It was perhaps telling that it didn’t take long for Sam Warburton to row back on his stark warning for the future of rugby, when his comments were, unbeknownst to him, included in an open letter sent to World Rugby by a group of Lions legends. In short, the letter demanded that the governing body reduce the number of substitutes permitted to make the game safer.

Although this is not a new suggestion, as World Rugby have been looking into the idea, it was difficult to avoid the sense that it has come to light again on the back of South Africa beating the Lions.

Former players, coaches and medical experts have advocated change in the past, yet the momentum really gathered pace after the Springboks won the 2019 World Cup, mainly on the back of the size and power of their bench.

In the intervening time, some teams have attempted to replicate the Boks’ ‘bomb squad’ by having six forwards and two backs on the bench, yet few, if any, have had the same success.

The point is, loading the bench with bigger players has not become the norm, as such an approach is littered with potential pitfalls.

In his autobiography a couple of years ago, Warburton claimed “if something is not done soon, a professional player will die during a game in front of TV cameras”.

Any parent who read that line would have been shaken, so when the group of Lions greats led by Willie John McBride and Ian McGeechan, heavily leaned on Warburton’s warning in their letter to World Rugby, it rang alarm bells. However, writing in his column in The Times, Warburton was quick to set the record straight, as the former Lions and Wales captain revealed he hadn’t been consulted about the letter.

“I care about the game deeply,” Warburton wrote. “But I have changed my view. I wouldn’t say now that I think someone could die on the pitch, simply because I think the game has become so much safer because of its stricter concussion protocols.”

Yet, in concluding their letter, the group, which also includes Professor John Fairclough, consultant surgeon and former chairman of the Welsh RFU medical committee, wrote: “So, no more empty words, we call upon Sir Bill (Beaumont) to act now in the profound hope that Sam Warburton’s words do not become prophetic.”

World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont, as well as the governing body’s head of medical Dr Eanna Falvey have previously spoken about the idea of limiting the number of substitutes, but crucially, they are working to ensure that they have as much evidence as possible before making such changes.

The group of ex-players suggested teams still be permitted to have eight subs on the bench, but limit the number that can be used to four and then only in the case of injury. The thinking behind the idea is that fewer subs means less power being sprung into action later on against tiring defences, which in turn would lead to more space for the attacking team to exploit.

However, it’s not that straightforward. Firstly, player welfare is of the utmost importance to World Rugby and International Rugby Players (the global representative body), so the notion of having players staying on the pitch for longer increases the risk of injury.

A major focus has already been placed on the number of minutes played across a season, while it is also worth considering that tired players will inevitably make poorer decisions, be that through their tackle technique (another hot topic) or in their general play.

The ball in play time, or lack thereof, is a huge source of frustration in the game right now, particularly in light of the third Lions Test when it was just 26 minutes and 22 seconds. Rather than focus so much of the attention on limiting the number of subs, if the game was sped up by reducing time spent resetting scrums and reviewing TMO decisions, certain power-based teams such as the Springboks would have less time to catch their breath as the game goes on.

Then there is the issue of grassroots and underage rugby. If fewer subs are permitted that means fewer players involved in a game, which could have huge knock-on effects on growing the game.

There is no doubt that the sport finds itself in a tricky position at the moment and for all that the Lions legends raised some valid points in their letter, some will argue, particularly those in South Africa, that it felt like a knee-jerk reaction to the Springboks’ continued use of their bench.

World Rugby will continue to analyse the latest data, including an ongoing review of the impact of substitutes by the University of Bath, in a bid to ensure that player welfare remains paramount.

There may come a time when such a radical change is introduced, but until then, focusing on other fixable areas of the game, like increasing the ball in play time, should be a priority.