As the clock ticked towards the hour mark of the final and as Handre Pollard lined up another penalty goal the murmurings turned into a discordant grumble.
Watching among friends who wouldn’t rate rugby among their preferred sports, England and South Africa’s physicality and defensive prowess provided a spectacle for the purists but not one that would win the hearts and minds of the unconverted.
World Cup finals often prove to be tense affairs. With so much on the line, teams turn to attritional, conservative rugby, relying on penalty goals and territory, waiting patiently for the opposition to make a mistake. Tries are rare and often come late in the game. This equation was exemplified during last night’s match.
To their credit, Eddie Jones and Rassie Erasmus have constructed physical, resilient sides with incredible defensive intensity, and both were worthy finalists. South Africa particularly built a strategy around their strengths: a big, mobile forward pack and a world-class halves combination with an immaculate kicking game.
(Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
Yet when these unbreakable forces came together the resulting 12 penalty goals and few moments of attacking flair provided little in terms of a spectacle. The two moments of attacking brilliance – Makazole Mapimpi’s chip and regather and Cheslin Kolbe’s sensational finish – provided salient examples of how exciting the game can be.
Few could blame either side for their approach, but the final is an example of the current imbalance that exists between attack and defence. Neither side were willing to chance their arm, relying upon ferocious defence and strong kicking games to win the territorial battle. Both teams should be applauded for their defensive commitment, but the game lacked the attacking rugby that attracts and maintains supporters. Longstanding fans will decry any further amendments that seemingly undermine the authenticity of the game, but proactive changes are needed to ensure the future of rugby.
While World Rugby, the international rugby union governing body, tinkered with the rules in 2017, discouraging teams from consistently infringing at the ruck, more amendments are needed. At the global symposium in Paris earlier this year the governing body proposed a ’50-22′ rule – kicking the ball from inside your own half into the opposition’s 22-metre area would result in an attacking lineout. The law, which draws inspiration from the 13-man game, forces defensive teams to push their wingers back, providing more space for attacking teams to exploit.
World Rugby hopes a corollary of the increased space would be decreasing the amount of collisions and resultantly the number of injuries.
Although having more tries doesn’t inevitably equate with higher quality rugby, games with more ball-in-hand often provide an exhilarating spectacle. Japan won over many fans at this year’s tournament with their willingness to launch attacks from anywhere. Their attacking audacity shocked both Ireland and Scotland en route to the quarter-finals, demonstrating that with positive coaching teams that show verve can overcome defensive-minded opposition. The All Blacks have been proving that for years.
The issue at the moment stands between encouraging teams to attack more but equally not punishing teams who are strong defensively. Andrew Forrest’s breakaway competition Rapid Rugby provided some insight into a few potential options, with the introduction of higher value tries, time limits for scrums and lineouts and teams being unable to gain ground by kicking out on the full from inside their 22 metres.
The result is an increased amount of time when the ball is in play, up from an average of 30 minutes per match in Super Rugby. Although viewers are unlikely to see most of these new laws in international rugby any time soon, they provide a starting point for discussions about the future direction of the game.
The first World Cup in Asia has proven a roaring success. Slightly under half the population of Japan tuned in for their quarter-final with South Africa, exposing tens of millions of new viewers to the game they play in heaven. Alongside the sevens format, the game has entered and prospered in new markets.
However, the world governing body needs to maintain momentum. The key to ensuring the long-term future of the game is keeping the ball in hand.
BeastieBoy
Roar Rookie
Rugby spectators in Australia are a lot more advanced than in other countries. We have had 3 codes to watch ,2 of them being highly professional for over 100 years. So the spectator has a lot to pick from and they know entertaining Football. Rugby supporter numbers are falling off a cliff. we are not turned on by scrums. Face it as a contest they don't work as the team putting the ball in wins it. The exception being some controversial ruling that results in a penalty. we want to see people running with the ball. the game was formalised some 150 years ago. since then the players have gotten massively heavier, fitter, faster and taller. Yet we play the game with the same number of players on the same sized field. the majority of rugby games are boring. if we want to turn it around in Australia follow Twiggys lead.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Bizarre logic and I suggest looking at the Lawes penalty again. No pressure whatsoever.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Give it a go.
Vman2
Roar Rookie
Is it just me or is there far too much rush defence from a questionable off side line - which leads to far too many up and unders since it is very hard to organise an attacking line?
FatOldHalfback
Roar Rookie
Well Lawes and I saw differently the English defense is bunched and the Boks have pace outwide Lawes is desperate and goes to far slowing the ball down -- SA get the choice risk a penalty kick for 3 (40+ m is no easy task, or risk a kick to the corner for 5+2. In lineouts sides fake and move to try and trick the other side in jumping wrong or mixing the signals between jumper and lifter sometimes a player caught out goes to far -- whistle -- fair reward
frank
Roar Rookie
But Japan beat South Africa at the last world cup. And SA weren't any smaller. Grand theories are fine, but as many have pointed out, the facts disprove yours.
matth
Roar Guru
Possibly so, after the final in Sydney it’s felt like a constant decline
jeznez
Roar Guru
But 20kg smaller as a unit than the English
elvis
Roar Rookie
Not in the forwards they didn't.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
That’s all fine, but why do you have such things rewarded with 3 points? Its really only rewarding cumulative pressure once you get into the “red zone“, which is the 22 for practical purposes. And in the examples mentioned, the penalty against Lawes came after the first ruck of the game.: Kick-off, punt kick back, Vermuelen takes it on the 40 line, ruck, SA sends it a couple wide, they get stopped short of the gain line, Lawes gets tangled, penalty 41 metres out. There was zero cumulative pressure, zero threat to the English defence, zero need to deter this with a 3-point kick when a kick to the corner with prospect of a rolling maul spells danger. And Wales weren’t besting SA in the lineout when they got the penalty for crossing.
MMaaxx
Roar Rookie
Sure, but maybe that has more to do with Australia not winning much late?
Cadfael
Roar Guru
There was a programme on the ABC a few years back, Late Night Legends. I the rugby covered here in the 60s and early 70s, players ran to the scrums to pack in. Not this wandering around waiting for all the forwards to arrive that we see now.
Tony
Guest
Sth Africa cant be beaten ? The AB's beat them more often than not ( beat them in this RWC Pool play ) and dont play a St Afr style of fwd orientation at all.
Pie_t
Guest
Amazing how Australians are always at the forefront of any movement to change the laws. Understandable I suppose when one considers where their rugby is at present. They're the world's best at at League but Union in Australia is in deep trouble.
jeznez
Roar Guru
You keep using front row incorrectly, you seem to be using it as an insult rather than the compliment that it is.
jeznez
Roar Guru
If people really want to have a shot at a game of rugby in the last few weeks then I can accept complaints about the SA v Wales semi final - that was a fairly dire game of rugby. The final was a gripping contest. If you want a belter then the Eng v NZ semi final was rugby of the highest order.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I'm with you Corne. And I'll add that the article misses the point that the greatest games of rugby league have score lines like 4-0. An enthralling match of rugby and anyone who wasn't on the edge of their seats watching the SA defence make their stand just before halftime isn't going to be a fan of either code.
matth
Roar Guru
Re your point 2 a possible unintended consequence will be that there will be a risk free path to field position with quick one out plays up the middle against a defence back pedaling to get back 5. League suffered this when they made their play the ball too fast so defenses retreating did not get set and the best way to make ground was to run one out. They even had players voluntarily submit in tackles by dropping to their knees to get quick ball out for another dummy half run
matth
Roar Guru
While Rugby globally goes from strength to strength, in Australia we aren’t in a position to turn potential fans away
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
In school kids play so that they can get a medal for participation. In the real world only the winners get the cup.