7-1 argument explodes after ex-coach brands tactic immoral, “It’s not against the laws.”.

In his most recent press conference, Springboks head coach Jacques Nienaber defended his use of the contentious 7-1 split, despite criticism that the move could be harmful.

For South Africa’s crucial Pool B match against Ireland, Nienaber once more used the unconventional 7-1 split, which is very different from the typical 5-3 forwards versus back split that most international teams prefer.

Despite complaints from some detractors, the Springboks manager who is headed to Leinster is adamant that the risky innovation is not illegal.

Matt Williams, a former Scotland coach who is now a pundit, has gone so far as to describe the action as almost morally repugnant, claiming it might endanger players.

“Yes, it is lawful.
I would have to say that smart rugby is appropriate for the World Cup.
It is a wise strategy, yes.
Williams stated on a Virgin Media podcast, “But it is not morally correct.
“What I’m saying is that props and second rowers will play in lower levels of the game if they copy the Springboks, which they will do.
The spines of those players are in danger if they are worn out, the opposition introduces seven new forwards, and they go for a scrum later in the game knowing they could win by penalty.

“Since I have witnessed it, I will not remain silent.
It is our duty as those who have personally experienced it to warn the following generation not to return.
“.

Any claims that the choice was anything other than an innovation within the constraints of the game were rejected by Nienber.

“I believe that any innovation in a sport will elicit a response, whether favorable or unfavorable. This is obviously different; the fact that a team named seven forwards and one back to the bench alone qualifies as innovation in my book. That will draw attention.
I’m not sure what you mean by player safety.
I’m aware that nothing prevents anyone else from doing it, and I believe it will be a sad day if the rules of the game are innovative and they change it.

“It’s not against the rules of the game, and I don’t believe it has any impact whatsoever on player safety.
“.

Nienaber was also questioned about which team he chose first: the starting fifteen or the bench.

Nienaber remarked, “That’s a tough one.
“In our team, our bench isn’t necessarily what I would call a bench, but I don’t know other teams.
People occasionally assume that if you are sitting on the bench, you are most likely not as good as the starter. But with the team and squad we have here, as we have stated a number of times, that is not always the case.

“We select 23; I won’t say we start with the bench.
We really do it that way, even though I’m aware it’s probably cliche. They are chosen for particular reasons.

“This is a crucial game, and we are all aware that it will be challenging to escape this pool when we first entered it.
There was a ton of pressure starting with the first game against Scotland, followed by Romania, Ireland, and Tonga.

“There is pressure because a win for either us or them will put you in a good position to exit the pool. But that was there when the World Cup began.
Because we stated that we would play knock-out rugby from the first game, the situation doesn’t actually change for us personally. Nothing has altered since the first game.
“.