- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Eddie Jones and I haven’t agreed on much historically, but his recent statement against the ELVs is interesting reading in light of some of the poor contests we’ve seen in the first two weeks of the Super 14.
Just imagine for a moment that new Waratahs coach Chris Hickey had made the following comment after the win over the Chiefs: “There is something wrong with the rules. It is too difficult to referee and there is so much contest at the breakdown that other things are being missed. The best side won today but there was no rugby played, and everyone wants to see rugby.”
Doesn’t sound too far-fetched does it?
Now, of course, that isn’t a comment from Hickey, but it could well have been, given that neither the Waratahs nor the Chiefs really attacked with any great zest.
The comment comes, of course, from Eddie Jones, after Saracens lost to Gloucester early this year.
Interestingly, Jones was supported in his comments by Gloucester coach Dean Ryan who said, “I told our players not to bother to play any rugby from deep. They just had to stay in the Saracens’ half of the pitch and collect what we could from the breakdowns.”
On Friday night respected analyst Rod Kafer was heard to remark that pretty much all the rugby was played between the 22s, and neither team was interested in playing any rugby from their own half.
The result?
A bore-athon of aimless kicking where neither side actually wanted the ball. Amazingly, it seems that this is the new reality of rugby. There are times under the ELVs where, if you’re up against a tough defensive team, you actually don’t want the ball.
It’s hard to believe, but there are top sides out there who are making a conscious decision to get rid of the ball because they can put more pressure on by attacking in defence than they can by attacking with the ball in hand.
Significantly, because ruck infringements are policed by the referee (and not self-policed as they were in the days of rucking), and the referee is now under instructions to keep the game moving, the attacking side is at a disadvantage because the referee has the option to give a “penalty-lite” in the form of the bent-arm free kick.
Referees are pretty quick on the draw with the bent-arm, and so the risk of taking the ball into contact has become too great to bother.
So where do the ELVs fall down?
I think the crucial part of the puzzle which has been misinterpreted is the increase in time that the ball is in play. Ball in play is good, but ball in hand is better.
Watch any highlights reel and what do you see? Ball in hand.
From the Barbarians try against the All Blacks in 1973, to the USA scoring the length of the field against South Africa in RWC 2007, the greatest moments in rugby have always been about running the ball.
This is the essence of good rugby. Ball in hand against hard defence, building to a series of player-resolved phases.
The phrase “player-resolved” is massively important.
When rucking was allowed, the majority of phases were “player resolved”. That is to say, either the attacking side got there in numbers and secured the ball, or the defensive side arrived in greater numbers and stole it.
If either side tried to make use of the hands, was offside, or was lazy getting away from the ball, the players resolved that too – with their boots.
The only time the referee was really required was to control persistent offside and foul play, or to make a decision in the event that the players couldn’t resolve the issue themselves. For instance, if the ball was trapped.
There were fewer decisions to make and games had the chance to build greater momentum.
The ELVs have dramatically reduced the number of player-resolved phases by rewarding defensive teams for slowing the ball down, and penalizing attacking teams for securing it, as we saw in the Australia/France Tests last year.
As you’d expect, this has massively increased the number of referee-resolved phases, as well as giving the referee the penalty-lite option. So everything apart from the most clear-cut tackle and breakdown inevitably becomes referee-resolved.
The problem with referee resolution is that it breaks the momentum of the game for both players and spectators.
Also, because referees have to make more decisions on multiple issues in less time, they understandably get more wrong. And so we all get frustrated.
The answer?
I think Eddie had it almost right when he said, “The only law worth keeping is the one preventing a defender from kicking out on the full when the ball has been passed back into the 22, a measure that rewards positive, intelligent, attacking rugby and denies the team under pressure a ‘get out of jail free’ card.”
Along with this, the emphasis should be on player-resolution of phases. If we aren’t going to bring back rucking, which is highly desirable but unfortunately unlikely, then there is merit in simply allowing hands in the ruck, as was proposed under the original Stellenbosch Laws.
This would at least remove the ridiculous and grating spectacle of red-faced referees bleating “Ruck! Ruck!” and then attempting to adjudicate seriously as to whether anyone had actually infringed.
Make it open slather, anything goes, and get the refs back to adjudicating three simple areas – offside, foul play and whether anyone is playing the ball off their feet.
If hands are to be allowed, I feel that the side moving forward at the breakdown (probably, but not necessarily, the side in possession) should receive the benefit in the event that the ball doesn’t come out.
This allows a defending team who can’t get at a sealed off ball, to still win it by arriving in numbers and driving hard over it. Importantly, this outcome is largely player resolved even though the ref eventually blows the whistle.
Of course, none of this can compensate for poor conditions, or poor skill level on the part of the players, but it does allow players back into the game.
More importantly, it creates conditions whereby players want the ball in hand, instead of feeling they are better off without it.