The change in rules since 2007 is halfway to paying dividends

[Set piece magic]

After this evenings two results, I reflected on the refereeing. Both games had four tries, a good number. The tries where often through great use of the ball, free flowing rugby. In fact, 7/8 tries where from backline useage of the ball, with the final one being a dart around the corner by mike phillips.

By tomorrow night, we will know how much rugby has changed since 2007.

We just saw two quarterfinals:

Ireland V Wales
France V England

Both games had two suffocating teams playing - Ireland, who's annoying tactic of mobbing a player and holding him up to slow the game down / turn the ball over was the definition of grind...

And England, whos constant desire to scrummage, pick and drive etc has been infuriating us for years.

They both lost. 0/2 for boring, suffocating teams.

Tomorrow's games, Aus V SA and NZ v Arg will set the RWC to either make it or break it for the neutral: If Aus and NZ win, we are going to have two classic semi finals that are just going to be exhillarating in every way. I can think of no game better, more entertaining or whatever than these two games on current form. That will lead to a great final.

If SA win, we know that dour rugby still has a chance.

I'm in two minds about Argentina winning
- If they win by scoring 6 tries, they well and truly deserve a place in the final.
If they win by suffocating, they can gtfo.

So here's hoping the Bokkes are unceremoniously dumped from this turnament by 50+ points, and the All Blacks and Argentina play out an epic.

 

[Rebel rouser]

Well said Spikhaza.

Every world cup I try to bring new people to the game. It's a good opportunity because of the increased media profile and high quantity of games. Unfortuantely, last world cup they saw some pretty mind-numbing rugby. A final with no tries was the worst possible show-case of our great game. And living in Melbourne where we already have a game about kicking a ball through posts it really didn't generate much interest from casuals.

I, too, hope we see four running teams in the semis this time around. Particularly as that will mean the Wallabies will have gone through!! We'll see. Less than 24 hours to go now!!

 

[potjiekos]

*yawn*

 

[Swarley]

*yawn*

Well said Potjiekos! Who cares about trying to make the best of the third most-watched sporting event in the world the best showcase of talent there is by encouraging running, free-flowing rugby when teams can just play a game of penalty kicks? Pfft, next people will expect a try every game (what nonsense!).
All rugby teams should play like the Springboks, it's sure the help expand the game :

Seriously now, spot on Spikhaza. The Welsh have been brilliant to watch all tournament and the French, whilst inconsistent in the pool stages, played an excellent game today against England with one of the top tries of the entire tournament (Clerc- wow!). Most kicking has been competitive rather than incontestable kicks for line-outs. Provided the Wallabies make it through to the SF, the two semis are going to be the best showcase the game has had for years. Running rugby, top teams (What will be 1 vs. 2 and 5 vs. 6), new talent, established talent, fairy-tale endings, rivalries- all the ingredients for a phenomenal weekend of Rugby.

 

[Dan54]

Altough I am enjoying the rugby, I think if SA do go through to semis, doesn't that just prove the game can be played in different styles effectively, I in no way think that dimishes rugby as a contest.

 

[Dam0]

I like the way that there are different ways to play rugby. There are radically differing approaches to the way the game is played and I think this is a credit to the game, not a detraction. When played well, a dominating forward display from one of the teams is just as good to watch as a wide open game with tries aplenty.

Ireland, who's annoying tactic of mobbing a player and holding him up to slow the game down / turn the ball over was the definition of grind...

This is exactly the opposite of what I think. If a team can take advantage of a players upright running style and get numbers quickly around the ball they should be rewarded for it. I think rugby would be the poorer if tactics like that were eliminated through law changes.

I think we have to try to keep rugby as a game for all shapes and sizes and in which a variety of styles and tactics can be successful.

 

[Dan54]

(Ireland, who's annoying tactic of mobbing a player and holding him up to slow the game down / turn the ball over was the definition of grind...)
Also really agree with your reply to this Dam0, you shouldn't change laws because some players don't have good body position. Same applies to scrums, you work to the laws, don't expect them to get changed to allow for incompetence.

 

[James Buchanan]

Not only there are different ways to play rugby, but different spectators enjoy different things.

While there are people who love to see backs being unleashed in intricate passing and running displays, there are also people who just love to see a physical confrontation between two awesome forward packs, with no quarter given by either side.

Sometimes I suspect that Australians, particularly those from the league states, obsess about running rugby too much to the detriment of our enjoyment of the entire game.

 

[qwerty51]

Attitudes like this are exactly why Australia is perceived to have a weak pack. Tough forward rugby is just as enjoyable as try scoring rugby imo. I don't watch rugby to see someone cross over the white line at the end, I watch for the collisions and skills of players using their bodies as weapons and shields.

 

[James Buchanan]

Same applies to scrums, you work to the laws, don't expect them to get changed to allow for incompetence.

Missed this bit at first. I think scrums are a much more contentious issue. Right now, problems exist with them; that would be true to me even if the Wallabies were the best in the world at scrummaging.

Too often, people claim that rules shouldn't be changed because they fear it might disadvantage their team. But there is a difference between an annoying manipulation of the rules (such as the irish maul tactic) and a truly detrimental one. I believe that it supporters should recognise situations where things have gotten out of hand, even if it does advantage our team.

A similar situation to what has happened with the scrum was the breakdown laws. As the contest at the breakdown evolved, it reached the situation circa 2007, where possession was not desirable at all. There was no dialectic anymore about possession versus territory; territory was king because possession inevitably meant that you would suffer a turnover or worse, a penalty (Of course you could say the same circa 1999 in the other direction). That was a circumstance where change was appropriate and it seems that there has been a swing back towards a more possession driven game, while still providing for advantages from territory.

I suspect scrums are heading to the same place. I think that in chasing the power hit we have lost so many other skills that are relevant to scrummaging. We no longer have hookers that hook; I remember being in teams which chose certain smaller blokes because their footwork in the scrum was sublime. We have lost the bajada; an 8 man push is irrelevant when the scrum is decided by the hit. In many ways I feel like we have lost the subtleties of the scrum; as a former front-rower myself, who both enjoyed and prided myself on my scrummaging, that saddens me. So yeah, I champion scrum reform; but its not to make it easier for Australia to win, but instead to help make it a more involved process than "get the hit, you win".

 

[Dam0]

I agree with regards to the scrum. It is very important for me that the scrum is kept as an important factor in the game. If it were not so then teams could be made up of 15 players all with very similar body shape and the game would lose its "all shapes and sizes" factor. The scrum needs to be a contest but at the moment the scrum is a bit of a muddle. Like you I wonder if too much emphasis is placed upon the hit, when there are many other aspects to scrummaging that can be important.

I hope and expect a big emphasis from the IRB rules committee in this area after the world cup.

 

[Bowside]

I think that getting rid of rucking has turned the breakdown into a mess, and players now infringe far too much because they don't have to worry that they will get stomped if they do.

The scrum is mess, disgraceful that it has got to this point. I think a combination of looser jerseys, and a new engage sequence where the teams bind then hit will fix the spectacle and lead to more consistent refereeing as well. I think teams also need to be penalised (maybe just a half arm) for taking to long to get their set piece organised. Positive rugby needs to be encouraged.

All rules changes should be made with a focus on keeping the ball in play for as much of the 80 minutes as possible.

 

[Gnostic]

This is a limited way of looking at the games we have seen, and IMO gets the right answers (who won) for all the wrong reasons.

Ireland lost IMO because they played a narrow running game, only occasionally looking to kick for field position when they selected a 10 not suited to that game. I question why ROG was selected if they wanted to play this game. Sexton is a better passer and runner without compromising the defence. The Welsh defence was simply superb with a very fast line speed stopping the Irish narrow runners at or behind the gain line. Here the Welsh backrow totally outplayed the Irish strength in Heaslip, Ferris and Obrien. How many times did O'Connell get tackled without even taking a step? The Referee (Joubert) had a great game IMO, and he had no impact at all on the teams' playing styles or how the game was played lat alone the result. In the end Ireland lost because they were out thought tactically, out selected and importantly out enthused.

The English on the other hand looked shell shocked when the French tore into them and French passes actually went to hand, players ran in support etc etc that hasn't happened in years. They then started passing poorly (and I have said for years that Wilko is not that great a passer) dropping the ball in the tackle and getting turned over. Then their great strengths in the set piece started going to shit again because of poor selections and complacency. In the first half the French energy and intensity like that of the Welsh in the first QF was huge and blew the shocked English away. In the second they tired and started to fall off tackles and concede penalties. However the English didn't have the skills with their passing to take advantage. Of note for me was the fact that the only English man to consistently make or better the gain line was Tuilagi. The French back and second rows were just that superb.

Absolutely loved the quality of these games, and to me epitomized what the Law Interpretations were trying to get, a true contest in all aspects of the game. Great refereeing displays by both Refs and by the assistants (and TV assistant). These games should be held up as markers for other refs to show how a high intensity and high pressure game/s can and should be managed.

 

[FrankLind]

England's best back was a Samoan import. Speaks for itself really.

 

[qwerty51]

Same could be said for us couldn't it?

 

[James Buchanan]

I thought he was from PNG?

 

[qwerty51]

If you want to believe a halfback can be your best back ok...

 

[Slim 293]

If you want to believe a halfback can be your best back ok...

They can't?

 

[Dan54]

Yep James B and Dam0, I not disagreeing that scrums need to be tidied up, just not made so incompetent scrummagers are rewarded.

 

[James Buchanan]

They can't?

I don't see why not myself. In recent memory, FdP was probably the best back in the Bokke lineup for a good while.