I suppose it is natural that after every Rugby World Cup there will be analysis and speculation over what worked, what didn’t work and suggestions coming forth on what World Rugby can do to improve the game.
It is also important to consider where these opinions and suggestions originate as to validate their objective analysis and suggestions.
South Africa is not immune to criticism in the manner they play. Their core values and strengths will always steer them in the direction of structured play and therefore they often receive criticism as being boring and predictable. They will rather sell out their mothers than play attractive rugby.
I must confess I never consider law changes in the game of rugby, purely because I personally think rugby is fine the way it is.
It is a game of possession, or should I say a game where competition for possession presents itself in every facet of play.
You compete for possession at every scrum, ruck, tackle, line out and box kick etc. This would suggest that free flowing rugby or ball in play minutes are unlikely to improve to over 40 minutes per match ever, unless of course World Rugby wants to go the route of rugby league. This would involve changing the laws to the point where the fundamental elements of rugby – competition for possession – is minimised to the point where each of the facets such as line outs, rucks, scrums are devalued.
I for one hope that never happens, as rugby for me is undeniably unique due to the complexity of the game.
Izack Rodda going to work at the lineout. (William West/AFP/Getty Images)
Enter Jeremy Guscott and his suggestion that World Rugby need to re-evaluate the bench. He said World Rugby should reduce the number of players that can be replaced on a tactical and injury basis to only three.
You may still have eight on the bench to cover all positions, but the bench is really only there to provide options in case of injury.
Thus the bench as a tactical weapon for the coach is reduced to a non-starter.
Jeremy Guscott’s reasoning behind this suggestion is that the South African ‘Bomb Squad’ with a 6/2 split provides them with an advantage that (reading between the lines) is not in the spirit of the game.
Why should they be able to effectively replace their tight five after the first half and continue to gain ascendancy over their opponents, thereby negating the concept of having fit enough players to manage 80 minutes of rugby?
Sorry Jeremy, but I disagree completely. Firstly, ball in play minutes have increased and are higher now than ever before if reports are to be believed, players are currently fitter than they have ever been, the game has become more physical than ever before, player management is part of the substitution game.
The reason why you have eight replacements on the bench serves two purposes, injury and sustainability of play.
As for the “Bomb Squad” you don’t approve of, every team has exactly the same number of substitutions, every coach has his own tactical selections of how he believes it will benefit his side.
There has also been widespread criticism of the number of scrum penalties South Africa earned from Jerome Garces during the Rugby World Cup final, and suggestions have been floating in the air that conceding a penalty 40 meters away from a scrum does not deserve three points.
Makazole Mapimpi of South Africa (Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
I distinctly remember a match between Wales and England in 2013 where the match was won based primarily on the dominance Wales’ scrum exerted on England, although the match was eventually won by 30-3 and Wales scoring two tries latish in the second half, the scrum penalties and forward dominance by Wales broke down the English resolve during that first half.
No upheaval then, why now?
There is also ample proof that teams win matches off penalties while they were outscored in tries, such as England’s victory over Wales in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in their quarter final match when Wales outscored England by two tries to one.
South Africa lost a Test during the 1997 British and Irish Lions tour by outscoring the Lions by three tries to nil.
We need to embrace union for what it is, a unique sport where the competition for possession in all facets of the game are as important as running with ball in hand.
We need to accept that the points system in place allows teams to win matches in different manners.
There is no need to morph the game into something that will attract those with the attention span of a gnat, there are plenty of sports around that will provide you with the snack you would buy at the drive through.
When it comes to satisfying all your taste buds and savour the complexity of a gourmet meal, then sit back and enjoy a game of rugby union.
I am but an amateur statistician and accept no responsibility for those injured in reading these stats, I did some research to see whether the attack over defense have changed significantly over nine Rugby World Cups.
Number of tries scored during the knock out phases and finals by all teams involved
Average tries per tournament 30
1987 – 41 tries
1991 – 21 tries
1995 – 32 tries
1999 – 28 tries
2003 – 30 tries
2007 – 25 tries
2011 – 20 tries
2015 – 40 tries
2019 – 36 tries
Tries scored vs conceded by the Champions during knock out phases and final
Average per tournament 7–2
1987 NZ 13 – 2
1991 OZ 6 – 1
1995 SA 7 – 2
1999 OZ 5 – 0
2003 ENG 2 – 5
2007 SA 9 – 3
2011 NZ 4 – 2
2015 NZ 14 – 3
2019 SA 6 – 1
Penalty goals converted vs conceded by the Champions during knock out phases and final
Average 11 – 7
1987 NZ 11 – 2
1991 OZ 5 – 7
1995 SA 9 – 8
1999 OZ 16 -13
2003 ENG 15 – 4
2007 SA 10 – 6
2011 NZ 12 – 3
2015 NZ 6 – 9
2019 SA 13 – 8
Drop goals converted and conceded by the Champions during the knock out phases and final
1987 NZ 1 – 0
1991 OZ 0 – 1
1995 SA 2 – 1
1999 OZ 1 – 1
2003 ENG 5 – 0
2007 SA 0 – 0
2011 NZ 1 – 1
2015 NZ 2 – 0
2019 SA 0 – 0
The 1987 and 2015 All Blacks were the two most dominant teams and World Cup winners in the history of the RWC, whereas the statistics suggest during 2011 New Zealand did not have it their own way and had to resort to scoring by any means possible.
Every RWC winning team had a superior defensive record scoring more tries than conceding, apart from the 2003 Champions England.
England’s Jonny Wilkinson (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe, File)
Only the 1991 Champions Australia and the 2015 Champions New Zealand kicked fewer penalty goals than they conceded, all the other champions used penalty goals as a method to score a good percentage of their points.
My point is this, rugby union is a game whereby you compete for possession like in no other game, you have a myriad ways to score points. Due to the complexity of the game, every coach will use their bench selections to what adds to the strengths of their team, they will employ a game plan that suits the strengths of their team, every match will be planned depending on the opposition, granted some games might be seen as boring, but let’s be honest, they aren’t in the majority.
Union is a game of chess, planned by the coach, and executed by 23 gifted athletes.
Leave my game alone, if you want to be royally entertained and don’t get the nuances and complexities of rugby union, go watch a movie.
DaveB
Guest
The scrum is supposed to be a quick restart to play after a minor indiscretion According to all the tour books I have read (going back to 1937) rugby union has never been like that If the RWC final wasn’t your cup of tea then maybe League is for you
DaveB
Guest
Yes League is way bigger in Aus. In the UK Union I about 2x big than League. In SA, league is amateur. Sure we can learn from each others codes but i don’t think that people are selecting which code they watch based on the style of play
Shed
Roar Rookie
Agree gents - proper referring of 'last mans feet' and given 3 seconds to use the ball at the ball as the attacking team would be an improvement.
Madridjohn
Guest
Only problem there, at least in Australia, is that so many people are doing just that. Half the ‘rugby’ schools is Brisbane now offer league and AFL. That only came about because the students demanded it. Think about that for moment before declaring so confidently that the game is perfect the way it is.
Maximus Insight
Guest
Fair enough, I read your comment as referring wholly to Australia I certainly don't recommend that rules be changed to try and put bums on seats in Australia - that would be ridiculous. I certainly don't support debasing the game by going down league's path of removing the contest for the ball. The problem in Australia isn't the rules it is the base level of popularity not being that high traditionally which is substantially compounded by an utterly toxic super rugby format. Which goes to why your last point is wrong. If we had won the world cup there would be a decent chance most Wallabies games would sell out next year (before dropping away again). There would at best be a small uptick in Super rugby crowds though which would probably last til round 5.
MMaaxx
Roar Rookie
I’m said nothing controversial or unique to Australia. - The world is not Australia and I am looking at things from a global view. Football is the global game, while I’m not the biggest fan, there is no denying that. Agreed? - Globally rugby is growing. Can’t deny that either. Would you change the game and how it’s played to perhaps (although unlikely until they start winning) put a few more bums on seats in Aus? - Truth is, for a good few years, Aus teams and players have been pretty lousy. Any country with the fickle nature of fans would lose interest. I guarantee that if Aus had won the RWC that tests and most S15 games would be a sell out next season.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
tell me how many scrums took for than a few second to set I thought the changes in setting the scrum were driven by player safety. Surely that takes priority over speed. Tell me what scrum dominance looked like before the laws were tweaked What there were no pushover try's a couple of decades ago. When a dominant scrum intentionally collapses the weaker scrum How does the dominant scrum do that exactly ?? Surely all the dominant scrum does is apply force.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Agree Wal. I would like to see the the numbers of substitutes reduced. As Guscott said keep the bench as it is but reduce the number of substitutes. This brings fatigue into the game which can open up the game. How the bench is made up is solely the province of the coach.
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Leave the bloody game alone you Pansies. It’s Rugby , promote it for what is . Those who want to change it can’t compete physically. Hence the failed Brave Aussie rigmarole where we pretend that we invented try scoring. SA will do me , they have the lot, size, pace, power , skill and mobile.
Maximus Insight
Guest
In Australian football it worked out that the stoppages that became "time off" must have roughly worked out to be about 5 minutes on average a quarter as we still have quarters averaging about 30 minutes. I don't know how it would work in rugby but analogously you could reduce the game clock by average amount of down time in a match.
Maximus Insight
Guest
As in your statement: would be growing in Aus if they were winning and compared to other second tier sports (football being the only 1st tier sport in terms of numbers) is growing nicely. ...is so far off the mark that, it would only make sense coming from someone who doesn't live here 1. The game would not be growing in Australia if we were winning 2. Soccer isn't a first tier sport in Australia let-a-lone the only one 3. The game is not "growing nicely" in Australia and certainly not compared to other sports
DA, my objection is to the comments made by Guscott, not sensitive about it, just passionate. As for refereeing interpretations, every team suffers because of it, and every team benefits from it. By all means get referees to be more consistent, but leave the laws alone.
Double Agent
Guest
Corne I think you're being a little bit sensitive thinking these calls for tweaking some rules are directed at SA at RWC 2019. Some of the ideas on this thread are decades old. Also I really object to this. "Leave my game alone, if you want to be royally entertained and don’t get the nuances and complexities of rugby union, go watch a movie." "Nuances and complexities" are often just the whims of inconsistent referees. Getting three points 40 metres from the tryline for "sealing off" when he's just allowed the last 25 rucks to be "sealed off" is just absurd.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey In Breif, but it is a penalty offence if a defender gets ‘hands on the ball’. Ie if the tackled player infringes against the laws re letting the ball go. scrum penalty may be awarded on ‘dominance’ even when no technical infringement has occurred. I'm struggling to see an example of this. In my understanding a dominant scum could conceivably push their opponent from the half way line to the try line without giving away a penalty - the most amazing push over try in history but no penalty. It's only when the dominated scrum collapses or wheels or lifts etc that a penalty is given.
In brief
Guest
In reality many penalties don’t actually come from ‘infringements’. They are ‘rewards’ not ‘penalties’. For example, a tackled player is allowed to place the ball in any direction- this is not an infringement- but it is a penalty offence if a defender gets ‘hands on the ball’. Similarly at the scrum a penalty may be awarded on ‘dominance’ even when no technical infringement has occurred.
So England never wheeled a scrum? They never collapsed a scrum?
In brief
Guest
Mate you might want to shake the sand out of your ears...
In brief
Guest
The point I am making is that the scrum penalties did not come from England’s illegal tactics but from the perceived dominance of the SA scrum.
You cannot compare refereeing in NRL and AFL to Rugby Union. By the sheer nature of the complexity of the sport during the different facets of the game, such as rucks for 3xample every referee will officiate it differently. It is highly unlikely you will ever have all referees watching the same type of transgressions at the breakdown. Look at Richie McCaw, look at David Pocock. Adapting to the referee is not a blight on the game, it is a reality of a complex sport. No other sport a referee has to consider, when the ruck is formed, who was the first man legally to put hands on the ball, when he must release, did he go over the ball and then on it, side entry, last line of feet, obstruction, is the defender playing the half back, who lost their feet, who cleared illegally, etc. And all that in 4-8 seconds.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
No Ethan. I didn't say that of course. Believe me, I want the scrum problem solved as much as you do. What I'm saying is extending the time for completion of matches will not encourage spectators to either attend or watch the game on TV. More likely to discourage them in my opinion. Some games are already taking 15-20 minutes over normal playing time to complete - even 20 mins in one half of rugby in some cases.