World Rugby finds no medical evidence to outlaw 7-1 bench splits

World Rugby insists there is no medical evidence that 7-1 bench splits will lead to more injuries and the governing body has no plans to outlaw the tactic as a result.

France deployed a bench of seven forwards and one back to devastating effect in three matches during the Six Nations, particularly during the 42‑27 victory against Ireland in Dublin. The strategy was introduced by South Africa in a warmup match against New Zealand before the 2023 World Cup, and they have used it on a number of occasions since.

The Scotland head coach, Gregor Townsend, expressed concerns at a World Rugby “Shape of the Game” conference during the Six Nations and also stated his views after his side’s win against Wales. “I don’t think the bench was set up to suddenly have a new forward pack coming on,” he said. “But that’s for World Rugby to decide what you do with the bench, and to make any changes. But just now you can put eight forwards on the bench if you want.

“Where do we think the game might end up? Is it going to be more a game where we need forwards in a 6-2 or 7-1? Or is it a game where we need backs because it’s going to be so open that we’ve got to make sure we’re bringing backs off the bench?”

Townsend is not blessed with power forwards in the same way France or South Africa are but after Ireland’s Dublin defeat by Les Bleus, the former second-row Donncha O’Callaghan described it as a “defining day for rugby”.

The World Rugby chairman, Brett Robinson, acknowledged that 7-1 splits raise questions over the spirit of the game but, having made it a priority to increase fatigue in the sport, the governing body does not see a scientific issue with teams loading their benches with forwards.

World Rugby’s chief executive, Alan Gilpin, said: “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.”

The World Rugby council, meanwhile, will vote next month on whether to introduce permanently into law 20‑minute red cards. There were four such red cards shown during the Six Nations this year – to Romain Ntamack, Ross Vintcent, Giacomo Nicotera, and Garry Ringrose in the first half of Ireland’s win against Wales. He was replaced early in the second half by Bundee Aki who excelled as his side came from behind to clinch victory in Cardiff.

In the final round, France’s Peato Mauvaka was shown a yellow card and allowed to return to the field after appearing to launch himself head-first at Scotland’s Ben White. He was cited and banned for three matches, raising questions as to why he was not shown a straight red card. The incident was sent for review via the bunker referral system, but the only option for upgrade at that point would have been to a 20-minute red, which is not meant to apply to deliberate acts after play has stopped, and which in any case was not applied.

Townsend said at the time: “I think [the bunker review system] gives referees an out. We’ve taken decision-making away from referees.”

There was no little irony to the fact that Ireland and France have been the two most vocal opponents of 20‑minute red cards and both appeared to profit during the Six Nations. If the vote passes, 20‑minute red cards will be introduced to the Premiership and the Women’s World Cup this year.

Gilpin said: “There’s a lot of evidence to support that it’s keeping the contest alive, which is obviously important to us. There are definitely those in the game who are against it and believe that 20-minute red cards mean there will not be any old‑fashioned red cards and therefore they’re against the proposal, and there are a lot of people supportive of it.”