World Rugby to defuse Boks' Bomb Squad?

22/03/2024 17:24

There's good and bad (for the Boks) in World Rugby's latest laws initiative, writes SIMON BORCHARDT.

I thought the 2023 World Cup provided entertainment of the highest order, and not just because the Springboks won it.

Two of the quarter-finals – Ireland vs New Zealand and South Africa vs France – are regarded as two of the greatest rugby matches ever played, while the tournament is regarded as one of the best World Cups ever.

If tries are your thing, well, there were 325 of them, the second-most at a World Cup, at an average of almost seven a game. If you don't gauge the quality of a match by the number of tries scored, then you would have throughly enjoyed every moment of the pool blockbuster between the Springboks and Ireland, in which each team crossed the line once, and the World Cup final between the Boks and All Blacks, in which just one try was scored.

However, the World Cup clearly wasn't entertaining enough for some. This week, World Rugby “outlined the next steps in the process of reimagining rugby's entertainment factor, part of a wider mission to grow audience share over the next decade”.

This included immediate law changes, possible law changes (to be voted on by the World Rugby council in May), possible trials, and areas for further analysis.

The immediate law changes seem sensible.

“Caterpillar rucks” – when forwards line up in single file to extend a ruck and give their scrumhalf more time to box kick – take time out of the game, and should be eradicated by the new law that requires the referee to call “use it” earlier and start their five-second countdown.

Hookers are also now required to put one foot forward at scrums to aid their stability and prevent “axial loading” (when the combined power of the scrum centres on their neck), and a crackdown on water-carriers entering the field is needed, as illustrated by Neil Jenkins' recent exchange with referee Mathieu Raynal in the Six Nations.

Of the possible law changes, closing the “Dupont Law” loophole (which results in kick-tennis) and banning the “crocodile roll” at rucks (which results in leg injuries) should both get a big tick.

But removing the option of a second scrum when a free kick is given at a scrum to prevent “dead time” will hopefully get a big cross, as a weaker scrum, like Australia's, may look to concede a free kick at the engagement rather than run the risk of conceding a penalty against a powerful pack, like the Springboks'.

Of the possible trials, a shot clock for scrums and lineouts, and the ball being played after a maul has been stopped once (not twice) is also aimed at speeding up the game and could prove effective.

But playing on if a lineout throw is not straight, if the lineout was uncontested, can easily be exploited – what's to stop a hooker throwing to his scrumhalf before the opposition has lifted a player?

The five areas for further analysis have caused the biggest debate.

For me, as long as red cards are going to be given for unintended “foul play” (like Sam Cane's red card in the World Cup final) then allowing a team to replace a red-carded player after 20 minutes makes sense.

I've previously argued for the reduction of the TMO's role and against the lowering of the tackling height for safety reasons, so I won't go there again.

Removing the “jackal” – the player who steals the ball at the breakdown – for safety reasons will remove the contest from one of the key areas of the game, so I'd argue against that too.

The biggest taking point, from a Springbok perspective, is a review of how and when replacements are used.

After the 2019 World Cup, in which the Boks deployed the Bomb Squad for the first time – a bench with a six-two split between forwards and backs – Test referee Nigel Owens called for the number of tactical substitutions to be reduced from eight to five or four, and even suggested only allowing injured players to be replaced. This, he said, would prevent fresh players from coming up against fatigued players in the second half of matches – a supposed safety hazard – while the impact of collisions between two fatigued players would be reduced.

Others joined the chorus during the 2023 World Cup when the Bomb Squad went nuclear with a seven-one split for the final.

So World Rugby's substitutes review appears to be an attempt to defuse the Bomb Squad. Would the number of substitutes even be a talking point if the Boks hadn't won the last two World Cups?

Subs bring a fascinating tactical element to the game, and if only injured players could be replaced, how long would it be before players began feigning injury?

Sure, there are laws that can do with some tinkering, but when it comes to others, like those involving the scrum and substitutions, World Rugby shouldn't try to fix what isn't broken in the name of “entertainment”.

Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images

The post World Rugby to defuse Boks’ Bomb Squad? appeared first on SA Rugby magazine.