in London last August as they thrashed them 35-7, it led to outcry from some sectors of the sport.
Flank Kwagga Smith was deployed as a seventh forward in that match because of the late withdrawal of fullback Willie le Roux.
Smith was a Sevens star with the Blitzboks, winning a Commonwealth Games gold medal, an Olympic bronze and two World Sevens Series titles. He’s actually a forward in a back’s body.
At 94kg, Smith is lighter than centres André Esterhuizen, Jesse Kriel, Damian de Allende and flyhalf Handré Pollard.
Read more: Brilliant bomb squad powers Boks to dramatic win over All Blacks in seething atmosphere
Matt Williams, a former Scotland coach, was incensed by a coaching decision well within the laws that came with more inherent risk for the Boks than it did for the All Blacks.
“South Africa are just abusing the bench at the moment,” Williams said on the Off The Ball podcast at the time.
He said the bench was designed for “safety reasons, so that people didn’t come on in positions they weren’t trained for, so we didn’t have injuries”.
“World Rugby must act on this; the way you deal with this is, say, you have to have three backs on the bench.”
So by that logic, Franco Mostert who is a lock, must not be considered as a flank. Damian Willemse can play in multiple positions across the backline. Must he only be allowed to play in one? Ditto Cheslin Kolbe, Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu and Canan Moodie.
Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus. (Photo: Gordon Arons/Gallo Images)
‘Fresher the player, lower the injury risk’
The original move to more reserves was for player welfare reasons. An increase in fatigue leads to an increase in injuries. Therefore the fresher the player, the slightly decreasing likelihood he/she would suffer a serious injury.
That’s not my take, by the way, but the outcome of World Rugby’s own study and conclusion on the issue. Professor Ross Tucker was a consultant, and he had this to say on his social media feed, in the days after the 7/1 split was first used.
“What the proponents for fewer subs are omitting, is the recognition that fatigue is itself a risk factor for injury,” stated Tucker, who has more credibility and knowledge on this issue than almost anyone.
“And so, subs, while introducing a set of risk factors (power, mass) are also mitigating a risk factor (fatigue).
“There is likely a trade-off between these, and nobody yet knows how they interact. We do know that fatigue is a major risk, and in fact, we’ve just submitted a paper for review that shows that adding subs doesn’t increase risk, but may decrease it.
“Analysis that is currently underway shows that when we look specifically at the tackle and ask how the addition of a sub (fresher player) to the tackle ‘relationship’ actually lowers the overall risk.
“Two subs makes it lower still, compared to two starters (or fatigued players). So, risk comes down with subs, it doesn’t go up.
“But even within this, there is nuance. If you think of a tackle as a ‘dance’ involving two players, overall risk is slightly lower, or unaffected, when one is a sub and one is a starter, but within that dance, the more fatigued player has more risk than the fresher player.
“It is true that the arrival of fresh players at say, minute 50, increases risk to players who’ve been on since minute zero. But overall risk is still lower (or the same, depending on some details). So, is it true to say: ‘subs increase injury risk’? No, overall, they reduce it.”
That’s the conclusion of an eminent scholar at the coalface of the debate.
Read more: Gutsy Springboks selection produced sports’ most talked about 7-1 since Germany thrashed Brazil
There might be scope for a debate on the number of substitutes if the trade-off against player welfare is marginal. But to reverse the policy on the basis of one team’s application of the laws, is ludicrous.
If World Rugby are considering an about-turn on the number of subs/reserves, they’d better be clear about why they’d do it. Because Beaumont’s reasoning has zero to do with player welfare.
And as for improving the game “because it will be more open” in the final quarter, well, that is just a rose-tinted view. DM