IRB to keep breakdown rules, with law review in 2010
By AFP, 3 Dec 2009 AFP is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- International Rugby Board, IRB, Rugby Union
The International Rugby Board (IRB) announced on Tuesday that rules governing the breakdown, which some pundits say are ruining the sport, would remain in force but that a laws review would start in 2010.
As things stand the tackler at the breakdown is, provided he then gets on to his feet, allowed to compete for the ball.
Critics allege this has swung the balance too far in favour of the defending side, with referees more likely to now penalise the attacking team for ensuing ruck infringements such as holding on.
This, it is argued, has led to sides kicking away ball for fear of being caught in possession and so made Test match rugby union in particular less of an entertaining spectacle for fans.
But defenders of the current set-up insist that teams that want to attack can still attack, citing New Zealand’s 39-12 win over France and Australia’s 33-12 victory against Wales last weekend as evidence.
However, IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset said in a statement on Tuesday that there is “concern about the attractiveness of the game at the elite level”.
At an interim meeting of its ruling council at the global governing body’s Dublin headquarters on Tuesday, the IRB said the current application of the rulings relating to Laws 15 and 16 covering the tackle/ruck would be adopted into law with immediate effect.
During November’s internationals England were widely criticised for the paucity of their attacking game.
Senior figures within English rugby tried to suggest the laws, as much as the players and management, were a key part of the problem.
England also argued the breakdown was contributing to an unacceptably high level of injuries.
Representatives of England’s Rugby Football Union (RFU) put those points to the IRB council.
But an IRB statement said: “Council also noted concerns raised by the Rugby Football Union regarding the tackle/ruck area and agreed that in light of a lack of informative data and evidence to suggest clear safety concerns across Unions, that the tackle/ruck be captured by the upcoming review.”
The planned review is due to start “early in 2010″, said the IRB.
Although it had been thought no law changes would be in effect before the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand, the review opens up the possibility that alterations could be made before the tournament.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (18) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A (2)
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- International Rugby Board, IRB, Rugby Union
pothale said | December 3rd 2009 @ 2:46am | Report comment
How ironic.
The RFU look to improve the game, and the SH unions block the progress on improving the laws based on the evidence of two games. No surprises that it’s NZ and Australia whose games are used, despite that OZ in particular have been kicking the leather out of the ball up to now. As have the Boks.
The no pass back into 22 ELV has to go, and the one they sneakily introduced earlier this year on the first defender to the breakdown keeping his hands on the ball.
IRB – could we have the rule changes in before the New Year please, so that they get trialled in the NH first?
Thanks
rugbyfuture said | December 3rd 2009 @ 2:51am | Report comment
I think there needs to be a massive forum of all the Unions to come to a consensus, im an aussie and even i point out that south africa decided not to support many of the ELV’s after a time whereas many don’t, the only way to build the game is to have a common consensus that comes into place straight away
Sam Taulelei said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:02am | Report comment
Pothale
Surely you’re taking the piss? The RFU trying to improve the game and SH unions blocking progress?
Why is it that when any changes are recommended or argued for by SH unions it’s derided and scorned as another example of those upstart colonials trying to ruin a perfectly good game. But when a NH union complains or criticises, it suddenly gains credibility? I’m not having a go at you but I’ve been reading all the latest articles from the British press with great amusement and irony about the laws being too skewed in favour of the defending side. Especially given the standard response to any criticisms about the state of the game from down under being “you don’t need a lot of tries scored to have a good game of rugby (which I do agree with)” and “there’s no problem with the game here in Europe why should we listen to you” and “we play real rugby and not that harlem globetrotter airy fairy stuff in the Super 12/14″
I also remember that the IRB fast tracked the scrum engagement law changes in 2006 after the RFU lead a proposal following some serious scrum injuries in the lower grades ignoring the scrum education programs followed in NZ since the 1980′s after a spate of serious spinal injuries which resulted in a dramatic reduction of scrum related injuries and we now have the unholy mess of crouch, touch, engage to look forward to again and again and again.
Not to mention that the IRB’s biggest cash cow the RWC wasn’t even supported by the NH when first proposed to the IRB in 1985 by Australia and NZ but they of course were more than happy to take ownership of it and then in due course impose the most exorbitant hosting fee of any world sporting tournament.
I see that the NZ led proposal to change the eligibility rules to allow players from tier 1 countries to represent tier 2 and lower countries after a mandatory 12 month stand down was rejected by the IRB. That would have been progress and beneficial for the PI teams in particular at the World Cup who usually suffer at the hands of the clubs in the RFU when trying to secure releases for their players to participate in warmup and qualifying games.
Yep we have a lot to be grateful for from the RFU and their pals.
Parisien said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:25am | Report comment
I agree with Sam.
Eddie Jones comments on an annual review, fixing what needs fixing and when, and the tackle laws make interesting reading:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/annual-review-the-key-to-bringing-back-running-rugby-jones-20091204-kb16.html
sheek said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
The IRB live by the motto of, don’t do today what you can put off until tomorrow, or next year, or next decade……….
If somebody bombed the entire IRB out of existence, they wouldn’t be missed for a second, for any good they do.
mitzter said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
of course i agree that more look in at the breakdown are required. As pothale said the first defender allowed to keep going for the ball and the tackle allowed not to come through the gate must go.
But I find it interesting that the reason from the RFU is injuries – seriously?
You can’t tell me that unions have ‘clear safety concerns’ over the current laws – sounds like an excuse to me
Tim said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Am I missing something here? Didn’t we just have the SH unions pushing for law changes to make the game more ‘attractive’? And weren’t those same laws rejected by NH unions because the game in the NH was in great shape?
pothale said | December 3rd 2009 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
The first defender law was only brought in earlier this year as a supposed solution to some of the problems at breakdown.
The no pass back into 22 ELV was brought into force. In my view, I think it has generated a lot of the aimless kicking as people avoid kicking into touch once outside their 22. Either bin it, or else bring in the suggesion of a mark for kicks up to the 10 metre line.
Jerry said | December 4th 2009 @ 4:13am | Report comment
The first defender law was essentially codifying what refs were actually calling. They’ve been allowing a tackler to keep playing the ball once the ruck has actuallly started for years.
Unconditional said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Good point Tim. If anything it’s the bloody NH slowing down the process. Hopefully rugby can return to the fast running style that we all love and enjoy (except for the likes of England of course)
jus de couchon said | December 4th 2009 @ 12:54am | Report comment
Dont pick on England . We play a conservative game for sure , and if you want to be invited back to Twickers youd be advised not to spout on about running rugby. Give me a rolling maul followed by penalty goal anytime.
Sam Taulelei said | December 4th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Here is a quote from an interview with Richie McCaw following the IRB’s decision to ratify the rule change that says if the first arriving defending player gets his hands on the ball before a ruck is formed, he can legally carry on playing it.
RICHIE’S BREAKDOWN ABOUT THE BREAK DOWN
“I don’t think the breakdown is that complicated. What complicates it is it happens so fast bang that’s where it becomes hard for the ref.
“The real rules of the breakdown are the tackle player must release and if he gets to his feet he can pick it up from any angle provided there hasn’t been a ruck.
“As soon as one player from each team arrive and are joined that’s a ruck and there’s no hands. If you arrive through the gate from the opposition you can pick the ball up. That’s as simple as it is.”
The best explanation I’ve read and sums up why he’s regarded as one of the alltime greats in his position.
Jerry said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Actually, this bit is a little unclear – “If you arrive through the gate from the opposition you can pick the ball up”
You’re only allowed to pick the ball up in the ruck if you’re not part of it (or under the new ‘first player to the ball law). I guess he means someone in the halfback position, but it’s not really clear.
The other thing, which is the elephant in the room when it comes to the ruck, is that almost every ruck in every match has players on the deck handling the ball in full view of the ref. Without rucking the ball can’t come back to the halfback unless one team feeds it back to him, and it essentially comes down to which team the ref decides has won the ball. These days when the refs says “Hands off’ he only means it for one team.
Sam Taulelei said | December 4th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Jerry
I read it literally which your comment also supported, if you arrive at a ruck through the gate (i.e not part of the ruck) from the opposition then you can pick the ball up which we’ve seen from McCaw, Andrew Hore, Brussouw, Pocock and George Smith throughout the season.
Another area that McCaw would like to see clarified for players and referees as many players (including himself) are lying or leaning on the tackled player but appear to be on their feet in the rucks. He’d like to see a genuine attempt by players to stay on their feet before playing at the ball or defending at the ruck. At least then as a player you know that if you get their first, you’re on your feet you can have a crack at the ball and carry on contesting for it. Players standing on their feet also allows the attacking team a fair chance of clearing defenders out of the ruck to win quick ball.
In the past some referees would allow you to continue contesting believing you had earned the right as first player to the breakdown and others would call hands off after the tackled player held on long enough for a ruck to form.
Your second point shows why the law is an ass in preventing rucking.
Parisien said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:29am | Report comment
So what you are both saying is that its completely interpretive and down to the refs perceptions which can go either way?
Parisien said | December 5th 2009 @ 12:31am | Report comment
once again, in the absence of rucking, and given all the ambiguity, I like the “justin marshall” law proposal: remove the tackler’s rights.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/annual-review-the-key-to-bringing-back-running-rugby-jones-20091204-kb16.html
Jerry said | December 5th 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
There’s a huge loophole in the Justin Marshall proposal – what if two players are isolated from the rest of the match.
Imagine a kick like Dan Carter’s in the Sydney Bledisloe, but with only one defender and one attacker. Why shouldn’t the defender be allowed to play the ball in that situation.
Or even worse, imagine a runaway try/intercept situation where the ball carrier is brought down just short of the line by a sole tackler. Under that proposal the defender would basically have to let the ball carrier get to his feet and have another crack at scoring.
pothale said | December 6th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
And the free kick sanction ELV solved the above problems how exactly?