The IRB is getting the Rugby Laws right

This is the first IRB summary of the proposed new Stellenbosch Laws, in full. It’s a long but interesting read. Is this the future for the Laws of Rugby?

The IRB Laws Project Group

No other topic has created such a buzz in rugby circles of late than the news that the IRB is looking at Law changes for potential introduction after the next Rugby World Cup.

Firstly, it must be pointed out that the IRB Law Project Group that is driving the review and testing of Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) is only partly the way through its journey in terms of this potentially exciting programme. The continued evaluation of the ELVs will be monitored continuously by the Project Group around the world via a clearly defined process of evaluation through demonstrable practical experiments and not hypothetical outcomes.

The Law project Group was set up by the IRB’s Rugby Committee in 2006 and comprises: Chairman and IRB Council member Bill Nolan; former World Cup winning Wallaby coach Rod Macqueen; former Springbok coach Ian McIntosh; former Scottish coach Richie Dixon; former French player, coach and IRB Regional Development Manager Pierre Villepreux; former All Black captain and Wellington coach Graham Mourie; IRB Referee Manager Paddy O’Brien; and IRB Development Manager Bruce Cook.

Secondly, it has been clearly stated that everything that is being done must, and will, relate to the Game’s Playing Charter that has been endorsed by all Member Unions. It recognises Rugby as being a game for all shapes and sizes. The IRB is conscious that any changes must take into account their successful application within the professional and recreational areas of the game. The IRB has no desire whatsoever to change the traditional fabric of the game that has made it such a popular international Game.

The Law Project Group has adhered to these aims and the charter by following various principles throughout the project:
1. Make the game easier and simpler to play, referee and understand
2. The game is for all shapes and sizes
3. Make the game more enjoyable for all
4. Let the players determine the outcome of the game not officials.
5. That the Game is for all shapes and sizes

That said most people associated with the Game, including spectators, would agree that the game is in a very healthy state but that there are some fundamental problems creeping in. The Game is quicker, players are stronger and faster, contact is more aggressive and physical, and the advancement of skill levels is putting strain on the Laws themselves in terms of the contest for possession. There is an underlying consensus that Rugby does need an overhaul in terms of the Laws of the Game.

As a governing body the IRB is continually reviewing the Laws but the Project Group is primarily undertaking a critical review of the tackle, post tackle, ruck and maul Laws with a view to trialling and evaluating new versions of these Laws – areas that are proving to be the most difficult to interpret in a practical manner.

But unlike previous reviews the IRB is looking at the game in a new light with the idea of making it more dynamic and simpler to play and referee, while maintaining all the key elements of the Game as they presently stand. And to ensure Rugby is understood and enjoyed by the increasing number of spectators that are being attracted to the game.

Phase One: Stellenbosch University – the journey begins

Following the formation of the Law Project Group an initial set of Experimental Law Variations were compiled by the Group and approved by the Rugby Committee for evaluation through practical trials.

In Stellenbosch in 2006 the Project Group started out with a blank canvas, looked at new Law variations (see the ELVs above) and studied the cause and effect of the changes. Rugby is a very fluid game and it must be remembered
that if you change one aspect of the Laws it is likely to have a direct effect on other aspects of the Game.

The ultimate aim of these experimental laws is to allow for more creativity by the players so that the players determine the outcome of the game. Therefore the goals of this initial Stellenbosch project were: to reduce the number and complexity of the Laws by reducing the “cannot’s” in law and promoting the “can’s” to create a positive philosophy; and to remove the subjectiveness of the Laws and the decision making of the referees.

During the primary testing at Stellenbosch there were encouraging signs that this can be achieved with players showing better clarity of decision-making while there was less confusion among players at the breakdown. The ELVs were tested across the University’s Hostel competition over a six month period. The Project Group held coaching seminars at the University prior to the competition. Matches every week were video taped for analysis and then the Group revisited the competition at its later stages to gauge progress and to finesse the ELV programme.

Under the new ELVs at the tackle/breakdown the only penalties, not withstanding foul play, were for offside and not entering through the ‘gate’. All other infringements – including ball not emerging from the breakdown – resulted in free-kicks. Players were also free to contest the ball whether on their feet, on the ground, and with their feet or hands.

The thinking behind this was that a greater contest for possession in a more open manner is counterbalanced by the fact that if a team takes the ball into contact and the ball is not made available the defending team is awarded a free kick. Therefore there is an onus on the ball carrying team to keep the ball alive.

A basic premise therefore is that the ball carrying team is rewarded for staying on their feet and if they do go to ground it is no longer a ‘safe haven’. To prevent a ‘maulathon’ defending teams were allowed to pull down the maul. Attacking forwards will therefore need to be more dynamic in their mauling while linear support at depth will become important for the ruck option as will the ability to get the ball away from the contact zone.

Sceptics will argue the reduction in the number of penalty offences will lead to continual stoppages with the ball being intentionally killed by professional cheats as there is no fear of a penalty. However, the referee, with less technical decisions to make, still has the right to award penalties and yellow cards for deliberate and continual infringements.

Following the conclusion of the ELV evaluation at Stellenbosch University the Project Group reviewed the project and made adjustments in readiness for the Second Phase of the project in Scotland.

Phase Two – Scottish Super Cup

The Scottish Rugby Union approved the implementation of the full ELVs in the new Scottish senior club Super Cup. The competition involved the top 10 Scottish clubs playing in two pools in the months of January to March 2007. The top two teams from the pools played the final with Watsonians beating Boroughmuir 35-29.

Following a review of the Stellenbosch competition the Law Project Group acknowledged that the ELVs in the tackle area – with no specific Laws to govern the contest – had not been wholly successful in that the tackler found it too easy to kill the ball legally and win a free kick as possession was not forthcoming for the team with the ball. Therefore there was a major difference in application of ELVs at the tackle and post-tackle environment. A lineout adjustment was also made.

The ELVs trialed in Scotland (and are now being trialled in other competitions around the world) were:

Flag Judges (FJs)
1. To distinguish the new role of the touch judges, they have been renamed flag judges. FJs can indicate offside at the tackle by raising their flag horizontally in the direction of the offending team. This flag raising will be mirrored by the opposite FJ so as to provide visual assistance to the referee. The referee however is not obliged to act on the offence.

Posts and flags around the field
2. Corner post, and post at corner of touch in goal and dead ball line are moved back two metres. This ensures consistency of touch along the entire length of the touch line and touch in goal line.

Inside the 22 metre line
3. When a defending player receives the ball outside the 22 metre line and passes, puts or takes the ball back inside the 22, the following can occur.
a. If the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is in line with where the ball was kicked.
b. If a tackle, ruck or maul is subsequently formed and the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is where the ball crossed the touch line.

Lineout
4. On a quick throw in, the ball can be thrown straight or backwards towards the defenders goal line, but not forward towards the opposition goal line.
5. A player peeling off at the front of the lineout can do so as soon as the ball leaves the throwers hands.
6. The receiver in a lineout must stand 2 metres from the lineout.
7. The non throwing hooker does not have to stand between the 5 metre line and the touch line. They must conform to law wherever they stand.
8. There is no maximum number of players in the lineout but there is a minimum of 2. 9. Neither team determines numbers in the lineout.
10. Pre-gripping is allowed.
11. If a lineout throw is not straight, the option is a lineout or FK to non throwing team.

Breakdown (tackle/post tackle)
12. Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate.
RIGIDLY APPLIED
13. Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines.
14. The offside lines run parallel to the goal lines through the hindmost part of the hindmost player at the tackle.
15. A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be
prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet. (Added 1 Oct)
16. Any other player playing the ball at the breakdown must be on their feet. (Added 1 Oct)
17. If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a FK.
18. If the ball is received directly from a kick and a tackle occurs immediately, and the ball becomes unplayable, the FK is given to the team who received the kick.
19. There are only 3 penalty offences (not including dangerous play) at the
breakdown.
a. Offside for not coming through the gate.
b. Offside where defenders are in front of the last man on their side of the breakdown. i.e. the offside line
c. A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet
20. Repeated infringements can be dealt with as per current law.
21. All free kicks are tap kicks including a mark and a scrum option is available for all free kicks. 22. Dangerous play will not be tolerated e.g. Diving over the breakdown.
23. The half back should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball.

Maul
24. Defending players can pull down the maul.
25. Players joining the maul must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED
26. If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a FK.
27. The ‘truck and trailer’ is no longer an offence.
Scrum
28. The offside line for players who are not in the scrum and who are not the teams scrum half, is 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum.

Sanctions
29. For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10-Foul Play, the sanction is a FK.

The feedback from the clubs and players was very positive although naturally the teams did take some time to fully adjust to the ELVs. This was highlighted by the fact that the Cup competition was not played in a continuous window and teams played Cup matches under the ELVs during the regular league season and were often playing matches sunder different Laws
on consecutive weekends. Nonetheless, there was a lot of positive support from the clubs for the ELVs.

Presently the Law Project Group is undertaking a full review of the Super Cup competition through video analysis. Early statistics have thrown up some interesting facts. A major factor to note is that the ELVs have not changed the basic fabric of the game. In the Scottish Super Cup there were on average 143 rucks and mauls per game compared to 167 in the 6 Nations and 134 in round 7 of the Super 14 this year. There were 28 lineouts compared to 31 and 31, and 21 scrums compared to 17 and 20 respectively.

However, the ELVs appear to have led to greater contest for the ball as ruck and maul retention dropped from 95% and 90% in the other competitions to 82%. Tries went up to 9 per game from 4.3 and 5 with ball in play at the 47% mark compared to 46% and 37%. In one Scottish Super Cup match the ball was in play for 59% of the match.

Next Phases – England, Australia, France, New Zealand and Ireland

The IRB was very pleased that prior to the start of the Scottish Super Cup competition other senior Unions agreed to become involved in the ELV programme. Indeed, in Australia the senior Sydney club competition (the Shute Shield) and the Brisbane senior club competition were selected by the ARU to be a part of the programme from April to June this year. However, not all the ELVs will be trialled in the various competitions around the world which will allow the Law Project Group to analyse the ELVs in isolation of each other to see what impact they have on the Game. Australia has also agreed to use the ELVs in the brand new Australian Rugby Championship that will be played from August to October.

The RFU has agreed that in May the 2007 County Championship now called the Bill Beaumont Cup will be a part of the ELV programme, with Ireland approving trials in its 2007/08 Interprovincial U20s and U19s series and France utilising ELVs in its Federation Cup competition.

In May the New Zealand Rugby Union joined the programme with the full set of ELVs to be trialled in the Men’s B Provincial competition (e.g. Auckland B v Wellington B) which runs from 25 August to 20 October 2007

The continued roll out of the ELVs in 2007 is as follows:

Australia (Sydney and Brisbane Clubs): Flag judges; Inside 22; scrum offside; lineout; sanctions
Australia (Rugby Championship): Flag judges; corner post; inside 22;
lineout; scrum offside; breakdown; maul; sanctions
England: (County Championship): Inside 22, scrum offside; breakdown; Maul
France (Federation Cup): Maul
Ireland (U20/U19 Interprovincial): Corner posts, scrum offside
New Zealand (Provincial B competition): Flag judges; corner post; inside
22; lineout; scrum offside; breakdown; maul; sanctions

ELV feedback

The first Stellenbosch trials – IRB Referee Manager Paddy O’Brien

“Players are fitter, stronger and quicker and therefore the referee’s decision-making time gets shorter and shorter. We wanted to go back to a blank page because we don’t believe the laws are keeping up with the modern game. If you read the law book and then watch a match, the game on the field doesn’t really reflect the laws. “

Scotland (Super Cup) – Watsonian’s Gavin Brown:
“The law experiments that the Super Cup was based on worked extremely well, particularly in allowing for a more expansive approach – provided you do the nitty-gritty clearing-out work in rucks using the handling innovation
to ensure the necessary quick possession. That can be at the heart of a major revival lifting up the entire club scene because there is the basis for a more spectator friendly game – and, boy, does Scottish rugby need
more spectators. “

Scotland (Super Cup) – The Herald journalist, Kevin Ferrie:
“Spectators at Super Cup matches are seeing more rugby than those at this season’s Super 14. Rod Macqueen unveiled remarkable figures comparing the two tournaments…”Everything’s the same, scrums, lineouts, etc. There’s only one difference, the ball is in play over 10 percent more in the Scottish games. On average the ball is play 49% of the time in Scotland compared to 37% in Super 14.” However he stressed that this was not because, as some believe, the game has lost all meaningful shape under the ELVs. “It is important that we have still got as many scrums and lineouts. The main consideration is that it is a game for all shapes and sizes.”

Australia (Brisbane Club competition) – Peter Marshall, National Referee Manager:
“The referee from last weekend’s game said it was the most enjoyable game he has refereed in four years. The extra space at the scrum meant back row moves were back in vogue and there was more room for the backs to work their moves. The ball was in play longer with the new 22-metre Law – teams attempted to run the ball out of their 22 or kicked down the middle of the field – this led to counter attacks. The new sanctions meant the ball was often tapped instead of kicking to touch. The shape of the game was unchanged. “

Australia (Brisbane Club competition) – Ian Cameron, Souths coach:
“The ELVs promoted a more expansive game, tailor-made for attacking rugby and making the game more enjoyable for spectators. Players are also enjoying the experimental laws and described them “as a positive move”. With backs now forced to be five metres from the back of scrums, attacking backlines have been given the extra space to unleash their attacking potential.”

Australia (Sydney Shute Shield) – Sydney Morning Herald journalist Spiro Zavos:
“The game of the day was Eastwood v Gordon. The ball seemed to be in play much longer than usual. There were far fewer long-arm penalties than usual. Generally teams ran their short-arm penalties but occasionally when they weren’t organised took the scrum feed. Neither side really used the gap between the backlines at scrum time. The value of having a fast flanker on the openside becomes paramount as he is the closest defender at scrum time aside from the halfback. Its early days but definitely a tick must be given to the Stellenbosch Laws.”

Timetable for Evaluation and Implementation

Any changes to the Laws of the Game are subject to defined principles of acceptance and implementation as determined by the Council. The Law Project Group has been bound by these principles but has embarked on an unprecedented programme of Law testing through practical experimentation that has never existed before.

The Law Project Group will continue to monitor the ELVs around the world and in October the Group will make a presentation to the IRB General Assembly during the Rugby World Cup in October. In the same month the IRB Rugby Committee will begin its review of any recommended Law changes by the Law Project Group. Bill Beaumont, Chairman of the Rugby Committee, will then submit any recommendations to the IRB in December. The Law Project Group will also have submitted to the Committee a rewrite of the Laws to reflect the ELVs.

In January 2008 the recommended new Laws will be circulated to all Unions for comment and the Law Project Group will present the ELV project to the Conference on the Playing of the Game that same month. In May 2008 Council will then ratify any new Laws or reject them. If new Laws are to be adopted they will then be implemented as ELVs into the Game around the world at a date yet to be determined. In November 2009 Council will review the ELVs and officially adopt them into Law.

Other ELV News

Throughout the programme the IRB medical Officer, Dr Mick Molloy, has undertaken a research project on injuries sustained under the ELVs. This will allow a comparison with the existing game.

It is important that if new Laws are implemented that they do not increase the risk of injury. Player welfare has been an important consideration in the project and the ELV project has gone hand in hand with the adoption by the IRB of a new Medical Plan.

Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.

Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.

Like this content? Buzz it up!

Free Email updates:

• Get The Crowd's articles emailed to you
• Get a daily Rugby Union email

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...