Matt Williams: It’s diabolical that the laws of rugby punish the team in possession

South Africa richly deserves their fourth World Cup victory. They are a magnificent rugby nation.

With that statement of fact, I want to make it clear that the following observations are about the game and not a criticism of the Springboks.

However, over the past seven weeks when I have made observations that were critical of the Springboks game plan, I was swamped with waves of vile abuse. To the extent that several nut jobs have told me they wanted me dead.

Death threats because I don’t agree with a 7-1 bench and I would like their exceptionally talented team to run the ball more and not scrummage for penalties.

The Counter Ruck: the rugby newsletter from The Irish Times

---

The Counter Ruck: Does rugby need the 20-minute red card?

---

Johnny Watterson: Is this Ireland team in danger of flattering to deceive?

---

Rónan Kelleher: ‘The lineout clicked last weekend, but there was no major revamp’

---

Seems a bit extreme.

While there are few hills on which I am prepared to make my final stand, a 7-1 bench is not one of them.

So following Galileo’s example, who glared at the instruments of torture that were to be used on him by his inquisitors, I recant. The Earth is the centre of the universe and please feel free to knock yourselves out with as many 7-1 benches as you desire.

Rassie is a genius. Right up there with Einstein and Bill Burr. I have been inspired by the lights shining from his coaches’ box, like beams of spiritual enlightenment, that have converted me to become a born again member of the Church of Cross-Field Bombs and Latter Day Venus de Milos. I confess that never again do I want to see an outhalf pass the ball.

I have begun to lobby the Vatican to appoint a Patron Saint for winning scrum penalties. Perhaps the martyr, Saint Margaret Clitherow, who was crushed to death under the dead weight of a giant stone. Seems appropriate.

Oh, I forgot. The Bomb Squad is a sensational name. I don’t know what came over me when I said it was a con job. I now wear a Springbok Onesie as pyjamas with, “Rassie is bigger than Taylor Swift” emblazoned on my shoulders.

It was all Gonzo rugby journalism. I never meant a word of it. Honest.

What the nut jobs are not seeing is that this is not about the Springboks, who I deeply admire and respect, this is about rugby’s future.

In four World Cup Finals, that is 320 minutes of rugby, South Africa has scored only two tries. In that same period, they have kicked 18 penalty goals, two conversions and two drop goals. So 64 points from the boot and only 10 from carrying the ball.

The current laws empowered the Springboks to hold possession in their winning quarter-final for a minuscule 14.1 minutes. The semi-final was 14.2 minutes and the final was 15.9 minutes. All three were the lowest of all the teams in the knockout phase. In other words, for 64.1 minutes in the final, the Springboks did not have the ball, yet they still won.

What other game on the face of the earth would allow such statistics to be created by their World Championship-winning team? That is not a criticism of the Springboks, but it is a damming condemnation of rugby’s laws and how they are being refereed, which are grossly disadvantaging the team in possession.

A highly-experienced Australian rugby academic has told me that the Springboks philosophy of play, based on exceptionally brave defence, a strong kicking game and a giant, powerful pack of forwards has changed very little since the 1960s.

He also told me that those of us outside of South Africa should not expect the Boks to change because it is their traditional way of playing and it is highly successful. With four World Cup victories, it is very hard to find evidence to deconstruct his Springbok manifesto. Note to all the nut jobs who may be a bit confused: relax, this is praise, not criticism.

What is concerning is that the Springboks view of the rugby universe appears to be spreading and it is winning games.

In all seven knockout games at the 2023 RWC, the teams who held possession for the least amount of time won every match. That is a diabolical fact.

All of this is related to the Ball In Play (BIP) time. Teams driven by this negative philosophy are tactically slowing games down, by forcing long stoppages, so their giant forwards can suck in air and reduce their fatigue. Teams are selecting these behemoths, for their defensive impact, mauling and to gain scrummaging penalties.

These teams then select a bench full of more gargantuan forwards, (like the 7-1 bench that I thought I detested but now realise I adore,) because the laws allow these giants to play only half a game so they never become fatigued.

Only three of the seven RWC 23 knockout games reached 40 minutes of BIP time. In other words, in the majority of the knockout matches, there was absolutely nothing happening, no action, players standing still for more than half of the game.

To regain balance in our game, so the team in possession is not highly disadvantaged, which is currently the case, we need to aim at creating an average of around 65 minutes of BIP time. As the majority of the playoff games had BIP times in the mid-30 minutes range, the journey to reclaim another 35 minutes of lost time is immense.

Rugby needs more running, more tries, more backline attack, less scrum time, fewer TMO interventions, fewer penalties, less kicking and fewer stoppages. This requires changes to the law and refereeing, plus reverting back to the 1990s laws when free kicks were awarded for all technical scrum infringements. A reduced, compulsory bench of four forwards and two backs is a must.

If we aim to get far more rugby played within every 80 minutes, then balance will be naturally restored.

Like Galileo, we all know the truth. We are just too frightened to say it out loud.