The state of rugby today

[Scarfman]

Good article from our mates at the UK Telegraph:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...e-game-they-play-in-heaven-20091228-lhde.html

The ELVs debacle has shown the IRB in a bad light but the code is resilient, writes Brian Moore.

This will be seen as the year in which rugby was forced to look inwards and begin the process of considering where 15 years of professionalism have led the sport and where it might be heading unless serious consideration is given to the game's eventual goals.

It has been a curious year, in which we have seen improvements and setbacks in equal measure. We have seen some organisations take big strides forward and others, sometimes those specifically tasked with running the game, act in a way which could not have been better designed to harm rugby and its wider image. We have seen rugby's unique ability to act decisively in the face of some problems and yet remain inert over others. So who deserves the applause and who the booing?

The International Rugby Board inevitably gets both congratulation and condemnation. It has successfully lobbied for rugby to take its place in the Olympics and by achieving this has ensured a huge increase in exposure. At the same time the nightmare of its Frankenstein-like experimenting with rugby's laws finally came to an end.

Ill-conceived, ill-executed and impossibly subjective, the affair exposed rugby to ridicule and set man against man, hemisphere against hemisphere, within its own fraternity. Yet nobody has been fired and nobody has apologised for the blunders over the Experimental Law Variations. And they still will not tell us what it all cost. A further infuriating fact arising from the ELVs is that out of the 35 laws available for change, among the handful adopted, the IRB managed to enshrine two that are harmful to the game - no passing back into the 22 and allowing the first defender to keep his hands on the ball in a ruck.

Yet on the provincial stage, English rugby has twice attracted the largest crowd of any kind for a sporting contest in Britain over a particular weekend, the latest being the Harlequins v Wasps match at Twickenham on Sunday - 76,716 were in attendance. Rugby can be proud of this sort of initiative in a minority sport. It can also be proud of the fact that it remains the case that parents were able to watch games with their children, of any age, without witnessing xenophobic, homophobic and racist abuse. When record crowds watched the game, they did not see any player swear at an official. No group of players surrounded the officials and no manager berated the assistant referees.

If any parent decides to let their offspring try out rugby they will be able to go to one of hundreds of clubs that efficiently organise weekend rugby. The children will compete without the attention of abusive parents. There will be no need for a roped area between the touchline and the supporters and the referee will not have any decision contested.

Yes, rugby has had serious issues to face and those problems should not go unacknowledged. However, it did not deserve the overly savage and self-serving criticism of the football-dominated media during 2009. Intent on exacting revenge for what it saw as years of perceived hectoring from the oval-ball game, every derogatory word imaginable was used to portray rugby as a sport akin to bear-baiting.

However unpalatable, the ''Bloodgate'' scandal - in which players faked blood injuries to allow for tactical substitutions - did show the contrast between football's hand-wringing over things such as Thierry Henry's handball in the World Cup qualifier against the Republic of Ireland and rugby's will to deal with its problems rather than whinge about them.

When football can stage an event featuring four London clubs at Wembley with no segregation of fans, with freely available alcohol in the ground and a minimal police presence - that's when we might start listening to moral lecturing from the round-ball game.

*Brian Moore is a former England hooker who won 64 caps for his country and toured Australia with the British and Irish Lions in 1989.

Telegraph, London

My biggest disappointments in 2009 have to do with laws. (1) The resolution of the ELV crisis was weak; (2) Paddy O'Brien still having a job.

And I'm disappointed, if it's true, that the iRB has said that the away team has to change jerseys. I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the political nature of the iRB. Keep the bastards honest.

Apart from that, it's still a game with values that we can be proud of.

 

[chief]

It's very concerning that someone with a lot of passion for rugby and a very good feel to the game is very much one of the biggest failing rugby administrators (Paddy O'Brien) When he was first appointed I was pretty satisfied. But this year Paddy has simply shown power hungry urges, his reluctance to obviously tell the referees of his interpretations to have them as inconsistent as ever, the problem here is everything seems to have been done Paddy's way. I was a fan of Paddy in 2007 when he backed Wayne Barnes, because he made one mistake, but what he did this year was just too far. I think the problem for the IRB is that there is no one to replace him, Tappe Henning is probably next to take the crown, but that could be pretty scary having him their. I will still maintain despite the Wallabies horrible refereeing performances, that referees should not be held accountable for their performance because it is probably the hardest professional sport in the world to referee, that being said consistent under performers should not be on the panel, Dickinson was not one of those, Paddy has let us all down administration wise. Yes, even his own country at times with not giving the ELV's a bigger crack.

This year was a big disappointment for me in many ways, the ELV's weren't refereed properly and certainly weren't given a very big chance by the IRB in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because of their reluctance to embrace the change which the game of rugby desperately needs.

The IRB having the All Blacks change jerseys was a disappointment. It is a jersey which is treasured in New Zealand, and not to mention that it is a jersey which teams want to play against, a jersey which kids wish to play in.

 

[Lindommer]

And I'm disappointed, if it's true, that the iRB has said that the away team has to change jerseys.

The team which seems to have had to change jumpers most due to colour conflicts is the All Blacks, especially against Scotland. Here there's been a rich tradition of the hosts changing jumpers with Scotland wearing a white one with fine hoops at Murrayfield and the ABs changing to an all-white one in NZ. This is the opposite to the soccer practice and seems eminently sensible to me: the tourists pack only one set of playing jumpers when they travel while the hosts have the choice of all their kit available to them allied with the home ground advantage.

The instance this year when the Chiefs played the Cheetahs at Bloemfontein in similar white jumpers could've/should've/would've been averted if the home team were told to change. The iRB's edict would've been a bit difficult if the Chiefs hadn't taken a second set with them.

 

[liquor box]

Does the IRB take a cut from any away jerseys sold? this may be behind them wanting a particularly popular jersey being purchased twice.

I still feel disappointed that the northern hemishere has not understood the reason behind not passing back into the 22, it is the kicking it was meant to stop. when they look at the difference stopping the kicks makes they might change their minds.

I am pretty happy with the way the game is travelling all in all.

 

[Scarfman]

LB, the 22 rule has reduced kicking out from the 22, but increased midfield bombs. Perhaps unpredictably, it has turned out to be a shithouse rule.

 

[Pfitzy]

They're all shit unless they're used as they were meant to be: together. That's why the maul pulling down rule was aligned with "no truck n trailer".

 

[liquor box]

LB, the 22 rule has reduced kicking out from the 22, but increased midfield bombs. Perhaps unpredictably, it has turned out to be a shithouse rule.

I would prefer a midfield bomb than a kick into touch to avoid trouble.

 

[Spook]

LB, the 22 rule has reduced kicking out from the 22, but increased midfield bombs. Perhaps unpredictably, it has turned out to be a shithouse rule.

I was under the impression that the mid-field bomb was used quite often in WC07. Just as much perhaps but I could be wrong (perish the thought!) :nta:

 

[Lee Grant]

To be fair to Brian Moore he had to write something about rugby in 2009 and he had only 5 minutes to write it.

If he had more time he would have realised that :


The 22 ELV is not as harmful as Moore says. I guess he is talking about aerial ping pong, in that a defenders have to hoof the ball up the field now if it had been passed back over the 22. Before they could kick it directly in touch and gain ground.

But the majority of the ping-pong is caused by players being too shit scared now to take the pill into contact in the current regime which favours the tackling team – so they hoist the ball a lot earlier in their possession sequence than they did earlier in the decade.

For proof you only have to look at how many balls are hoisted now outside a team's 22. The same was true in the 2007 RWC final without that ELV, and it will be the same in the 2011 final, probably with it.

That portion of ping-pong caused by the 22 ELV is boring, but is it any more boring than what happened in the past – when the pill was being passed back over the 22 and kicked directly into touch? There was stoppage after stoppage as the forwards huffed and puffed over to the lineout and the ritual dance of the lineout began.


2. The advantage given now to the defender: that he is allowed to keep his hands on the pill when the ruck is formed if he had his hands on it beforehand, is not an ELV – it is a ruling that interprets existing law. But Moore is on firmer ground when he decribes it as being harmful.

If you mix this ruling in with the law earlier in the decade which allowed a tackler to stay on the “wrong” side of the tackle, you have a cocktail which is guaranteed to slow the ball down, to discourage enterprise and to encourage hoisting it up before it is turned over.

That earlier law change was a response to the success of the Oz Mob in recycling the ball, typified by a famous 17 phase (was it?) Bledisloe try in 1998, when we beat the All Blacks 3 – zip. It owed its genesis to Macqueen and the Brumbies and continued until stopped by the law change. For us this “Brumby ball” was effective and it was one of the many things that enabled us to win the 1999 RWC

That law change is now having unexpected consequences. It wasn't the first time that a law change influenced the game unexpectedly, and it won't be the last. Rugby law has to respond now.

 

[Lee Grant]

PS

In response to Moore's lamentation, what would I have added to that article about law changes to make the game better?

If we are talking about only the tackle situation leading to a consequence of hoisting the ball too much: the first thing I would do would be to alter the tackle law back to where it was and require the tackler to get back on his side of the tackle before he does anything else. Then I would reverse the ruling allowing the tackler to keep his hands in after the ruck has formed, even if he is on the correct side of the tackle.

The next thing I would do is get referees to enforce the law that requires the tackler to take his hands off the ball and the tackled player as the essential first step. As part of this the tackler should not be allowed to use the person of the player on the ground to lever himself up. This is a slow down of pill that is noticeable but barely ever mentioned.

Improving the law at the breakdown will stop the ball being slowed down all the time and gain the benefits of better quality ball. But more important is changing the attitude of the players.

 

[Lee Grant]

PPS


How do we change the attitude of the players?

I have said this before: we saw some good rugby on the 2009 EOYT tests. NZ and France had a good attitude and so did Oz and Wales – and the respective contests were good rugby games – and tough too. But before the Kiwis played France they played the Poms who brought them back to the field with their rugby. You can't really blame the Poms – they don't have too many Guscotts or Duckhams around these days and their unilateral decision to slow the game down for both sides gave them the best chance to win.

You won't see Ireland doing that.

We even saw some positive play in the 2007 RWC. There were some cracking games then from teams with good attitudes on the day.

So how do we stop players slowing the game down? We make it worth their while to do the opposite.

I've written about 20 times about the ELVs in Sydney Club rugby in 2007. It is more pertinent to discuss them than the ELVs for the ARC later in the year. These later ELVs allowed hands in the ruck for everybody on their feet and onside, and permitted the maul pull down. These ELV items have been discarded and we can better compare what we have now with the earlier ELVs used in 2007 amateur club rugby.

I saw Sydney club rugby blossom in 2007 and no doubt it was the same in Brisbane and other places . The key was the correct officiating of the Free Kick sanctions, which together with penalties and cards for Foul Play (read here “cynical infringements”), created a positive rugby cocktail.

There were short arm FKs for transgressions that were overlooked the year before when they were long arm penalties. Anyone cynical got carded in the first 5 minutes if needs be, and without the irritating ritual of the referee stopping play to explain matters to the captain of the offending team.

What happened? Attacking teams with the FK found that opponents couldn't realign their defences back 10M every time, especially later in the game, and more breaks were made. If players didn't tap and run or dish the ball out to players in gaps not yet covered, they weren't taking advantage of the ELV. On the other hand: if some teams had players who weren't that mobile or were tired by the pace of the game, and/or they had a good scrum, they could take the FK scrum option.

There wasn't as much ping-pong from outside the 22 as there is now, though there was some at the beginning of each half. Ball was valuable and was retained more – what a concept. And there wasn't a lot of Brumby Ball either – there were better precentages out wide.

Were there complaints about defences being too organised for attack? Not a lot. Did the defending team dominate so much at the tackle as they do now? No, they knew they were much more likely to be FK pinged than PK pinged and much more likely to get a yellow card for cynical play.

Unlike other theoretical laws these actually worked in practice, but the key was the use of the cards. After about a month the players realised what was going on and were positive.

Their coaches told them they had to be. Those wise heads were the first to work out that positive play under these ELVs got the best results for the team.

Bring back the Free Kick sanctions; but don't bother if referees won't play cards.

 

[Scarfman]

We're baying at the moon here LG. Only you and me and a fre other scarfies give a fuck about any of this. NH rugby politics got in the way and all of this is dead.

The ELVs are exactly like the republic. You reckon about 95% of people are on board before you realise you've lost and your arse is red hot and sore.

 

[liquor box]

To be fair to Brian Moore he had to write something about rugby in 2009 and he had only 5 minutes to write it.

If he had more time he would have realised that :


The 22 ELV is not as harmful as Moore says. I guess he is talking about aerial ping pong, in that a defenders have to hoof the ball up the field now if it had been passed back over the 22. Before they could kick it directly in touch and gain ground.

But the majority of the ping-pong is caused by players being too shit scared now to take the pill into contact in the current regime which favours the tackling team – so they hoist the ball a lot earlier in their possession sequence than they did earlier in the decade.

For proof you only have to look at how many balls are hoisted now outside a team's 22. The same was true in the 2007 RWC final without that ELV, and it will be the same in the 2011 final, probably with it.

That portion of ping-pong caused by the 22 ELV is boring, but is it any more boring than what happened in the past – when the pill was being passed back over the 22 and kicked directly into touch? There was stoppage after stoppage as the forwards huffed and puffed over to the lineout and the ritual dance of the lineout began.


2. The advantage given now to the defender: that he is allowed to keep his hands on the pill when the ruck is formed if he had his hands on it beforehand, is not an ELV – it is a ruling that interprets existing law. But Moore is on firmer ground when he decribes it as being harmful.

If you mix this ruling in with the law earlier in the decade which allowed a tackler to stay on the “wrong” side of the tackle, you have a cocktail which is guaranteed to slow the ball down, to discourage enterprise and to encourage hoisting it up before it is turned over.

That earlier law change was a response to the success of the Oz Mob in recycling the ball, typified by a famous 17 phase (was it?) Bledisloe try in 1998, when we beat the All Blacks 3 – zip. It owed its genesis to Macqueen and the Brumbies and continued until stopped by the law change. For us this “Brumby ball” was effective and it was one of the many things that enabled us to win the 1999 RWC

That law change is now having unexpected consequences. It wasn't the first time that a law change influenced the game unexpectedly, and it won't be the last. Rugby law has to respond now.

I think that most of the kicking is due to being scared that you will infringe and lose three points from a penalty within 60 metres of your line. The laws need to reward an attacking run and give the player time to control the ball until support arrives, this will encourage attacking runs.

 

[liquor box]

PS

In response to Moore's lamentation, what would I have added to that article about law changes to make the game better?

If we are talking about only the tackle situation leading to a consequence of hoisting the ball too much: the first thing I would do would be to alter the tackle law back to where it was and require the tackler to get back on his side of the tackle before he does anything else. Then I would reverse the ruling allowing the tackler to keep his hands in after the ruck has formed, even if he is on the correct side of the tackle.

The next thing I would do is get referees to enforce the law that requires the tackler to take his hands off the ball and the tackled player as the essential first step. As part of this the tackler should not be allowed to use the person of the player on the ground to lever himself up. This is a slow down of pill that is noticeable but barely ever mentioned.

Improving the law at the breakdown will stop the ball being slowed down all the time and gain the benefits of better quality ball. But more important is changing the attitude of the players.

Bring back rucking on a defender who is covering the ball and they will soon learn their lesson, not too many people I know want a return to mountaineering, but do want a return to sensible rucking that is to get a ball, not to injure on purpose

 

[Spook]

Interesting stat - Ireland kicked the most and made the least passes of all sides in the 2009 6Ns.

 

[Lee Grant]

Bring back rucking on a defender who is covering the ball and they will soon learn their lesson, not too many people I know want a return to mountaineering, but do want a return to sensible rucking that is to get a ball, not to injure on purpose

Well, you're not the only one who thinks that rucking would fix a lot of problems liquor box; in fact there wouldn't be too many who think otherwise going by the number of times it has been recommended in the last 10 years on rugby forums all around the world and the me-too agreements that follow.

But the devil is in how to implement the change. Not many, after they have beat their chests and felt good about what they have written have thought it through - or perhaps they have deliberately ignored the likelihood that such a change would be impolitic in the modern sporting landscape.

If people want a change in this area is of no use to say rugby is a man's game and as such it should be played as I, and my father and grandfather, used to play it. Pissing against the wind would be more sensible.



As I have said before: there won't be a new law that says: Players may ruck players on the ground if they are interfering with play.

But there is a law [16.3.f] that says: A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.

There could be a law change to the 2nd sentence so it reads: A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground, ensuring that their feet are not placed in a forward or downwards motion, and must not intentionally step on them. Etc, etc ....

This vanilla change may come into the nudge, nudge, wink, wink category. When referees see this they will wonder what the IRB message is and after a nano second come to the conclusion that it is tacit approval to allow rucking with the studs pointing backward, so long as isn't too obvious. If this sounds too far-fetched - that referees will turn a blind eye to even moderate rucking - it is less far fetched than referees ignoring the requirement to throw the ball in straight into the scrum as they have been doing for the last 2 decades, at least.

Since law changes are difficult matters and take so much time to process, it may be more effective not to change the law but to issue a clarification of existing law. They seem to have a few of these every year. Why not slip in one that is good for the game?

It may not work but we can usually rely on some referees to be macho and make the message as strong as possible. If the big guys start doing it the rest will follow. They always do.

If.

Whether this vanilla ruling (or law change) works, or not, it is more likely than a repeal of law 16.3.f, or changing it to wording that mentions that rucking is permitted. That ain't going to happen however may times we post that it should.

 

[liquor box]

what about-
A player may use his feet to gain access to a ball that is being covered by a forearm, hand or wrist. A player may not use his feet to "ruck" any other part of the body of a player that is on the ground.

THis would then revert to the rules about smothering the ball and not rolling away (another rule that seems to be harsh at some times)

 

[rugbywhisperer]

PS

In response to Moore's lamentation, what would I have added to that article about law changes to make the game better?
If we are talking about only the tackle situation leading to a consequence of hoisting the ball too much: the first thing I would do would be to alter the tackle law back to where it was and require the tackler to get back on his side of the tackle before he does anything else. Then I would reverse the ruling allowing the tackler to keep his hands in after the ruck has formed, even if he is on the correct side of the tackle.

The law as it states is that players must enter the T/R/M through the gate which is in reality from behind the feet of the rearmost player (closest to that teams goal line). The tackler really cannot get behind his own feet, so I assume LG you mean for the tackler to release and get to his feet before he does anything.

 

[chief]

I've heard numerous international and prominent club coaches say that the decline in the game is obviously due to the laws. Yes, that is true. They have addressed the laws as concerning, and saying that they will need to be addressed, Robbie Deans I remember was saying after the WC, they probably will be addressed.

One would presume, that the ELV's will come back after the RWC. I would expect Paddy O'Brien to oversee them, but maybe he'll learn and make them remotely successful. Whether NH politics creeps in I think the IRB will tell them too bad, the game is declining, and your teams are pretty much the sole cause of its 'boring play'. You would hope they would come back more successfully refereed. Hoping that more referees, will take action on players who commit 3 ruck infringements in a game (3rd strike and your out), and for players who slow the ball down in the 'red zone.'

Also Lee- I would have to disagree with you about the cards. The game would be too much like league if they didn't pop out cards frequently. I would be happy to see a number of cards given for ruck infringements if that is what it takes for players to learn their lesson. Ultimately we don't want a huge amount of free kicks, we want it to be free flowing. Dish them out earlier, rather than later.

Incorrect entry for me I think is a great law. Needs to refereed properly though. It is the equivalent of offside, so it should indeed be refereed with more precision. As should the offside line, I think the Assistant Referees should become involved now, talking over the mic saying "Number 7 black, offside, about 4 metres from where you are standing." They are assistants after all, and after the Joubert fiasco in NZ earlier, Joubert should be on one side and the closer assistant referee on the other, keeping an eye out and patrolling their side. However obviously can't be achieved say if the scrum is smack bang in the middle of the field.

Offside laws will probably become simpler for the simpleton population because of their lack to learn the fucking laws. Matt Goddard will be the IRB referees boss.

Problems would all be solved, unfortunately, Lyndon fucking Bray, and Paddy O'Brien are two of the people who stand in the way of having countries getting the ELV's due to their great directions for how the referees should referee.

 

[Lee Grant]

whispers


Yeah - but he is supposed to release and get to his feet before doing anything under current law anyway. And by mentioning his side of the tackle and correct side of the tackle yes, I meant on the side nearest his goal line. If he ends up on the wrong side of the ball he had better get his feet around to the right side of the ball by stepping back over, or around, if the laws were altered as I suggested.


Some players do this now when they have doubt if they are the tackler. In particular, they may bring a player to the ground but stay upright themselves; so they are not a tackler according to the definition and they step around the ball so they are pointing towards the opponents goal line.


Others step around the ball when they haven't gone to ground in the everyday sense but they may have a knee accidentally on the tackled player bearing a bit of their weight. If you put the Law 15 definition of a tackler together with Law 15.6 (a), having a knee bearing weight on a player is tantamount to being a tackler, but they step around anyway just in case the ref is in a bad mood.


Sometimes they step around the ball if they have gone to ground, got up, and are not sure if a ruck has been formed in the mind of the ref.


By changing the law back to how it was before the Brumby Ball amendment, tacklers, whether they had gone to ground, or not, would have to get up and step around.


But you are right in mentioning that the tackler should "release and get to his feet before he does anything" but they are allowed to get away with murder, especially as far as "release" is concerned. More often than not they don't release even when they step around.


A while ago now I was writing my above posts on a word processor in response to a post by NTA on another thread. I put it aside for some reason, but this thread come up so I cut and I pasted it in here.


I was writing on the point of players not releasing, between stoppages whilst watching my recording of the Blues v Toulouse HC game. Then at the 17min mark I laughed out loud. The excellent Dusautoir had tackled the estimable Blair, bounced off his own hip, never released him and proceeded to try to fish the ball out. Moreover his legs were apart like a rent boy and he must have had some weight on his hands and would have required powerful stomach muscles to rock back and rip the ball out. Amateur players never had the physical conditioning to do this.


There was never a mention of an illegality by the commentators because everybody does it. Releasing the ball and player every time would change our game a lot and it's the first thing that has to happen under current law. And in the odd case where they do release the ball they use the players person to help them get up - another no-no and it often interferes with the ball presentation.


We all know that homo sapiens are not at the top of a perfect evolutionary tree. There was many a side track in the evolutionary process and unexpected turns as our forbears struggled to survive. We popped out halfway up the tree at the back and ended up having men with nipples for no particular reason and unlike dogs not being able to to lick their nuts.


Rugby is evolving too but the laws have not kept up with the professional player and the professional coach. We have to prune the deadwood and train the branch so it goes up.


If this means that referees have to favour the attacking players under existing law, or to change the law so it does, so be it. We can't have a situation where players are too frightened to do stuff, say, between their own 22 and the half-way line. We can't let aerial ping-pong become the basis of our game.