The concept of the ‘bomb squad’ first came into the rugby conversation when the Springboks utilised a 6-2 forwards-to-backs split on the bench during the 2019 World Cup, which was a key weapon in their title charge.

Although there have been some critics – mainly from overseas pundits – who have suggested it leads to a safety issue when so many ‘fresh’ forwards come on late in the game, it is still a tactic that various other teams have begun to use.

In recent years, the Springboks have even elevated the ‘bomb squad’ potency by going for a 7-1 split, and it did lead to some indications from World Rugby that this substitution strategy could be reviewed or disallowed.

As part of recent World Rugby workshops looking at law changes, it was stated that the governing body was looking at the role of the replacements.

One item for review was explained as follows: “Examine the latest research on the impact of fatigue and the number and timing of replacements in the elite game to determine options that might create more space on the field while improving injury rates.”

The Springboks’ bomb squad won’t be under threat

In what will come as a huge relief to the Springboks and their fans, World Rugby’s chief executive, Alan Gilpin, told The Guardian that there are no medical grounds to outlaw this bench configuration.

“We looked at it from a science, medicine perspective. Was there a distinctive view that a bunch of fresh players coming on with 20‑30 minutes to go is going to create a more injurious position, and the science said that’s not the case.

“So there was no reason from that perspective to look at how we might do replacements differently. Ultimately, there are a lot of different ways to win a rugby match.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS NEWS?

Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 0211.

Subscribe to The South African website’s newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.

Src: TheSouthAfrican.com - https://rugga.co.za/springboks/bomb-squad-to-be-banned-world-rugby-responds/