Iestyn Hopkins ensures Mark Jones Ospreys era begins with dramatic win

It’s remarkable that Matt Williams gets so upset about Bomb Squad tactics. He’s not just making recommendations, but getting all sweaty about bench splits. But it’s not really about bench splits. He just does not like forwards, and their role in the game.

I thought this quote was telling:

What about Kitshoff, what happened to his spine in South Africa? Do we know if that is as a result of the scrummaging they are put through?

Ouch. So we are really on a program of reducing scrummaging to reduce spinal injuries? That’s the mission? And based on the statistically significant dataset of one case, a case in which he openly admits that he does not have the details. Regardless, if his goal is to reduce spinal injuries for prop forwards then arguing about bench splits seems like an odd place to start.

It’s not just spinal injuries that he cares about. The risk of paralysis is an important issue, and he raises this too:

I’m a bit of a lone voice but, because of my club-mate Grant Harper (ex-Western Suburbs prop who was paralysed after a collapsed scrum), I’m not shutting up on it.

Injuries are horrible, and paralysis is truly awful. We should absolutely take it very seriously, and diligently implement whatever safety protocols and education programs we can to minimize these things. But we don’t ban skydiving or hang gliding, or crossing the road. Though Williams is not looking to ban rugby, he does seem to be intent on reducing the role of forwards in the game, based on entirely anecdotal data.

It’s hard to tell what it’s all about. He makes this supposed safety case and says that no-one in his echo chamber disagrees with him:

Every time I go out, old forwards and old props go up to me and they say, ‘you’re right’. I’ve never had anyone, apart from a few South Africans – because it’s good for South Africa – say it’s rubbish.

It’s weird that “old props” are hanging around his front door and lobbying him, or maybe he just doesn’t “go out” much. Could it be that all of the hand-wringing about bench splits and scrummaging injuries is really a proxy for something else? Is it possible his issue is not about safety at all?

Well, that is what it seems. For me the truth is in this comment:

Can Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia and Argentina compete against South Africa, New Zealand and France if that’s the way the game goes? The answer to that is no.

So, this is the real issue for him. The Bomb Squad tactic is a really good one, and you have to be really good to play against it. Or you should try to de-power it by banning it, wailing about injuries that it supposedly causes (it doesn’t) and clutching at anecdotal straws to make your case.

The above quote is an insult to the five countries named, and it also suggests that no-one is going to be smart enough to come up with a game plan that neutralizes the bomb squad or turns it to a relative weakness. Williams is just a noisy fan looking to change the laws to favor his team and his personal tastes.

I agree with your conclusions. This Rassie approach is far from being unfair to backs. Not only does it favor fleet-footed and versatile “skills players” in the double-digit positions, but each individual gets more game time in any given match.

Whenever I go out I get exactly zero “old backs” coming up to me and complaining about the Bomb Squad tactic.

Bravo, Rassie.

Barnes screwed up a RWC QF - let an inferior team win and they gave him the RWC final as a parting gift. There is no accountability at World Rugby.

Amusingly it is the second time this has happened to Munster too.

The guys who would sub in for Cros are all prob bigger than he. Jelonch and Ollivon for example.

Peak Heineken cup was the pinnacle of the sport for a while. Higher standard than any test matches of that era.