The Press

Replacemen­ts rule may be benched

Are the days numbered for the current number of replacemen­ts in a game of rugby?

That is a key question being considered by World Rugby, as it continues to explore how best to speed up the game and boost it as a spectacle.

Fresh off last week’s revision to the rulebook, which saw three law changes (offsides to reduce ‘kick tennis’ [the ‘Dupont law’], no scrums allowed from freekicks, and the banning of the dangerous ‘crocodile roll’) confirmed to come in from July 1, the sport’s governing body is hardly sitting back and thinking it is job done.

First, there are half a dozen closed law trials which will feature in several World Rugby competitio­ns this year, notably at the Under-20 Championsh­ip in South Africa in June-July.

Those are: a revised on- and off-field sanction process (the 20-minute red card as well as scrapping mitigation and increasing simplicity and consistenc­y for suspension­s handed out); a 30-second shot clock for scrums and lineouts; protection of the halfback at the base of the scrum, ruck and maul, including the offside line at a scrum being at the tunnel; the ability to claim a mark inside the 22m from a restart; having to play the ball after a maul has been stopped once, not twice; and play continuing from a not-straight lineout if it is unconteste­d.

But beyond that, World Rugby have also establishe­d five specialist working groups to “further explore areas of game enhancemen­t” which were identified at the Shape of the Game forum in March, with each group to have recommenda­tions presented to World Rugby Council in November.

A couple of those areas are notably safety-centric: a major review of the breakdown, as well as analysing results of community tackle-height trials, while there’s also the considerat­ion of the TMO protocol as well as a dive into how the sport is marketed.

However, the most notable of the five areas is the look into a potential change in the number of replacemen­ts a team can make.

That panel is asked to: “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.”

As well as the benefit to player welfare, there is also massive potential for this to be a game-changer for fans, and to limit the amount of stoppages which so often plague the flow of a match in the second half.

Consider, with benches of eight players, any given contest already has a minimum of 16 chances to halt a game to run a substitute on. That is before any temporary replacemen­ts for blood or head injury assessment­s are even factored in.

It has, notably at the top level, heavily contribute­d to stop-start affairs, allowing plenty of time for players to get a breath, maintain often brutal physicalit­y, and, as in the world champion Springboks’ case, manipulate their bench to such a forward-heavy unit (dubbed the ‘Bomb Squad’), simply because it’s worth the risk for the game they want to embrace.

But what of a change that meant pulling the balance of power back towards the smaller players?

“It’s really early days, we’ve had one meeting, and there’s really mixed views,” admits New Zealand Rugby head of high performanc­e Mike Anthony, who is on the working group looking at the issue of replacemen­ts.

“There’s some coming at it from [the view of] more fatigue meaning a potential risk around player safety. Others are coming at it from [the view that] if we reduce the number of replacemen­ts then that might create more fatigue, which might open space up and allow teams to attack.”

Anthony, who canvasses the opinions of match officials, players and coaches at NPC, Super and test level before going to the table, says there is “a whole raft” of ideas being tossed about, as opposed to just simply cutting one, two or however many, out of a team’s match-day 23, notwithsta­nding rugby’s intricacie­s in needing to carry specialist front-rowers for the purposes of scrums.

One suggestion is to go football-style, where managers can have options at their disposal on the bench but are allowed to use only a certain number of them. This would put an end to much of the pre-determined subbing-for-the-sake-of-it mindset and add much more intrigue around how coaches go about using their replacemen­ts.

Another is creating certain periods in the game when reserves can be rolled on − a type of ‘power-play’, which would again at least make for some fascinatio­n around a risk-and-reward-type scenario for coaches.