South Africa have confirmed that they will be doing what many people expected for this weekend's game against Ireland, with the Springboks employing a 7-1 split on their bench for the Rugby World Cup fixture.
Benches in top level rugby traditionally comprise of five forwards and three backs, all of whom are usually brought on over the course of a game. However, South Africa believe they can get an advantage by instead having seven forwards in reserve, something that should in theory allow them to dominate against a more tired opposition pack in the closing stages.
Having tested this out against New Zealand during their recent warmup fixture, they have decided to use it once again on Saturday evening.
Matt Williams explains fierce opposition to South Africa decision
The move has split opinion.
Some see it as a clever tactical decision from South Africa, and considering they are not breaking any rules, that they are fully within their rights to go down that route.
Others feel that it should not be allowed, with Matt Williams chief among them.
The Aussie was one of the most outspoken critics of the move when it was initially made, something that he has now doubled down on.
Speaking to Virgin Media, he said that while the 7-1 split may be a clever move from South Africa, he fears the repercussions it will have on lower levels of the sport moving forward. Having witnessed someone in his own community experiencing a life-changing injury on the pitch in the past, he is worried this could result in such incidents becoming more common in the future.
"Is it legal? Yes.
"Is it smart rugby? Yes.
"Is it good tactics? Yes.
"But it is not morally correct!"
Matt Williams outlines why he is against South Africa naming a 7-1 split on their bench against Ireland.#RSAvIRE | #RWC2023 pic.twitter.com/PSV2QQ41LK— Virgin Media Sport (@VMSportIE) September 20, 2023
Why am I saying I am totally against this South Africa bench?
Is it legal? Yes. Is it smart rugby for the World Cup? I've got to say yes. Is it good tactics? Yes. But it is not morally correct.
What I'm saying is that if lower levels of the game copy the Springboks, and they will, there are props playing second-rowers in lower levels of the game. If they are fatigued and the opposition bring on seven fresh forwards and they go for a scrum later on in the game knowing they could get a penalty and win the game, those guys' spines are in danger.
I will not be quiet, because I've seen it. All of us that have seen it firsthand have a responsibility to remind the next generation to not go back there.
I have great admiration for the Springboks, I admire them as a rugby nation, they're one of the greatest in the world alongside New Zealand. This is not right for the game.
It might be right for a test match, it might be right for them to beat Ireland. I'm not worried about the health of the Irish players. I'm deeply, deeply concerned that at the lower levels of the game this will be copied.
It won't be on the front page, some player will become a quadriplegic. It won't be on the front page, it won't be on the newspapers. It will just be his club, community, family, and him or her that has to deal with it for the rest of their lives.
That's why I oppose it and I always will.
An impassioned plea.
Williams was criticised for his comments on the South Africa move in the past, but he seems genuinely worried about the future impact this will have on the lower levels of rugby.
SEE ALSO: Strange Exchange Between Referee & TMO Led To Controversial Italy Try Against Uruguay
