1
'Not good for the global game' - Irish TV pundit slams Bok approach
By Ian Cameron
Former Scotland coach turned Irish television rugby pundit Matt Williams believes the scrum-heavy approach to rugby union as encapsulated by South Africa is not good for the sport.
ADVERTISEMENT
A scrum penalty three minutes from time in the South Africa versus England Rugby World Cup semi-final at the Stade de France was what ultimately the difference between the two sides, with the Boks’ fabled ‘Bomb Squad’ seemingly pulling off the impossible for the defending world champions.
Australian pundit Williams says that the central focus on the setpiece – and a bid by teams to win penalties from it – is becoming the centrepiece of the sport rather than a means by which to restart the game.
Video Player is loading.
“What are you incentivising?” Williams told the Virgin Media Sport panel after the game. “By giving a penalty where you can take three points or kick for touch and start a maul, you are incentivising scrummaging to get the penalty. If you take that incentive away, well then what’s the incentive?
“You get the ball to the backs, you have 16 forwards tied up so there is all this space. All through the 90s and early 00s, we had wonderful back row moves and wonderful back line plays coming off scrums, it was entertaining and it was great.
“The scrums were still there and they were a contest, you could still get a pushover try, but the referee wasn’t going to give you a penalty unless you did foul play or were offside. The game was much better for it…
“South Africa and England are like great tax accountants, they find every loophole and exploit it brilliantly. I admire the intellect, but that is not good for the global game.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It is not good for the other sides in the game like France, New Zealand, and Ireland, who are trying to play a more positive, ball in hand, entertaining game. We are in the business of entertainment…
“Is it a 15-man game or an 8-man game? Right now, it has become so biased towards scrummaging and mauling. The game is totally out of balance.”
Williams received a lot of flak for his take, with many viewing it as outdated.
Outgoing Fiji head coach Simon Raiwalui appeared to disagree, writing on X: “One week the chat is the need to de-power the scrum, next week it’s the maul, next week it’s the ruck, key fundamentals that makes our game truly unique…do we change to suit a style/some or do we embrace what is uniquely rugby union? I vote the later, loved tonight’s match [South Africa vs England].”
The debate around scrums is one tends to raise its head every other year or, and no doubt it won’t be the last we hear from it.
ADVERTISEMENT
Union has certain laws, style and the intergal set-pieces. If one doesn’t ‘like’ something, don’t seek to change it because it doesn’t suit a style of play and or exposes a weakness. The ABs pushed for an amendment as to how much field goals should be worth, during the Eng dominance era (JWs time) years ago. So bleating (to steal someone else’s favorite word) for rule amendments or interpretations to set pieces (bar for safety reasons) is nothing new and remains a sign of insecurity and/or an inability to cope with an opposition's style. If you don’t like it, you can always switch to touch, 7s or League instead.
I generally agree with Matt Williams but, as I see it - it isn’t about sides [styles of play etc.] - it is about the rugby law that encourages the scrum to be used to obtain a penalty (now more scrums result in penalties than not I have heard), rather than for possession and/or some territory whilst the ball is in the scrum. This gives an unfair advantage when a scrum penalty is won; as a minor offence [like a knock on for example] is rewarded with a penalty by means of a scrum penalty. BUT, I do think this has led to South Africa [and other teams] being able to win games when, without this law, they probably would not have! I understand that the whistle has to be blown when a scrum collapses or a head pops up [for safety reasons as much as anything] but a a more appropriate / fairer reward for a scrum penalty would be a ‘tap and go penalty’ only - this would give the same kind of advantage as winning a scrum that doesn’t end in collapse, so would be more appropriate, and fair.
Why make changes to help other teams to beat rgw Boks. It would be like the F1 make a rule that Max has to ride a scooter to help Hamilton and others to win a Grand Prix
What a useless article. Every team has its strengths and weaknesses. The Boks have used the scrum as their weapon since time in memorial, no fault of theirs that the rest haven’t caught up.
Next, you'll say that the goose step is illegal because it makes the oppo twist their legs.
How do South Africa shoulder the blame for that match? Are England whiter than white they kicked 94% of all thier possession with 41 kicks to South Africa’s 21. Yet it’s South Africa that takes the heat for it even though it was obvious England had no intention of playing any rugby
The Poms simply are there to remind us “What style not to play”
They are the benchmark of “Boring”
Any Rugby that surpasses their style helps the game develop and progress to a more “exciting game” which we all want to see as fans.
They have a “Private School” entitlement attitude of “I don’t have to listen to you “fuckin colonials” we invented the game and we own it”
That “Private School Attitude” has never been “Tough enough” over the last 100+ years, which is reflected in “results” against Southern Hemisphere Nations.
Our history of tough, practical problem solvers in our “early reality of everyday life in creating Australia, New Zealand and South Africa V some “private School toff, who sits down to piss, as he reads the “Times” in his Law Office toilet.
Colonials who are genetically quick thinkers, who love physical and mental challenges for the last 183 years.
Young Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans come to London and are “employed” instantly, ahead of Poms because of our work ethic. It’s just who we are!
England “will never win another Rugby World Cup in my lifetime.
I know this will be highly controversial but an idea I have is that in the final say 5 minutes of a game no scrum penalties are given. In lieu the offending side loses control of the ball to the other side for a tap penalty.
These scrum penalties are adjudicated differently by differing referees and there really is no consistency which is then utilised by an attacking team for a winning penalty
I wish Matt Williams would shut up. There are 19 other teams who can play whatever fucken style they want. Who says he is the style officianado?
AND the English style of “Kick & Hope” is no better too. What I find amusing is that “forever” in the 6 Nations England have been playing the “Big forwards” game too. But now they've been out- muscled they don't like it!
I cant believe I made it to the end of that snor fest of an article. Thinking of sending my c.v into Rugbypass. If Ben Moron and this eggplant can write such garbage and get paid, there is hope for me.