What is South Africa's 7-1 split and why is it controversial?

Ireland face South Africa in the biggest game of the Rugby World Cup so far this evening.

Both sides have won their opening two games at the tournament, but tonight's game is a huge step up for both of them and will go a long way to deciding who finishes first and second in Pool B, with Ireland still to play Scotland in two weeks.

Ahead of the game, there has been plenty of talk about the ‘7-1 split’ among South Africa's replacements. Wales Online have taken a closer look at exactly what this means and why it is controversial:

What is a ‘7-1 split’ in rugby?

It basically means that a team selects seven forwards and just one back on their replacements bench. In this case, South Africa have selected scrum-half Cobus Reinach as their only back in reserve. It could backfire, of course, but the move is designed to give them the edge up front, giving them more options to change up their pack with extra weight and power coming off the bench. Most teams (including Ireland on Saturday night) select five forwards and three backs on the bench.

Has the tactic been used before?

The ‘7-1 split’ has never been deployed in World Cup rugby before, but it has been used in Test match rugby - by South Africa during a warm-up game against New Zealand at Twickenham earlier this year. The Springboks are set to be the first nation to use the tactic at a World Cup this Saturday night. They were also the first team to use a 6-2 split when they did so at the 2019 World Cup, in what proved to be a successful campaign as they took home the Webb Ellis trophy.

What have the coaches said?

Ireland head coach Andy Farrell said: “I think it’s great. It obviously suits them. They obviously know their squad and what fits for them and so do we. I did pose the question to our forwards coaches as to whether we should go with seven backs and one forward, but they weren’t up for that! We analyse South Africa like we analyse everyone else. But when it comes down to it, we take care of ourselves more than anything else and try to understand our plan. I think more importantly than the 7-1 split, which is a bit irrelevant to us, is the last game we played against each other (which Ireland won 19-16 last year). I’m sure they think they know us a bit better, and maybe that might have influenced the split. But we feel the same. We feel we could have performed better on that occasion, and both teams have the opportunity to show that at the weekend.”

He added: “There are all sort of different permutations. Even with a 5-3 split, you can’t cover everything. But you need to be adaptable, which is something we have worked hard at with our planning over the last few years. I suppose they [Springboks] have done exactly the same with the 7-1 split.

“I love it; I respect it. I like the fact they know their squad and brought four scrum-halves over, a hooker who has not really played in that specialist position before. It shows they know their players and which direction they want to go. Hopefully, they think the same about us as well. I am pretty confident in the five forwards we have got coming off the bench and the impact they’re going to have and the type of game we’re going to play when that happens."

South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus said: “I think there is a lot of teams doing a lot of innovative things. We saw Portugal who did the fantastic front-of-lineout move, sometimes when you do things you did many years back people see it as innovation but it is just some stuff you remember worked way back. The 6-2 a couple of years back was new to people and now a lot of teams are doing 6-2. If you go 7-1 you have to have players like Kwagga Smith, someone that is used to playing at the sevens level against Fiji. Then again, you have guys like Johnny Sexton who can exploit it when you get an injury early in the game.”

Springboks coach Jacques Nienaber said: “This is obviously unique, it is the first time a team has named seven forwards and one back on the bench so that is why I would say it’s innovation. That will get reaction. In terms of player safety, I don’t get that. I know nothing stops anyone else doing it and it will be a sad day, I think, if you’re innovative in the laws of the game and then they would change that. It’s not against the laws of the game and I don’t think it has any bearing on player safety at all.”

Why is the tactic controversial?

Former Scotland coach Matt Williams told the Virgin Media TV Rugby Pod: “Is it legal? Yes. Is it smart rugby for the World Cup? I’ve got to say yes. Is it good tactics? Yes. But it is not morally correct. What I’m saying is that if lower levels of the game copy the Springboks, and they will, there are props and second rowers playing in lower levels of the game. If they are fatigued and the opposition bring on seven fresh forwards and they go for a scrum later on in the game knowing they could get a penalty and win the game, those guys’ spines are in danger. I will not be quiet, because I’ve seen it. All of us that have seen it first hand have a responsibility to remind the next generation to not go back there.

“I have great admiration for the Springboks, I admire them as a rugby nation, they’re one of the greatest in the world alongside New Zealand. This is not right for the game. It might be right for a Test match, it might be right for them to beat Ireland. I’m not worried about the health of the Irish players. I’m deeply, deeply concerned that at the lower levels of the game that this will be copied.”

Former Wales captain Gwyn Jones, meanwhile, isn't morally against the tactic. The S4C pundit said in his WalesOnline column: "Much of the pre-match debate has been about the 7-1 split on the Springbok bench. It is a risky strategy but I don’t have any moral objection to that tactic. But I do believe that we should cut the number of substitutes. I think there should be four subs per team. Three front replacements for safety reasons and one other. I want to see the game move away from enormous forwards that only have to play 40 minutes. I want to see less reliance on power and more on skill and speed."