All Blacks' alpha flex that summed up massive gulf as Argies 'humiliated' in 'embarrassingly bad' RWC semi

That’s great but they should be a starting point for getting over the advantage point, not an end point with a penalty so often. Certainly don’t need to have penalty goals outside the 22 from a scrum. Save it for the red zone.

And my question remains. The author cannot have an opinion because of their nationality? You see that’s an absurd opinion, right? You’re from New Zealand? Cool. Does that make you more knowledgeable than someone else? No. You’re just a dude from NZ - you aren’t pair to write or play or coach. You’re just a dude from a country that happens to have a good rugby team. You are not special or entitled to anything.

Stop!! There were more skills shown in any ten minutes of this game than in the entire Bokke v Stops match. As for the Bokke match if I want to watch grass grow I'll go to the baseball. PS I will get up at 5 a.m. again next Saturday to watch the Pumas bury the Stops and all the critics of the draw. The draw is created, and the match officials are selected, by the Stops and their Celtic colonies allowing UK sides every advantage. Often this results in gifting the Bokke another RWC because the Home teams are not good enough to get out of the pools. Not this time folks. They'll have to earn this one by beating the resurgent All Blacks. I hope the officials next week learn from this game and prevent the sealing off of the ball in rucks which the Stops exploited ad nauseam and sent my family to sleep.

I agree Daffyd, I understand what you are saying. I don't want to see the scrum abolished either. Despite its faults it creates much needed space on the field to attack but having said as much its role is more often than not a negative one encouraging illegality rather than fair and open play. It also exacerbates unfairly in my opinion the often minor differences between a strong scrummaging team and another otherwise equally competitive team that is perhaps a kilo or two lighter or less attuned to the dark arts of scrummaging. Which of course is really a euphemism for illegality. Its influence in other words is disproportionate. For too long commentators have blamed greenskeepers when the pitch is ripped apart by 16 scrummaging giants. It's time that Rugby stop passing the buck onto the poor old greenskeeper and acknowledge that Big is not necessarily beautiful. World Rugby needs to appraise whether the disproportionate influence the scrum has on the modern game is a positive one and if it deems as I do that it isn't then its role needs to be addressed, limited or curtailed. It's as simple as that.

I share your broad thinking....re-dominance of power at the expense of athletic finesse. IMO, SF2 was a classic example of power over finesse even with the inclement conditions but, I thought that SF1 wasn't exactly played under fine conditions....it just seemed the coaches of both sides in SF2 decided, the game plans were going to be what, we got to witness....dour, power. I really don't know, what weather conditions the rugby-gods will cough up next week because it won't bother me or I suggest the ABs, if the weather is wet or fine....my thoughts are the former and we see which team, is prepared to add finesse, to their tactics.

I note he didn't answer the questions either. I was wrong about my comment being narrow minded. Far too generous. Closed minded would be more apt.

Hi Peter, it's funny that there are so many people who seem to think I'm asking to abolish the scrum. At no point did I even infer it. All I am asking is the scrum be made less important, basically just for knockons and restarts, which simplifies the Laws as well. Want I want to abolish are soft scrum penalties and give free kicks instead. Which is why free kicks were introduced in the 70s! Now the players have got bigger, the scrums have got bigger and it takes 2 sets of forwards and one set of back to play the game, as the game requires 15 forwards playing around half a game while the smaller faster men are made to play a full game. The new game has taken fatigue off the table for the big men, and a reason why the Tier 2 teams can match a half with the tier ones, but not a full game. Unbalanced in so many ways. Ironically with their comments about "watching league" as union now looks more like league than union. eg Forwards with pick and goes of 1 metre, are just like the 2 yard gain from dummy half under the league unlimited tacke rule. When I played there was an open backline of backs. All forwards were committed to rucks, not standing in front of backs or in the backline as they do today - so they can trundle up another 2 metre hit up, just like they used to do in league.

IFTS, There was a time when I watched it, I mean really studied a game. I would be up at midnight / 1am to watch a 5 / 6 Nations or the Wallabies on tour. I will never forget the Wallabies pushover try against the Welsh. Now I don't. I go to bed. In fact I've gone to bed instead of staying up late to watch.

Thanks Peter I’m obviously clueless re about rugby, everyone knew at the start of this World Cup that it was always going to be the boks and the allblacks Ireland and france were never a chance at all. Thanks again for your expertise

Exactly!

Rubbish, If you don't expect the Boks or the All Blacks to win then you don't know your Rugby. Ireland are good, I don't say otherwise and I'm pleased about that but few tennis fans would back Andy Murray to win when Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Djokovic are still in the semi finals simply because some bean counter ranked him Number one and I would never back against the Boks or the All Blacks either. At least Andy Murray did win a cup once or twice, which is more than can be said for Ireland or France on the world Rugby stage.

That's Great !! Another few cheeky points won undermining the scrum. Your scrum was not as dominant as you first thought.

That's a fair point Old Bugger. The point of course is that Rugby is a moving feast. The tactics, the players conditioning and strength has changed and Rugby needs to ensure that the Rules are fit for purpose for the contemporary game. I would argue that World Rugby has dropped the ball at times. For example, I don't think we can keep blaming the ground staff each time a scrum digs up the turf. It happened several times in this world cup and it tells you about the crazy power that a modern scrum now generates. Broadly speaking I think the game has become dominated too much by power at the expense of other fine athletic attributes and any rule changes should broadly speaking take this into consideration.

We don't live in North Korea mate. He has a considered opinion about Rugby why shouldn't he voice it on a rugby blog.

Wow !! What a sweeping and erroneous generalisation to make. Yes, I was fist pumping the air when Portugal beat Fiji, just as I was when Fiji beat Australia. Those two moments made the world cup for me. The All Blacks and South Africa winning through to yet another final does not. I am sure the Rugby will be intense and skilful but hardly a statement affirming that Rugby is the great world sport that it purports to be. Perhaps, at the end of the day it isn't. I guess that comes down to one's perspective. You talk about negativity. Look at the entitled manner that both the All Blacks and Springboks conduct themselves when on the rare occasions a Referee doesn't favour them. If the shoe fits, wear it, I say.

Wow !! That's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry to mix my metaphors but Sour Grapes is all I have heard in Australia over the last two weeks.

Exactly. While the clear purpose for most teams is to milk a penalty. But why should losing a scrum - which is really what most scrum pens are for - result in a penalty- especially a 3 point kick at goal, while a crooked throw into a lineout results only in a scrum.

Bollocks and that is not my intent. Look at what is happening in the Pacific region - where is all of this magic funding that you subscribe to, flowing into the Pacific region?? Why is it that Fiji, Samoa and Tonga are still regarded as tier-2 nations when I can remember back in the '70s, NZ and Australia catered for tours by all these nations and, it made them all fight for further recognition. Sadly 50years later, the Pacific region teams are still struggling, to gain assistance which is proven by the number of players from each nation, who are plying their trade overseas rather than, at home. Why aren't other tier-1 nations inviting Chile, Uruguay and/or Namibia to tour and play?? Could it be because those nations are struggling to support their own, rather than having to finance invitation tours?? The fight has to come from these nations against WR but once they receive funding allocations, then they have to fight like heck to prove they're worthy of mounting and participating, in an overseas tour. Back in the days of 3-4 month overseas tours, WR or its previous Board did not finance any such visits, between national sides. That responsibility, belonged to the respective national boards and, it hasn't changed. So while these nations now seek other financial arrangements to support their sport (i.e. sponsorships, broadcasting rights, merchandise deals and PE funding), it remains to be seen who is really responsible for the next tier levels, of global rugby?? WR funding, can only serve its purpose for a limited time because its own bank, is really reliant upon a quadrennial competition, to secure the bulk of its largess. Those nations, whom you suggest are dependant on this funding, must go out and fight for more but IMO, fight to show the world that their game, is worthy of playing and touring overseas. They cannot rely solely, upon WR.

Peter, could the answer to fewer scrums and line outs over the years since 1987 simply be, players' ball skill and fitness levels have improved exponentially hence, there are less dropped passes and/or dropped kicks, less forward passes and the fact that the laws and rules have changed regarding rucking, mauling and going into, those collisions. You may want to look at game scores also - the frequency of high scoring matches has also increased, as we see player skills improving. Any argument regarding ball-in-play time surely, cannot be solely based upon the number of scrums or line outs especially when, the frequency of those set pieces, is declining.

I do feel for them though, after all that talk about a NH whitewash and the death of SH rugby, they’ve been severely let down. You could see that a lot of them took this to heart and believed all the experts trying to stay relevant by talking up such crap and now that it hasn’t come to pass, they’re looking for something to explain it all. Has to be the refereeing or some sort of bias, not that their teams choke at critical times.