The claret gambit

The amazing thing about the spat around substitutions that broke out this week is that it took so long for it to become an issue.

Ever since tactical replacements became permissible we have, to mix metaphors, been sailing close to the wind and turning a blind eye to transgressions.

Indeed some time ago one of my columns dealt with the lack of hard and fast rules when it comes to the comings and goings of subs and pointing out that it was a controversy looking for a place to break out.

The latest barney has the Bulls and the Cheetahs at each other’s throats in an undeclared dispute – both denying that they are in any way involved in the mud-slinging.

At issue is the substitution of Anton Leonard by the Bulls during their match against the Cheetahs. It seemed a natural enough occurrence – until Leonard returned to the fray just minutes after he had left.

Initial referees’ reports, as well as (allegedly) that of the Bulls’ on-field manager who is meant to hand in a card stating what kind of replacement is taking place (blood or tactical substitution), indicated that it was a straight swap – a tiring player for a fresh one.

If that had been the case Leonard would not have been able to return to the field; but then the Bulls claimed that Leonard had, in fact, been bleeding and that he was therefore entitled to return. Complicating the issue was the fact that the Bulls had run out of forward subs on the bench.

First objections did not emerge directly from the Cheetahs but (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) they did originate in Bloemfontein’s only newspaper.

Based on the referee’s reports (and we now discover there are officials referred to as the fourth and fifth referees) that were faxed off to Sarfu, as they are meant to be, indicated that Leonard’s had been a tactical substitution and that he therefore should not have been allowed to go back onto the field.

Needless to say the Bulls responded with righteous indignation; explaining that the plan had been to sub Leonard tactically but that this had been overruled by the team doctor who had (by radio) informed the team manager to change the reason for taking him off to blood.

It makes perfect sense, from the perspective of the Bulls, but obviously seen through orange-tinted spectacles it is all too glib. No-one is saying so, and no-one will (at least not on the record), but there is a belief down Bloemfontein way that the alteration (from tactical to blood) occurred “after the fact,” i.e. that it only became blood when the Bulls were confronted with the unexpected crisis of losing a forward who had only just gone onto the field.

There is a feeling that by condoning the discrepancies in the reporting and timing of the Leonard incident Sarfu, by way of their referees’ set-up, have created a precedent that will be exploited by other teams.

And that is exactly my point. It will just be another bit of exploitation of a system which is already abused regularly.

Those of us who report on rugby are obviously more aware of it because we have to keep track of teams, but each week we see breaches of the rules on the naming of teams, late changes in the reserves and complete anarchy when it comes to players entering and leaving the game.

I previously suggested that officials establish a “holding pen” to properly control the migration of players. The idea being that a player being sent on would have to enter the pen and be held there until it was clear what he was going on for.

Time and again players suddenly appear on the field and you have no idea whether it was for blood or with tactics in mind and whether, as has happened on occasion with teams ending up with 16 men, the substituted player has actually gone off.

The hullabaloo around Leonard’s departure and return was bound to happen and as the laws are currently applied it will happen again.

This is not to say that the laws are correct. There is a danger of us being caught up in the symptom rather than finding a cure.

Perhaps the traditional naming teams plus reserves is no longer appropriate. Perhaps coaches should be allowed unlimited switches within a squad of 22 – the way it works for the front rows because of safety considerations. Perhaps squads should be expanded to 25.

Maybe what is at fault is that the naming of teams has become so charged with tactical skulduggery in mind – almost part of the game that coaches play. Perhaps the rules should be applied with the current buzz words – zero tolerance – but there is little doubt that the whole process of naming teams, committing to reserves and making substitutions is out of control and that the Leonard scenario will occur again.

If I were a coach I would resort to a method revealed much to the embarrassment of Clive Woodward and England in the autobiography of former hooker Richard Cockerell to ensure that blood is always present when a replacement is made. Cockerell wrote of a nick to an earlobe to ensure a spot of “claret” and I would certainly make sure that every player running on should be able to produce a little blood on cue.