One thing you can be sure of: new innovations in any area of work will always bring misunderstandings along with them. Not just misunderstandings, but more than likely, vehement objections. There will always be those who stand in the way of progress, idealising the past while neglecting the future.
Ex-New South Wales and Scotland coach turned Irish telly pundit Matt Williams has a bee in his bonnet about Rassie Erasmus’ creative use of the bench, and he has had it for some time. His criticism of the Springbok supremo’s use of six or seven forwards on the pine dates all the way back to the World Cup warm-up between South Africa and New Zealand at Twickenham in August 2023. Erasmus deployed the 7-1 split for the first time at the old cabbage patch and hey presto, the Springboks won decisively 35-7.
Ten months later the rhetoric had ramped up a notch or two in intensity. After South Africa won the first game of their two-Test series against Ireland in July 2024, all his comments on the Virgin Media Sport podcast deserved an exclamation mark for pure shock value.
“At the 49-minute mark, six South African forwards walked onto the field. Is that what the replacement laws for safety were designed for?
“That is not any criticism of South Africa, it’s not a criticism of Rassie, it’s a criticism of World Rugby that allows that to happen. That is not what our game is designed for.
“The South Africans took full advantage of a loophole in the system, and that is where the penalty try [for a scrum penalty try with all the new forwards on the field] came from.
“It discriminates against backs; our game is for all shapes and sizes, so in that game, you had 14 forwards.
“That is not what our game was designed for, that’s not what the ancients designed for it. It’s not what we did in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
“It is not a game for 14 forwards and nine backs. It should be a relatively even [split]…They need a serious review because this is abusing what our game is meant to be.
“It’s abusing our ethos, it’s abusing our traditions, it’s abusing our safety rules and it has to change.”
Put aside the ethical rights and wrongs of the argument, just for one moment. One of the real-world spin-offs of Rassie’s selection policy was glossed over in the statement ‘it discriminates against backs; our game is for all shapes and sizes’. The truth is exactly the opposite.
Why? There is a clue the following table, showing the average weights of the six teams contending at the recent Six Nations.
The biggest differential between the size of the forwards and the size of the backs is France at +29kg per man in favour of the forwards. The lightest back, flying Union Bordeaux-Bègles wing Louis Bielle-Biarrey at a mere 79kg, is currently acknowledged to be one of the most lethal, if not the most lethal, finishers in world rugby.
France also used a mix of the 6/2 and 7/1 benches in the Six Nations, just like the Springboks. But the difference in shapes and sizes, and hence the nod to the game’s amateur tradition, is arguably greater in France than it is in nations such as Ireland and Scotland, where the size, mobility and skill-set in the forwards/backs equation has a more uniform, rugby league-like appearance.
South Africa are not only very much on the same page as Les Bleus, in fact the Bokke put pen to paper before anyone else. A typical Springbok team under the auspices of Rassie would have an even greater weight differential between backs and forwards.
The variety of shapes and sizes in a team designed around the 6/2 or 7/1 bench increases in practice, rather than diminishing as Williams suggested. Around the turn of the millennium, New Zealand and Australia were the first to innovate by producing multiple generations of outside backs who could have played comfortably as forwards in the amateur era – huge athletes such as Lote Tuqiri, Wendell Sailor, Norm Berryman and of course, Jonah Lomu. That nudged the game closer to its sister code, where forwards and backs are similar in size and often exchange positions. Andy Farrell, for example, played in every spot in forwards, but also appeared in the Wigan number six jersey in the halves.
South Africa are stripping the game back to its union root by picking much smaller, fast-twitch athletes in the back three. In American football they are known as ‘scat-backs’, players with the quickness and manoeuvrability of waterbugs on the surface of a pond. They can ‘beat defenders in a phonebooth’ and ‘change direction on a dime’ – but let’s leave the clichés there.
The scatbacks with the highest profile are Cheslin Kolbe and Kurt-Lee Arendse, but there are others who have also been tested at the highest level in recent times: Quan Horn, Edwill van der Merwe and Rosko Specman. You can find one or two, and sometimes more, in every one of the four South African franchises in the United Rugby Championship. Rugby’s diminutive Kruger-rand has found its value increasing sharply, in France in the shape of Bielle-Biarrey, and in Scotland via Darcy Graham.
We can only speculate on how Erasmus discovered the value of the quick but undersized outside back. Did it begin with Kolbe, or does it date back even further, to Rassie’s first glimpse of Shane Williams for Wales in 2008, one year after he was appointed to his first national role as technical advisor? He would have had to be impressed by what he saw of ‘Sugar Shane’ on that tour.
What qualities made the likes of Williams such a valuable commodity? The two clips illustrate the obvious: a small man with exceptional agility and quickness can defeat modern power-based athletes who lack the same range of movement in open space.
With the latest rules denying the receiver of a high kick his customary protective pocket, there is more loose ball, more scraps to be pillaged and the quick small man is the one best able to exploit them.
That is Arendse, running away from the defence to score a crucial try in the 2023 World Cup quarter-final win over France. Arendse is not looking to contest the ball directly in the air, that task is reserved for giant lock Eben Etzebeth. Arendse is waiting to pick up the crumbs that fall from the big man’s table, and he is duly rewarded. The scraps make up a seven-point feast.
Small men are also among the most effective kick returners in the game. Here is another South African export, Thaakir Abrahams, returning a kick against La Rochelle in the Investec Champions Cup last 16.
A pair of Munster back-rowers stand judiciously in just the right place to baulk two Stade Rochelais tacklers, and prevent them adjusting to Abrahams’ quicksilver movement in the ‘return corridor’. The little South African is through the gap before any reaction is possible. The theory of a small running back exploding into open field from behind a wall of huge blockers originated in the NFL, and it has transplanted readily to rugby.
In that final clip, Abrahams wriggles through the tiniest of tunnels on the kick return versus the big men of Leinster, on his way to scoring an outstanding long-range try for the Sharks.
The 6-2 and 7-1 bench experiments currently in vogue do not tend to create more uniformity of size and shape as Williams has suggested. Far from it. The international teams which use them most regularly – South Africa and France – tend to employ larger-than-average tight forwards in conjunction with waspish, fleet-of-foot outside backs. The Ooh! of every solar eclipse occasioned by the arrival of huge new second rows on the field is balanced by the Aah! of what the small man can achieve against the odds, and against his bigger brethren.
If anything, Rassie’s great experiment is rolling the clock back to the game’s amateur roots and implies a resistance to the physical uniformity of rugby league. Will Rassie be misunderstood? Of course he will. He’s innovating at the sharp end of the game. As the science fiction author Arthur C Clarke once concluded:
“New ideas pass through three periods:
- It can’t be done.
- It probably can be done, but it’s not worth doing.
- I knew it was a good idea all along.”
If he plays both, he can be both. He can’t obviously be both selected as 20 and 22 though, but if you want to select him as a 22 I see no reason why he can’t play at 7.
Want you wont be able to do is select Jegou as a 22(read 21 on a team sheet), when you only have intention to use him as a 20, unless he actually plays in the backline often enough(like Botia).
Yes well I was only postulating on RWs point. They don’t have to go back to vote necessarily if they all just think this is awesome perhaps, my point is the people that voted such stipulation not necessary in the first place. maybe have changed their mind and call for some amendment?
The sort of balance you’d prefer to see isn’t something you’d generally dedicate an article to? I mentioned in another post that SR players aren’t tiring out as much as weve got through the season, have they been able to transition through the weeks to the new required fitness that easily? Have they adapted to the refereeing and found new ways to slow the opposition (therefor everyone is doing it to each other) down?
We don’t need any knee jerk reactions/big changes. They’re treating injured players with a bit of respect again, that takes time. I’d like some sort of fast/smooth interchange option, but I’d also like to keep it as close to current affect on the game as possible, and those two ideas don’t align. I’d start with bedding new speed of play priorities in, while moving to one less total substitutions allowed. 7, and go from there. That doesn’t quite allow being able to go off and on as we’d like, as that would burn through that number, in a tougher 15 man game. quite quickly. Anything reversed inside 5 minutes (10 for stitches/HIA) doesn’t count to the limit perhaps, or we have to bare with medics on the field?
See how it goes with 7 subs a game instead of 8 and then reduce as needed. They actually allow injured fr to return for certain things right? Just cards and HIAs?
The whole idea of trying to control bench usage is archaic and doomed to failure Ed. Doyle or Williams cannot tell you whether Levani Botia is a 12 or a 7 for example. He can be both and has started for Fiji on both positions. There will be more and more players like that from now on.
Not it’s not, think it through JW. Can you tell Levani Botia whether he’s a a 7 or a 12? No you cannot.
I don’t think there is a need. I would actually increase the number of ppl on the bench to give more tactical options - but limit the number of interchanges. It is the number of interchanges which is more important - I’ve seen up to 14 in some French games inc injuries.
To the point where it’s a real hot potato that has created an urgent need for change and sits as an agenda item on the next WR Council meeting? Nah, doubt it but Red seems to know better. Even if he won’t front up with details, so we’ll see next month I guess…
It’s entirely enforceable, we just might not like it. Or like with Rassie’s ideas', we might love how they enforce it. Also, it’s been fine for 30 years, now you sound like the ridiculous one sprouting law claims that it’s picking players for them lol.
Ah, but at least you make a point that we can take interest in, risk. What makes you think it’s risky?
Double also, you wouldn’t have cleared up anything, as they may have simply told Doyle it wasn’t needed in the law as there was no need. Now that there is obviously a need it makes perfect sense that they will go back to vote it in. But has the situation changed, maybe they actually like this?
Who cares what the intention was?
Isn’t that what your whole discussion was about, that you care because you want to make the game fast?
You can’t worry about anything retrospectively as if the intention was never laid out, say in the laws or in the code/spirit, then how is anybody to know that? Looking forward, if it was there intention, for next step is to recalibrate. They are simply going to put it in writing without first wondering if they still want a strict 5;3.
I’d therefor suggest worrying/talking about that first.
It was obviously the idea, there’s no real point in disputing that. Unless you’re just trying to educate RW on principle, there’s absolutely no reason we should be talking about “law” (saying that not having read these posts lol).
Enforcing a split seems a bit draconian, much more simple, elegant, and relevant ways of doing it. Would be easy to do, but also easily gamed and then we just have an even worse problem.
You don’t think it is?
Owen Doyle did not form any part of the article until you mentioned his IT piece and began making claims about law-making intention. Based on one piece that makes statements for which I cannot find any support. And nor can you, apparently.
According to Doyle he had some backing for his proposal [‘half the room’] but it was denied in the letter of the law.
It appears Doyle’s half of the room did not weigh in the balance with those in power, so the discussion was resolved at that point into black and white. That’s normal.
The experiment has worked out well and nothing further needs to be done. A solution to 7-1 should come via coaching rather than a law change.
FYI, the statement
is unenforceable. And ‘telling coaches who to pick among their replacements’ is exactly what it amounts to.
If a team wants to take a risk by playing a 7 who can play 12 from the bench, what law will stop them exactly?
Happy to clear up your misunderstandings.
Due diligence? I am commenting on YOUR article FFS. I have provided a person involved with the law making of that law and close to decision makers now who says that the intention of the law was “to ensure that there must be three specialist frontrow players on the bench, plus a secondrow, and a backrow player, hence five. The backs were allowed to cover the specialist positions of nine and ten. Finally, one utility back would be permitted, making up the three.”
You don’t have to accept Doyle’s position, but if you have someone close to the Board of WR (as Doyle is) who contradicts his position, then say so. In short: DO YOUR DUR DILLIGENCE before penning the article or at least before rubbishing Owen Doyle.
5:3 splits were almost universal until a few years ago, its hardly amateur or medieval.
Owen Doyle is not telling coaches who to pick amongst their replacements. He is stating that the law must be applied as intended. This is basic legal knowledge that even a sports journalist should know and understand.
It’s not a breakthrough since I haven’t disputed this point but rather, have positively agreed with your interpretation regarding the intent methodology previously.
However you have declined, yet again, to answer my question on exactly what you are disputing here, nor have you addressed the questions on who is calling out any issues with the law at WR level and how you know this will form part of the WR board meeting agenda.
So not much left to discuss here and we will find out, over the next month or so, just how reliably informed you are. Or not as the case may be…
Intention is a legal idea not to be confused or diminished by equivalence with a more nebulous ‘spirit’ of the law. It feels like a major breakthrough in this conversation that you now appreciate the difference between the legal angle and an individuals perception of the concept in general.
If the Intention is shown to be 5:3 then EVERY member of that board should act with integrity and apply that regardless of their personal opinion of the concept. Those advocating something different would then be looking at Law change.
If the intention was not 5:3 then its as you were. Those wishing for a 5:3 are the ones who would now seek law change.
This is why Intention is so important. Board members have no choice but to accept the intention at law. If they put their personal opinions above the intention of a law then they should not be near a board or governance.
A person like Owen Doyle who was involved in that law making stating the intention was 5:3 is significant. He may be wrong, but he has a long history in law making and application in International Rugby.
It doesn’t matter what the legal niceties are if you got the intention wrong in the first place, and simply take Doyle’s comments on trust without checking tham against the views of others in and around the decision-making process. You haven’t done your due diligence.
All you’re saying right now is that the law does not reflect Owen Doyle’s intention, which he [rightly or wrongly] ascribes to others.
It is only natural and right to assume the law as it stands does not reflect a collective intention to enforce the 5-3 split - until proven otherwise. Your fantasy about the ‘intention’ never made it into law in black and white. Just accept that and move on.
The other aspect is such a policy [even if there was a will to bring it into law] would be quite unworkable in practice. There are so many props [and even loose forwards] who can cover hooker, back rows who double up as second rows, and flankers who can play 12 or even wing that you would be creating a nest of vipers in the small print.
Coaches only designate players in a position if they think they can play it - and it is not up to either you or Owen Doyle or Matt Williams to decide if they are fit for purpose. That type of attitude is not just amateur, it’s positively medieval!
Try to think it through for goodness sakes.
Is your issue here simply one of detailed protocol, as you see things, in adhering to both the spirit (or intent if you will) and letter of the law in question? Or rather an issue with the whole concept of allowing any team to select a 7-1 (or even an 8-0!) split, regardless of whether the law was amended to specifically provide for that choice?
The increase in players covering multiple positions feels significant here and would probably be a can of worms best left alone. However that’s putting the cart before the horse and allowing a free pass on RW’s assertion that this is a live hot issue with the game’s decision makers. One thing is clear though, he has nailed his colours to the mast and is going to look pretty stupid if this amounts to nothing!
Nothing wrong with calling out your complete failure to address the key points. You can interpret that as insulting if you like, personally I don’t give a toss.
“In law-making, intention refers to the purpose or goal the lawmakers aim to achieve through a particular law. It's not a literal mental state of individual legislators, but rather a framework that guides the interpretation and application of the law by courts. The court's duty is to discern and effectuate this intention”. You could have easily checked this yourself but instead chose to falsely imply it was my own idea of legal theory.
As it happens, I have used the intention of a law (under the PPERA Act) to successfully initiate an electoral commission inquiry into a UK political party in a 2019 UK (nationwide) election. Ie I know what I’m talking about.
Whether the topic is on the agenda for the board meeting in May is up to the chairman of that board, but if there is a 50:50 split as Owen Doyle states then I don’t see how the Chair can avoid it.
Again Owen Doyle was an official in that law making process and is writing for the Irish paper of record, the Irish Times. I won’t be siding with this blog site on this occasion.
Again more ad hominem insults.
Best of luck with it. If you abuse me again I will block you.
I tend to agree Ed. Even though we’ve asked repeatedly in diff ways, RW has nothing but his own idea of legal theory and Doyle’s wonderings in a paper to support the idea that the bench split will even be a topic of discussion at the next meeting.
Apart from anything else, recents events have shown that guys like Jegou and Earl are quite capable of being classified as either a forward or a back, which gives the lie to a strict 5/3 division in any case.
What are WR going to say? ‘Ben Earl cannot sub on for a forward if he’s been selected as a backs utility’? Or vice versa. That would be beyond stupid.
More bluff and waffle.
You said “roughly half the World Rugby board dispute these splits under the law and this will arise at the May WR board meeting.”.
That will either happen or it won’t. Personally I’m pretty dubious because you can’t back up your assertion that it will happen.
Issues are not decided in a Governing Body by formal dispute. It will be discussed at the meeting via an agenda item. Governing Body members do not provide a running commentary on media. If the intention of the law is at question then the Governing Body can request advice on this and they may adopt a position based on that.
Management recently saying that health is not implicated and therefore rules would not change is more amateur hour from them. Someone lacking integrity in management has decided on a PR stunt. They have no say in law change. Whatever happens it should be done in accordance with proper procedures and not a quasi corrupt capitulation to big Unions.
So one says there is a formal dispute from parties in position to table such a motion in May and yet refuses to name them, the other says ‘nay’!
Fascinating to see how this plays out next month…
How do you know “roughly half the World Rugby board disputes these splits under the law”?
How do you know this “will arise at the May WR board meeting”?
Time to back up your position with some solid fact, instead of blowing out unsubstantiated hearsay!
Ps in the event that you can substantiate your opinion, confirm beyond doubt there is a legitimate challenge and that the issue is on the agenda for formal review, then I agree with much of your interpretation on how the law operates and might be interpreted. However right here and now, that’s nothing more than one great big ‘IF’…
Again, when there is a question over how the the law (the final draft, the fine print) is interpreted then the INTENTION of the law must be determined. Supreme courts tend to have final say in this for States. For Rugby Law it will be similar with the INTENTION deciding how the law applies. Calling standard law practice for centuries ‘ludicrous’ or ‘bleating’ without substantiation does nothing for your argument.
An official involved with the creation of the law has said that the intention of the law was 5-3 with no9, no10 and another back covered. It will be up to the Rugby Board in May to decide if the loophole Erasmus used is legitimate and not contrary to the intention of that law. Lets hope integrity prevails.
Wasn’t it Arnold Palmer that once said something along the lines of ‘the harder I work, the luckier i get’…???
You would be wise to distrust any comments about ‘intention’ which never made it to the final draft my friend.
It’s just not good enough to bleat ‘oh they never expected it to be interpreted that way!’ That’s a lack of due diligence and it doesn’t cut the mustard I’m afraid. Laws exist in fine print for a reason.
That’s also the reason why your narrative around ‘loopholes’ and ‘changing the law’ is frankly ludicrous. The law as it stands expresses every argument which created it. The 5-3 split never made it to the final cut and was edited out.
Have you asked anyone involved with the formulation of the Law as Owen Doyle was?
There will be clear documentation and paper trail around the processes around developing and preparing the law. Have you sources access to these? Otherwise you would be wise to accept the published word of Owen Doyle in a paper of record.
I have not argued that the 5:3 is sacrosanct. I have argued that it is the intention of the law. The intention of the law should be sacrosanct.
Again, the WR board need to verify what the intention of the law was (relevant legal advice will clear it up). If it backs what Doyle claims then subs should be used in the 5:3 format. If others on the board want to change the law to allow for other splits they should use the appropriate method to do so.
Finally of there is doubt about the interpretation of a law International Unions should consult with World Rugby before loopholing the law. Rassie knew exactly what he was doing. He knew if he inquired about a non 5-3 split then he would be asked to wait for clarification. He deserves blame here.
Absolutely not. You’ve chosen to run with Doyle’s comments but I cannot find any support for what he says. Believe me I’ve asked.
In the absence of proof positive you need to go with the law as it is - open to interpretation by coaches, and generally good for the game’s development.
You should ask yourself why you think 5-3 is so sacrosanct, and players have to be labelled simply because you wish it so?
Doyle says the Chairman the Board of World Rugby will find the board divided on the issue in the May meeting. Doyle correctly identifies the recent public statement by World Rugby management that there is no medical evidence to support that 7-1 splits etc are dangerous and therefore no reason to outlaw it as not in their remit. It is also a non sequiter as there may be other reasons to outlaw it principally the fact that 5-3 splits were the intention of the law.
It is a matter for the board of World Rugby to come to a position on this and lets hope integrity prevails, every body accepts that the integrity of all Rugby Laws demands that the intention of these laws is not abused. Those wishing for 7-1 splits etc should go about it in the correct manner and seek law change to allow it. To answer Ed’s (ridiculous question) again, roughly half the World Rugby board dispute these splits under the law and this will arise at the May WR board meeting.
No instead of disingeniously pulling hurdles out of yer respective backsides can you acknowledge that ‘Intention?’ is a relevant and faor question in this matter instead of pretending it isn’t just because that might contradict your article~?
No need for the xenophobic comment. I pointed out Rassie’s master plan was not responsible for the 2023 RWC win. They lost against Ireland, secured two pretty dodgy wins against France and England and needed a red card in ther final against a much stronger team on the day. That’s not master planning. Like some Saffers you take criticism right on the ego. You do understand Saffers attacking people for nationality, race etc is not acceptable?
…maybe one day Irelands luck will change? Maybe they just had a few bad shamrocks???
So how do you get from ‘Owen Doyle’ to ‘Those’?
Maybe you should try to answer Ed’s previous question: “Who is calling the law into dispute?”
Nobody.
By sheer good fortune, not be great planning as you suggested.
That's quite the climb down from you. No wonder your boys lost the war.
Still, apology accepted.