Wasps secure return of five-cap Springbok after one year absence

I think the argument behind the future of Rugby and defence vs attack is a pertinent one but also misses a big point. Rugby is a game about momentum and big swings of momentum makes games entertaining. You get and lose momentum in a few ways. You kick a 50-22 after defending for multiple phases (huge momentum swing), you get two penalties in a row thanks to bad opposition discipline allowing you to peel of large meters, you maintain large amounts of territory and possession tiring opponents out, you get a penalty from the set piece, a yellow or red card etc. The laws in the past years that have made the biggest impact has addressed stale games where no team can seize the momentum. The 50-22 has been a raging success as it allows huge momentum swings. The interpretations around ruck time and changes there to favour the team in possession has allowed sides like Ireland to wear teams down with possession-based play and maintain and build momentum. The Dupont law (which killed momentum) and now the reversing of it has had a huge impact and now the access interpretation of the laws around kick chases which forces teams and players to allow access to the catcher is set to make a big impact and everyone loves it because it allows a contest on the catch and more importantly could lead to huge swings in momentum. The worst laws have failed to allow teams to seize momentum. When rugby allowed teams to pass the ball back into the 22 and clear it was clearly a bad law as it allowed nobody to build momentum. Clearly the laws that changed several penalty offences around ruck and set piece to free kicks was aimed at speeding up the game but was a poor law because it killed momentum as teams would infringe regularly without major consequences from penalties and also it did not reward the team that made a big play to win possession from a penalizable offence. In the modern game you can win matches in many ways. You can dominate possession and territory like Ireland or play off counterattack and turnovers like France. You can dominate with the set piece and seize momentum that way like SA, or stifle teams with momentum killing defence. You can run strike moves off first and second phase and score in the blink of an eye like NZ. Every team with every style has a chance. World cup finals are all about ensuring that your opponent cannot seize momentum. Every team is so afraid to make mistakes that give away momentum that they play conservatively until they no longer can afford to. The game favours no style and no type of play and thats why the big 4 teams are so closely matched. In the end it all comes down to execution and the team that executes better wins. For my mind that is a well balanced game and it is on the right track.

Who could have any problem with Ardie Savea repping Samoa in future? He was born in Wellington but his parents are both Samoan, so what's the problem?