Rugby’s future is at the crossroads
Roar Guru By Rickety Knees, 19 Aug 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- bonus points, ELVs, Rugby Union, running rugby
114 Have your say
Two divergent schools of thought are set to clash. The clash has its origins in the acrimonious relationship that England has with its disowned, convict, bastard offspring – Australia – which underpins much of the antipathy in rugby relations between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
The power brokers of the Northern Hemisphere champion conservative rugby – where games are won by camping in the opposition half, imposing unrelenting pressure, forcing penalties and having an excellent goal kicker.
A proven successful formula which won it its only World Cup, it does not award bonus points for scoring tries and condemned the ELVs without trialling them. It views any initiative from the Southern Hemisphere with great suspicion.
Historically, it has championed tradition and conservatism.
The Southern Hemisphere has a preference to play running rugby. It has a bonus points system that encourages scoring tries. The Stellenbosch Experiment (ELVs) originated in South Africa and have been successfully trialled.
The most controversial law change was short arm penalties for technical infringements, which effectively took the referee out of having a direct influence on match results, sped the game up and encouraged running rugby.
Historically, it has been the pioneers – looking for better ways of doing things – and in doing so, have shown scant respect for the North.
The Southern Hemisphere ELV trials are now over. The Northern Hemisphere has had its way. The long arm penalties for technical infringements have returned.
The referee has once again returned to have a direct influence on the outcome of the game, which has brought howls of protest, especially having watched the full ELVs in action.
Television commentators, print journalists and sporting blogs in Australia are voicing their disapproval. The spectacle has been appalling. Viewers are voting with their remote controls and spectators with their feet.
Rugby’s future is at the cross roads.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- bonus points, ELVs, Rugby Union, running rugby
August 19th 2009 @ 1:04pm
Gudfala said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
@Temba “Kicking at goal is a result of your opponent breaking the law. Its not that hard guys.”
The problem being that it’s getting increasingly difficult to figure out exactly what these laws are – every ref seems to interpret them differently. At least with the ELVs the consequences of a bizarre decision weren’t as great.
August 19th 2009 @ 1:12pm
Temba said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
mmm… sorry not buying it, everyone has to deal with this not just Australia. The 42 penalties in 3 games you could say maybe 10% was dodgy that leaves a heap unanswered for.
It’s a cheap excuse
August 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm
mitzter said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Look i didn’t like it when Australia has won games on the back off penalties thats why we have a running tradition of booing when Australia goes for goal espicially in positions of greater than 7 points difference.
Look one of the best suggestions i heard recently in the forums that would have minimal effect on the fabric of the game would be making missed shots at goal which go dead resulting in the option of a scrum where it was kicked (just like any other kick!) Should result in some less kicks from the halfway line.
August 19th 2009 @ 1:32pm
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Exactly my point – its not a big deal if I don’t understand what a short arm free kick is about as it usually has little bearing on the result of the game but when a game is lost from a penalty from a technical infringement that no one can explain – well that is entirlely another matter ….
August 20th 2009 @ 11:23am
pothale said | August 20th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
The ref made it absolutely clear in the clips that you provided what the infringements were for. Whether he was right or wrong is a separate issue.
August 21st 2009 @ 6:20pm
TommyM said | August 21st 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
That’s a good idea. Small change= big difference
August 19th 2009 @ 1:35pm
sheek said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Rickety,
Back in the 1970s, it was British & Irish rugby that was ‘wowing’ the rugby world, with their running rugby.
When the Wallabies beat 5 nations champs Wales in both tests, they did so with conservative rugby aided by the boot of Paul McLean. In both tests, Wales scored two tries to one, but McLean’s goalkicking proved the difference in both tests won, 18-8 & 19-17.
It’s dangerous to play stereotypes. Historically, all the major countries have gone through periods when they played attractive rugby, & periods when they played dull rugby.
August 19th 2009 @ 1:39pm
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Sheek – old mate – I agree that Rugby goes in cycles. I get no satisfaction from watching any Rugby side play 10 man Rugby – especially the Wallabies and (through gritted teeth) the Waratahs. As I said above “its not a big deal if I don’t understand what a short arm free kick is about as it usually has little bearing on the result of the game but when a game is lost from a penalty from a technical infringement that no one can explain – well that is entirlely another matter ….”
August 19th 2009 @ 2:08pm
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
The Fijians and Samoans play the best running rugby and if you allow them they would run the pants off everyone else.
But what do teams such as Australia and New Zealand, who claim to prize running rugby above all else, do when they play Fiji or Samoa? They accentuate the areas in which they are usually stronger at ie setpieces and tactical kicking, and try to close the game down and prevent broken play situations developing, in order to nullify the islander’s main threat.
In such circumstances Australia or NZ would see nothing wrong with not playing running rugby. They would in fact stop the other team running at all. They would be happy to win on penalties or pushover tries or rolling mauls.
And yet when South Africa plays to its strengths, they cry that the game has chnaged forever. No, it hasnt: South Africa are simply doing the things they are good at even better.
Australia and New Zeland should just work on their lineouts (win their own at least ,for gods sake), win some scrums, get to the breakdown first, don’t let so many passes go to ground, be more aggresive at the berakdowns, and they might well beat South Africa. Stop blaming the ref or crying each time they lose.
And no, rugby isn’t dying. It may have diwndling numbers in Australia and New Zealand but that is just the fickle nature or sports fans in those countries. The sport is thriving everywhere else.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:10pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Personally, I have no particular problem with full arm penalties or the value placed on them. However, the fact remains that players are fitter and the ball has been changed, so there are now more kicks on goal than in the past because they are now reachable where previously they weren’t. However you look at it, the game is not the same as that played 5, 10 or 20 years ago and changes to law would be required to make it so. I’m not convinced the disallowed ELVs would have been the most appropriate way to do that, but some changes will be required at some point if the game is to retain its historic shape.
Still, I am waiting for someone – maybe one of the Island teams – to take the current trend to it’s logical conclusion. Sure they have historically been the epitome of running rugby, but where has that really got them? So, four kickers at 9, 10, 12 and 13, all well drilled to drop from anywhere. Three big fast chasers at 11, 14 and 15, all focused on kick-chase to apply pressure at the fall of the ball and put the slow retiring forwards onside. Every ball hoisted with a chase, pressure the fall of the ball and breakdown, establish a wall and then have one of the four kicking options pot at goal. Repeat every time you get the ball, as many times as possible for the whole game. Ten or so successful visits into the opposition half should win you most matches, doesn’t need to be the 22…
August 19th 2009 @ 2:16pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Nice template – but where are these four kickers coming from?
August 19th 2009 @ 2:27pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
August 19th 2009 @ 2:21pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
And that is what they would need to develop. It is not a innate skill, born in or left out, it is just a skill like any other. The Wallabies have at least two that periodically take potshots, even without much focus on the skill. We’ve easily got four kickers in the team, and I doubt most other teams are much different. It comes down to what they practice for…
August 19th 2009 @ 2:28pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Agreed – but we have a history of shunning this sort of game plan – not just at national team level – but all the way down – which means we can never have four blokes come into the team to which it comes naturally – and that’s the key.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:39pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Yes, we do. But others might not have the same aversion if it could make them more competitive, and I don’t think that a drop kick is necessarily something that has to come naturally. Time, application, a lot of sweat and a game plan that buys them time…
August 19th 2009 @ 2:46pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
That’s the key – it’s not just the individual skill – as you say it’s the game plan that allows for the time and space – the whole team has to be switched onto the possibility (far more than is traditionally the case in Australian teams) – it’s actually a massive change in thinking and culture – honestly – it’s a massive change.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:51pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
And one that is impossible? As I say, I can’t see the Wallabies ever doing it, but more due to a philosophical aversion than some inability to work as a group. I am sure there are plenty of second string teams that would be prepared to concentrate on a group ethic if it made them a more competitive team.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:12pm
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Shahsan – you are misssing my point. As I said above “its not a big deal if I don’t understand what a short arm free kick is about as it usually has little bearing on the result of the game but when a game is lost from a penalty from a technical infringement that no one can explain – well that is entirlely another matter ….”
August 19th 2009 @ 2:20pm
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
The referee usually can explain. I guarantee you that 90% of people who watch rugby, most of those bitching about the ref’s decisions, do not know the laws.
Just go and learn them and gain a deeper appreciation of what is going on.
There are a million things happening at a million miles an hour and the ref may spot one but he will miss two others. It has never been perfect and it never will be. It is not cut and dried and simple like golf or tennis. It is much more dynamic and fast and furious. You are taught as a player to accept the ref’s decision on the field. I think it is a worthwhile lesson to remember as a spectator.
(Unless of course you have proof the ref is an out and out cheat. )
August 19th 2009 @ 2:28pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
The problem with that then becomes one of consistency…three things happen, and what is penalised once is let go next time. The other is then if three things happen, and one team’s transgressions are more commonly picked up. I suspect a lot of spectator discontent is related to that element – the feeling that it is all a bit arbitrary.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:30pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
No one is perfect, but if it becomes a bit haphazard as to what is and isn’t picked up – you have to admit that that is a recipe for a lot of discontent.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:38pm
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
But that has ALWAYS been the case, has inconsistency of decision making, It applies on a rugby field, soccer field, cricket field, even in our courts of law. Just take the ref out of the equation.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Perhaps, but recent professionalism has meant that it is only really Rugby that has seen a rapid increase in speed, power, low cunning etc., without an equivalent increase in accuracy and predictability in the refereeing…
August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Of course – but it’s a case of degree – for instance one in three infringements being picked up is a pretty low ratio.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:50pm
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Ya, and when we are not watching in the comfort of home, with slow-mos and muliple angles, how many of these infringements do you pick up, honestly?
Rugby has the most complexity of any sport in terms of the number of things happening at any one time and te number of offside linmes that appear and disappear in quick succession that reallly the only way to adjudicate it perfectly is to have perhaps 4 referees.
I didn’t hear so many complaints about reffing during the Macqueen golden years.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:53pm
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
A powerful argument for free kicks for technical infringements rather than penalties and in the process take the match result out of the referee’s hands.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm
Temba said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
RK you are starting to sound like a broken record.
It’s never going to happen, free kicks just bring more infringements. Yes I know you say the yellow card this and that but going on the last couple of games you would be roasting the ref for sending off half the Wallabies for 10 minutes. 10 man rugby is better then 15 on 8…
Can you imagine how the Kiwi’s would whinge had the ref sent off 5 of their players?
August 19th 2009 @ 3:03pm
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Yes, I see the point you are trying to make. But one purpose of penalties is to prevent one team from cheating or preventing another team from playing its strengths. WIll we nopt have an endless succesion of free kicks? What is a techincal offnece and what is not? Deliberate offside,? Slowing down the ball? It could be a nightmare
August 19th 2009 @ 2:57pm
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Ehhh, plenty gets noticed at the game as well, but I’d also have to admit that when I record the match and watch it again afterwards some of the decisions (OK, maybe even a lot..) make more sense second time around. But you are probably right – has any sport been improved by media review of the decisions?
August 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
You’re right about Macqueen – what does that mean? That we turned a blind eye to poor reffing because an Australian team was winning?
August 19th 2009 @ 2:30pm
Rickety Knees said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Take a look at – my point again is that technical infringements should be a free kick and not a penalty. By doing this the games results are taken out of a referees hands.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:35pm
couchnorm said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I don’t think kicking of the ball is the issue, if it was the case we will be complaining about the Crusaders, Hurricanes Bull, SA etc. The best sides over the years are the ones that kick the most. Even in one of the earlier Tests against Italy B or France C everyone was praising how wonderfull the Wallabies tatical kicking was.
What is the issue is the lack of execution, be it skill or tatical.
Watching poor lineout, seeing passes go to nobody, poor kicking options, seeing poor option taking and turn overs at the breakdown because no one wants to go there. These are the things that make you pull at your hair.
Some of the great sides from the dark ages at times kicked the ball just as much. Didin’t the 84 Wallabies base their game on playing field position and kicking to the corners. The diffence was that when the opportunity open up they took it and attacked it with great skill.
August 19th 2009 @ 2:51pm
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Funnily enough, my memory of stumbling across rugby in the early 80s was discovering that the ball was kicked a lot more (than in league), and that you could even kick goals!! (which I found intriguing at the time).
My memory is a bit hazy, but I can’t help thinking that in some of the games I saw – the ball was kicked more than it was spun and run with!!
August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm
Tim said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
As an Australian I wish we would stop focusing on what the laws should be and start focusing on how to win a game using the current laws to our advantage.