[boxgroveproject.wordpress.com]
"Bifaces are typically 80-150mm long, flaked on both faces and knapped to both maximise cutting edges and ergonomic qualities, while minimising overall thickness. At Boxgrove this is achieved by extensive thinning of the tools with the removal of long, fine flakes using a soft-hammer made of bone or antler. "

I agree with this article from years ago. The thinning and long fine flakes are evidence a soft hammer was used. The new bone tool is old hat news then, but it does add corroboration to what was already known.

Also, there has been some controversy in the past as to whether the bifaces at Acheulean sites were tools at all, but merely 'chip dispensers' for flake production.
[www.chichester.co.uk]
With the "football" they left the reduction pile of sharp flakes on the ground unused and curated the biface. Plus the fact long thin flakes aren't very durable for heavy-duty butchering of horses like the remains found at Boxgrove. One more objection to the chip dispenser idea that I haven't noticed in the literature is the fact that a few of the Acheulean bifaces have long pointed tips and minuscule flake scars. IOW, the flakes at the tips would be so small as to be completely useless except for trimming the wings off mosquitoes or something of that nature.

So, it will be interesting to see what William Noble and Iain Davidson have to say, since in their book (page 195/196) they disagree with just about everything said about the Boxgrove tools and the conclusions made by Dr Matthew Pope in the new BBC article that started this thread.

Reference:
[www.amazon.ca]
Human Evolution, Language and Mind: A Psychological and Archaeological Inquiry 1996
William Noble and Iain Davidson
Cambridge University Press
ISBN-10: 0521576350