Sport | Bomb Squad backed: World Rugby has no plans to ban 7-1 bench split

World Rugby CEO Alan Gilpin. (Oisin Keniry – World Rugby via Getty Images)

• World Rugby seemingly has no issue with the 7-1 forwards-backs bench split, which was first employed by the Springboks.
• The global governing body cites no medical evidence of increased injury risks.
• While some praise the strategy’s success, critics raise concerns about its fairness, the impact on backline play, and potential injury risks if players are forced to perform out of position.
• For more rugby news, visit our dedicated section.

Rugby’s 7-1 forwards-backs bench split looks set to continue, with World Rugby saying it has no plans to ban the strategy first made famous by the Springboks.

The global rugby governing body’s CEO Alan Gilpin told The Guardian there’s no medical evidence suggesting it will lead to more injuries.

Rassie Erasmus’ Springboks first used the tactic when they picked seven forwards on the bench in a World Cup warm-up match against the All Blacks at Twickenham in 2023. The Boks won that game 35-7. It was their biggest win ever over their old rivals.

Lloyd Burnard | If SA franchises don’t care about Europe, why should the fans?

The Boks also used the 7-1 split at the 2023 World Cup in France, including in the 12-11 win over New Zealand in the final.

France also started using the tactic in three Six Nations games this year, with the ploy proving devastating in their 42-27 win over Ireland in Dublin.

The Springbok bomb squad during a Rugby Championship match against New Zealand at Ellis Park in 2024. (Anton Geyser/Gallo Images)

Gallo Images

A few pundits have expressed concerns over the 7-1 split. Some of the concerns are that it gives an unfair advantage to teams with greater forward depth, potentially devaluing the importance of backline skills and attacking flair.

There are also fears that it could lead to more injuries if a forward is injured, and it forces a backline reserve to play out of position.

However, while acknowledging that the 7-1 split could raise questions over the spirit of the game, World Rugby does not see a scientific issue with it.

“We looked at it from a science, medicine perspective,” Gilpin said.

“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.”