Boks "Bomb squad" in doubt as ex-players target substitutes - again

[FalseBayFC]

Seems the whining from up Norf is intensifying.

https://supersport.com/rugby/springboks ... utes_again

[sockwithaticket]

I know some of you Saffers are a bit insular, but this is a stupid hobby horse lots of aged ex-player pundits have been riding for a while. Its not about you or the Lions.

[OomStruisbaai]

Same old same as after the WC win.

Another Rassie invention that piss off his opponents.

List grow by the day.

1. Waterboy,
2. Video,
3. Bom squad.

What's next?

[FalseBayFC]

I know some of you Saffers are a bit insular, but this is a stupid hobby horse lots of aged ex-player pundits have been riding for a while. Its not about you or the Lions.

I know. We're terrified that Billie Beaumont and his ilk are going to change the game and make us play open non-boring rugby.

For what its worth I think its a discussion worth having. But I think the other law changes that are aimed at speeding the game up might have the effect of depowering the game a bit so to speak. High School players are now as big as the seniors in many cases. We are more than likely going to see chronic traumatic encephalopathy become an increasingly common problem.

[Ymx]

I know some of you Saffers are a bit insular, but this is a stupid hobby horse lots of aged ex-player pundits have been riding for a while. Its not about you or the Lions.

I think it’s probably the timing of it all … and kind of follows a pattern .

Like when the whole scrum laws changed after England were taken apart by Wales.

When the offside tackle rule came about after Italy embarrassed England ….

[Grandpa]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

[Enzedder]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

But we musn't forget that we changed the law because one country used to have injuries in their forwards on the hour in every game.

[Ymx]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

I hate to sound cynical, but would it just lead to faking injuries.

[Mr Bungle]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

I hate to sound cynical, but would it just lead to faking injuries.

Something else the Boks excelled at. John Hart was very pointed in his comments re: non injured Bok replacements in 96/97 when they weren’t legal. Who remembers Johan Roux jogging off and winking to his ‘injury replacement’?

[Kawazaki]

Seems the whining from up Norf is intensifying.

https://supersport.com/rugby/springboks ... utes_again

Brendan Nel

He's a genuine loon on Twitter. He'd even make the South African wankers on this forum appear reasonable.

[Grandpa]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

I hate to sound cynical, but would it just lead to faking injuries.

Rugby did used to be like this remember...

Now you can add in neutral doctors... and if needed, add in a rule that if you come off injured, you automatically miss the next game...

I just like the idea of more tired players and more gaps late in games...

[Grandpa]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

But we musn't forget that we changed the law because one country used to have injuries in their forwards on the hour in every game.

We'll make injuries have consequences...

[Ymx]

I remember this being raised about ten years ago. I think Hansen or Henry or both raised it while the All Blacks were successful... and even back then I liked the idea of injury subs only. Else we're getting closer and closer to NFL...

I hate to sound cynical, but would it just lead to faking injuries.

Rugby did used to be like this remember...

Now you can add in neutral doctors... and if needed, add in a rule that if you come off injured, you automatically miss the next game...

I just like the idea of more tired players and more gaps late in games...

How would a doctor know if someone’s sprained a knee or faking it.

What’s worse if doc makes someone stay on for a genuine injury ending their career.

What’s more, imagine being injured by a bad tackle, but ok after a few days. You’re saying you’d not be allowed to play next week, almost as if you had been cited.

[Grandpa]

I hate to sound cynical, but would it just lead to faking injuries.

Rugby did used to be like this remember...

Now you can add in neutral doctors... and if needed, add in a rule that if you come off injured, you automatically miss the next game...

I just like the idea of more tired players and more gaps late in games...

How would a doctor know if someone’s sprained a knee or faking it.

What’s worse if doc makes someone stay on for a genuine injury ending their career.

What’s more, imagine being injured by a bad tackle, but ok after a few days. You’re saying you’d not be allowed to play next week, almost as if you had been cited.

Well he can't force them to stay on.... just not allow them to be replaced...

Are you saying it's not possible to go back to the 15 a-side game we all so enjoyed... instead letting it become more and more like NFL?

There must be a way... surely...

[Ymx]

Well, drop the size of the bench would be a simpler way.

3 forwards 2 backs.

[Enzedder]

2 forwards, 1 back

[Grandpa]

Of course... reduce the bench...

Replacement front row and one back... should be enough to cover injuries...

[Enzedder]

Agree - and coaches will be bloody reluctant to use the bench too soon, just in case there is an injury.

Alternatively, what about a 3 person interchange bench (a bit leagueish but lets chuck it in for discussion)

[Grandpa]

Three person interchange would probably eventually produce hybrid type players... one to cover the front row, all three positions.. one to cover lock/loose forwards.... and one to cover all the backs...

Not a bad idea...

[Ymx]

World Rugby chairman Beaumont told The Times he plans to meet McGeechan—with whom he toured New Zealand on the 1977 Lions series—in an effort to find a resolution.

“I have the utmost respect for the guys that wrote that letter so I am going to meet Geech (McGeechan) and speak to him about their concerns. He is someone I have played with, who is a good friend,” he said.

“We are trying to gather as much evidence as we can. It is important World Rugby does not act in haste because that can lead to unintended consequences. Whatever the outcome of this research, player welfare will be at the top of the list of priorities.”

My gosh he could have done better to hide the outright nepotism, in how he conducts WR decision making processes.

I like how he says, shouldn’t act in haste. Again a play at showing restraint, but whilst indicating he’s already decided it needs a review with probable actions (for player welfare sake) on the back of an open letter from his mate.

[Grandpa]

World Rugby chairman Beaumont told The Times he plans to meet McGeechan—with whom he toured New Zealand on the 1977 Lions series—in an effort to find a resolution.

“I have the utmost respect for the guys that wrote that letter so I am going to meet Geech (McGeechan) and speak to him about their concerns. He is someone I have played with, who is a good friend,” he said.

“We are trying to gather as much evidence as we can. It is important World Rugby does not act in haste because that can lead to unintended consequences. Whatever the outcome of this research, player welfare will be at the top of the list of priorities.”

My gosh he could have done better to hide the outright nepotism, in how he conducts WR decision making processes.

I like how he says, shouldn’t act in haste. Again a play at showing restraint, but whilst indicating he’s already decided it needs a review with probable actions (for player welfare sake) on the back of an open letter from his mate.

But everyone knows they are mates anyway... Beaumont was in the same Lions team... guess he is being transparent...

Anyway... be interesting to see what any studies show...

A World Rugby spokesperson said: "We are acting in line with the latest science, research and data to make the sport as safe and accessible for all - at all levels, and for men and women."

The organisation said "a comprehensive review of the impact of substitutes in the elite game", taking in more than 2,000 matches, is being undertaken by the University of Bath and would inform the future approach to injury prevention.

[Niegs]

Those calling for a reduction of subs, will you solemnly swear, should this go through, that you won’t start crying “the match is ruined now!” when all starters are injured, subs in, and one more gets hurt? Or if the front rows are all gone and scrums are depowered?

There’d be a patch of that for a season or so and some genius in the law fidgeting group at WR would declare “I know, chaps! Let’s add a few more bodies on the bench to prevent this happening.”

Alternatively, seeing as Union just nicks ideas from League every few years, why not bring in interchanges like the 7s has? Can have seven or eight on deck, but only make five changes.

[assfly]

I actually kind of agree with the idea.

With players getting fitter and defences getting better, we may end up seeing more test matches that are one try affairs.

We need to bring back fatigue into the game. Get players tired so that defences can open up a bit more.

[Big Nipper]

Those calling for a reduction of subs, will you solemnly swear, should this go through, that you won’t start crying “the match is ruined now!” when all starters are injured, subs in, and one more gets hurt? Or if the front rows are all gone and scrums are depowered?

There’d be a patch of that for a season or so and some genius in the law fidgeting group at WR would declare “I know, chaps! Let’s add a few more bodies on the bench to prevent this happening.”

Alternatively, seeing as Union just nicks ideas from League every few years, why not bring in interchanges like the 7s has? Can have seven or eight on deck, but only make five changes.

Was thinking exactly the same. Just like the 20min red card rule has been drafted in to prevent a game being ruined. Short sighted knee jerk reaction from the usual NH dolts

[FalseBayFC]

It's a ridiculous idea. Name one modern team sport that doesn't allow tactical subs. The whining seems to be a little confused. Is it because players will get injured? Or is it because it results in a game style that people don't like. It's interesting that the most vocal opponents of tactical subs are from a rugby culture which prides itself on hard attritional grinding forward orientated rugby (1970's Lions teams excluded).

Its the same rules for both teams so it hardly favors one over the other. And all this bullshit about rugby being:

"It would be grossly negligent to allow the status quo to continue," the Lions legends' letter said.

"Rugby Union was conceived as a 15-a-side game for 30 players.

"With the current eight substitutes per side, many of whom are tactical 'impact players' or 'finishers', this can and often does stretch to 46."

We are never going back to players with physiques like Naas Botha, Alan Hewson or Jonathan Webb. A smaller back today like Ngani Laumape or Sevu Reece is just as likely to concuss you on impact as a behemoth like Eben Etzebeth. So its not a size thing.

[ScarfaceClaw]

It's a ridiculous idea. Name one modern team sport that doesn't allow tactical subs. The whining seems to be a little confused. Is it because players will get injured? Or is it because it results in a game style that people don't like. It's interesting that the most vocal opponents of tactical subs are from a rugby culture which prides itself on hard attritional grinding forward orientated rugby (1970's Lions teams excluded).

Its the same rules for both teams so it hardly favors one over the other. And all this bullshit about rugby being:

"It would be grossly negligent to allow the status quo to continue," the Lions legends' letter said.

"Rugby Union was conceived as a 15-a-side game for 30 players.

"With the current eight substitutes per side, many of whom are tactical 'impact players' or 'finishers', this can and often does stretch to 46."

We are never going back to players with physiques like Naas Botha, Alan Hewson or Jonathan Webb. A smaller back today like Ngani Laumape or Sevu Reece is just as likely to concuss you on impact as a behemoth like Eben Etzebeth. So its not a size thing.

In theory, cricket. Although these days it seems rare for a team to have to same selected XI on the field at the same time. There is always some bugger that’s off.

[OomStruisbaai]

How many matches did these complainers play compare to the modern top players in a year?

[Blake]

Seems the whining from up Norf is intensifying.

https://supersport.com/rugby/springboks ... utes_again

Brendan Nel

He's a genuine loon on Twitter. He'd even make the South African wankers on this forum appear reasonable.

Not going to disagree with you there. He is part of the same "media company" as Keo.

Absolute tools.

[Sandstorm]

Well, drop the size of the bench would be a simpler way.

3 forwards 2 backs.

You can’t. We take head injuries seriously now and a team could end up with just 13 fit players by the 60th minute.

[Slick]

It's a ridiculous idea. Name one modern team sport that doesn't allow tactical subs. The whining seems to be a little confused. Is it because players will get injured? Or is it because it results in a game style that people don't like. It's interesting that the most vocal opponents of tactical subs are from a rugby culture which prides itself on hard attritional grinding forward orientated rugby (1970's Lions teams excluded).

Its the same rules for both teams so it hardly favors one over the other. And all this bullshit about rugby being:

"It would be grossly negligent to allow the status quo to continue," the Lions legends' letter said.

"Rugby Union was conceived as a 15-a-side game for 30 players.

"With the current eight substitutes per side, many of whom are tactical 'impact players' or 'finishers', this can and often does stretch to 46."

We are never going back to players with physiques like Naas Botha, Alan Hewson or Jonathan Webb. A smaller back today like Ngani Laumape or Sevu Reece is just as likely to concuss you on impact as a behemoth like Eben Etzebeth. So its not a size thing.

I think you are being a little paranoid here if you think it’s a direct reaction to SA playing the way they do. They have always played like that, even when subs were introduced.

It’s not all about you

[Monk]

when Hennie Muller made life impossible for them, they changed the laws of the game to minimize his strengths

[Grandpa]

I actually kind of agree with the idea.

With players getting fitter and defences getting better, we may end up seeing more test matches that are one try affairs.

We need to bring back fatigue into the game. Get players tired so that defences can open up a bit more.

Me too... Rugby is getting more and more like NFL... how long before we have 15 subs on the bench...

You want to keep rugby as a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic... the way it's going it will become a completely anaerobic sport like American Football..

[sorCrer]

I actually kind of agree with the idea.

With players getting fitter and defences getting better, we may end up seeing more test matches that are one try affairs.

We need to bring back fatigue into the game. Get players tired so that defences can open up a bit more.

Me too... Rugby is getting more and more like NFL... how long before we have 15 subs on the bench...

You want to keep rugby as a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic... the way it's going it will become a completely anaerobic sport like American Football..

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

[Blake]

Those calling for a reduction of subs, will you solemnly swear, should this go through, that you won’t start crying “the match is ruined now!” when all starters are injured, subs in, and one more gets hurt? Or if the front rows are all gone and scrums are depowered?

There’d be a patch of that for a season or so and some genius in the law fidgeting group at WR would declare “I know, chaps! Let’s add a few more bodies on the bench to prevent this happening.”

Alternatively, seeing as Union just nicks ideas from League every few years, why not bring in interchanges like the 7s has? Can have seven or eight on deck, but only make five changes.

That seems like the best compromise should this go ahead.
Bench of 8 players (TH, LH, Hooker, Lock, Utility backrow, scrumhalf, flyhalf, untility back), but only 4 may be used in a match.
Could work, but it will definitely have some unforeseen and unwanted consequences as well.

Emptying the bench in the final 15 mins has been a great way to ease new players into the test arena and giving them some caps without risking a starter spot.
That will be a thing of the past, but maybe that's a good thing too.

I have my doubts over safety aspect though. Glad WR and Bath University are conducting the study. Just from recent memory the AWJ injury against Japan, the PSdT injury against the Lions, and the Wyn Jones and Biggar injuries against the Boks all occurred in the first half. Even the larger, confrontational specimens in the Bok camp Etzebeth, De Jager, Vermeulen, PSdT, Mostert...they regularly put in 80 minute shifts anyway. The Bomb Squad thing is a bit of branding and marketing and mind-games. Most teams have a full front row on the bench anyway. They are the only ones that really benefit from getting subbed. Any team can do it, but the Boks have just made their entrance an "occasion" to intimidate the opposition. Seems like it is working.

[Grandpa]

I actually kind of agree with the idea.

With players getting fitter and defences getting better, we may end up seeing more test matches that are one try affairs.

We need to bring back fatigue into the game. Get players tired so that defences can open up a bit more.

Me too... Rugby is getting more and more like NFL... how long before we have 15 subs on the bench...

You want to keep rugby as a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic... the way it's going it will become a completely anaerobic sport like American Football..

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

[Grandpa]

Those calling for a reduction of subs, will you solemnly swear, should this go through, that you won’t start crying “the match is ruined now!” when all starters are injured, subs in, and one more gets hurt? Or if the front rows are all gone and scrums are depowered?

There’d be a patch of that for a season or so and some genius in the law fidgeting group at WR would declare “I know, chaps! Let’s add a few more bodies on the bench to prevent this happening.”

Alternatively, seeing as Union just nicks ideas from League every few years, why not bring in interchanges like the 7s has? Can have seven or eight on deck, but only make five changes.

That seems like the best compromise should this go ahead.
Bench of 8 players (TH, LH, Hooker, Lock, Utility backrow, scrumhalf, flyhalf, untility back), but only 4 may be used in a match.
Could work, but it will definitely have some unforeseen and unwanted consequences as well.

Emptying the bench in the final 15 mins has been a great way to ease new players into the test arena and giving them some caps without risking a starter spot.
That will be a thing of the past, but maybe that's a good thing too.

I have my doubts over safety aspect though. Glad WR and Bath University are conducting the study. Just from recent memory the AWJ injury against Japan, the PSdT injury against the Lions, and the Wyn Jones and Biggar injuries against the Boks all occurred in the first half. Even the larger, confrontational specimens in the Bok camp Etzebeth, De Jager, Vermeulen, PSdT, Mostert...they regularly put in 80 minute shifts anyway. The Bomb Squad thing is a bit of branding and marketing and mind-games. Most teams have a full front row on the bench anyway. They are the only ones that really benefit from getting subbed. Any team can do it, but the Boks have just made their entrance on "occasion" to intimidate the opposition. Seems like it is working.

The bomb squad is just a recent thing though... the All Blacks used to bring on flair players late in games quite often.. Beaudan Barrett and SBW regularly used to come on late in games. And this was around ten years ago... But even then I remember Steve Hansen having a preference to a return to the old days of subs for injuries only...

8 players on bench but can only use 3 or 4 (like soccer) might be workable.

[assfly]

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Teams would just have to adapt. Props that are expected to go the full 80 would naturally become smaller, fitter and more mobile. Which would also lead to less bone-melting collisions.

[Slick]

Me too... Rugby is getting more and more like NFL... how long before we have 15 subs on the bench...

You want to keep rugby as a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic... the way it's going it will become a completely anaerobic sport like American Football..

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

There is a balance that has been lost.

9-6 games can be brilliant just as the old Super Rugby games that ended 87-63 I found really dull

[Grandpa]

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

There is a balance that has been lost.

9-6 games can be brilliant just as the old Super Rugby games that ended 87-63 I found really dull

I agree... 9-6 can be brilliant... but not if it is stop start unambitious low risk dementia inducing rugby...

Let's encourage a bit of ambition...

Balance is good...

[FalseBayFC]

Me too... Rugby is getting more and more like NFL... how long before we have 15 subs on the bench...

You want to keep rugby as a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic... the way it's going it will become a completely anaerobic sport like American Football..

Caused by the incessant desire to see exciting tries scored.

Exactly.... is that a crime?

Rugby is at it's best when you get long passages of play... first one team is about to score and then the other.... back and forth.... why turn it into a game that is a series of set pieces? Where stoppage time is longer than ball in play time... watch NFL if you like that...

Are there more scrums and lineouts in todays game than say the seventies and eighties. Attacking rugby is stifled more by the rise of the defensive analyst and the conditioning of players. Modern defensive patterns mean counter attacking from kick ball and turnovers is the only time you'll really see attractive running rugby.

It's a fallacy that rugby has always been this game of exciting running. Only one team has been able to do that consistently and that is the All Blacks. France and Australia have had their moments but not year in year out like NZ. The rest of us play to our strengths and do what we can to win.

For what its worth I think that the players that South Africa is producing now are even better suited to an expansive game. Guys like Mapimpi, Fassi and Kolbe are electric. Our most improved player is Lukhanyo Am who at a push could still be playing at the 2027 world cup. These guys have been as influential in the Boks success as the big boys up front.