The 2010 rugby season is shaping up to be a cracker
By Spiro Zavos, 25 Jan 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, Super Rugby

David Pocock of the Western Force faces his opponent, Gerhard Mostert of the Lions in their Super 14s match (AP Photo)
Last year was an annus horribilis for rugby, particularly in Australia. The 2010 season is shaping up to be a cracker, in my opinion.
Many of the factors that soured the rugby world for players and supporters last season have been resolved. And, in addition, there have been some interesting initiatives put in place for the coming season that should bring back some of the excitement and unpredictability that makes rugby such a glorious game to play and watch.
Last season players and supporters had to put up with different laws being played in the southern and northern hemisphere. This nonsense is now over. We have the one set of laws that will be played throughout world until the end of the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
As well as the nonsense over the ELVs (and the witless rejection of the ruck and maul reforms by the RFU, in particular), we had an interpretation of the tackled ball that rewarded the defending side over the attacking side.
SANZAR, under the influence of the new referee’s manager New Zealander Lyndon Bray (a very good referee in his own right), has brought in a new ruling that restores the advantage in the tackle situation to the attacking side.
The tackler now will no longer have all the rights to attack the ball. Instead of being allowed to hold on to the ball, even when he is on the ground, the tackler must release immediately as he hits the ground.
This has always been the law and it is now (thankfully and at last) being restored.
Under the former rule, sides became fearful of running the ball, especially in their own half, as the risk of giving away a penalty at the tackle was perceived to be too great. The South African sides, particularly, adopted a kick-at-every-opportunity game which was successful but induced boring and unattractive rugby.
SANZAR also will co-opt the scrum coaches in Australia (Patricio Noriega), South Africa (Balie Swart) and New Zealand (Mike Cron) to go round the franchises which have troubles at scrum time and help them to get things right.
As a sign of the good times, the NSW Waratahs captain Phil Waugh has promised that ‘the biggest thing for us is to play an attractive style of rugby.’
My moles inside the Waratahs camp told me that the leading proponent of the ‘win ugly’ philosophy of the Waratahs last season was Waugh. The style was unsuccessful, in that the Waratahs missed the Super 14 finals by one bonus point. It also drove away spectators, both from the SFS and from watching the Waratahs on television.
So it is significant that Waugh is now adamant that ‘winning with style’ is the new philosophy of the team. My guess is that certain members of the NSW Waratahs board have had a strong chat to the captain and told him with some force that the traditional Waratahs style is the way the team is going to play.
This traditional Waratahs style happens to coincide with instructions to referees to referee with an eye to rewarding teams that run with the ball, rather than kicking, defensive sides.
Several off the field issues that tended to be a worry for the rugby community last season have also now been resolved in the best possible manner. Sevens Rugby is now an Olympic sport which will help the spread of the game to areas away from rugby’s traditional areas.
Melbourne has won the fifth Australian Super Rugby franchise. South Africa has agreed, too, to an enhanced Super Rugby schedule that will provide quality rugby in the SANZAR countries from February through to October. There will be 20 local derby matches under the new schedule that comes into force in 2011, instead of the three we have now.
The Melbourne Rebel franchise, too, has recruited a brilliant front office and there is every hope that the franchise will add significantly to the depth and quality of Australian rugby.
We have just had the first round of trial matches. The Reds – Waratahs drew a crowd of 3700 at Lismore, a country ground in the Wairarapa of NZ had a sell-out 7000 to watch the Hurricanes and the Blues, and at Cape Town over 18,000 spectators came out to see the Stormers demolish the Western Force.
The signs are looking good. Bring on the 2010 Super 14 tournament!
Enjoy 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.
- Explore:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, Super Rugby

sunshine said | January 25th 2010 @ 7:34am | Report comment
The question begs though can the biggest proponent of winning ugly be able to effectively play an “attractive” style of rugby.
While being one of the best scavengers of the game, Waugh has several limitations, mostly catching and passing in a fluid motion, let alone left to right. This is why he is not and should not be in the Wallaby squad.
And being in the twilight of his career having played with a winning ugly mentality for most of it I wonder if this zebra can truly change it’s stripes.
Bay35Pablo said | January 25th 2010 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Spiro, I agree. Many thought things were going to continue this year, or get even worse, but I think things are going to pick up now, and only get better! The fact that even those in the North began to complain about how boring rugby was becoming showed it had gotten bad enough even the Simon Jones’s of the world could see it. Only when the tweeds in the IRB agree something needs to be done will it happen, no matter how bleeding obvious it is.
I think the S15 and the Rebels will give Australia (and Super) rugby a shot in the arm next year, which we needed. Plus the RWC 2011 will fire up the Kiwis and the rest of the rugby world.
As Big Kev used to say in his ads – I’m Excited!!!!
Looking foward to the Reds v Tahs in Brisbane, and first Tahs home game against the Sharks.
BS said | January 25th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Nice article Spiro. I too am an optimist this year that both the Waratahs and Wallabies can finally show the results for all the potential they have.
Unfortunately sponsors are still walking away from the game as the key brand health indicators and return on sponsorship investment continue to decline.
Lee said | January 25th 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
“instructions to referees to referee with an eye to rewarding teams that run with the ball, rather than kicking, defensive sides”
Where has this instruction come from and is this official? For all SANZAR teams or is it just an ARU thing? If it is in fact true then rugby is in trouble. One set of interpretations for an “attacking” team and one for a “defensive” team? That seems to be a joke. Who makes these decisions? And since when is playing to the laws result in stricter ruliongs from refs? There is no law against kicking in rugby or defensive rugby so why not let teams play their natural games?
Ata time when most logical people, would say the issue with rugby is different refereeing interpretations the answer is to make it even more subjective by adding a reward attacking teams thught process? Where does that go?
Ref: “Oh, the Brumbies player is holding onto the ball after the tackle, but they are playing the more attractive rugby so I will let him get away with it.”
5 mins later
Ref: “Those boring, kick orientated Waratahs players are on their feet with all the rights, but they are to defensive, I’ll ping them for hands in”
AndyS said | January 25th 2010 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
Not quite what they’ve said Lee. It is not different interpretations for attacking or defensive styles, it is a focus first on the defending team regardless of who they are. What they mean is first look to tacklers rolling away etc before worrying about releasing the ball etc.
Mind you, it seems a bit odd that they would tell a referee to “favour” anything. Frankly, it would appear a clear admission that the laws governing the breakdown are far too complicated if they don’t feel a single Super 14 referee, by definition counted among one of best in the world, can administer the laws as written and have to focus on some things in preference to others…
The Other Reds Fan. said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
It remains to be seen. I suspect that next year will be the year we should be looking forward to. The Reds will have advanced a year (with Barnes back), there will be a longer comp with more derbies and the Rebels will be up and running. But it will be a good year in 2010 if the Reds finish in the top half of the draw.
reds fan said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Barnes back?? I hope you aren’t banking on that TORF.
Daniel J said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:52am | Report comment
He will be the foundation captain for Melbourne
Mike G said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Wrong again, for after the tahs win the 2010 S14, he’ll not only recommit for the optional 2nd year of his contract, but sign the first ever “lifetime” deal, that’ll see him play till his legs go from under him!!! Go Tahs
GM said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Sorry Mike G,
Your blue glasses are getting in the way. Barnes will return to Ballymore, possibly Mitchell as well. A lot will depend on how much ball the tahs backline sees this year. I am still to be convinced that Hickey was the right man for the job.
Hammer said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
“that’ll see him play till his legs go from under him” … so that’ll be round 2 or 3 of the 2010 season then
Mike G said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I am convinced the Tahs have a squad good enough this yr to make the 4, then go on and win it…A lot will depend on the Tahs v Brumbies game at ANZ…the winner of that could seriously be the comp winner I believe
Who Needs Melon said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Jeez he set himself up for that one, didn’t he?
The Other Reds Fan. said | January 25th 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
The only Oz team to have a chance at the finals in 2010 will be NSW, but no further than the semis, if that, as they will play it away. Brumbies will be about 6th (they don’t have a good enough halves pairing) then Reds and Force down at 10th-ish or worse. I wish I could share Spiro’s enthusiasm, but it happens every year because we forget about the depth and improvement in the SA and NZ teams. The general standard of the S14 comp improves faster than the Oz teams.
The Reds jersey is positively repugnant. I would never buy the stuff on the Reds store. Seriously, who comes up with this rubbish? I am going to make my own hoodie a la Abercombie and Finch and I will use maroon with navy.
Comrade Bear said | January 27th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
“that’ll see him play till his legs go from under him”
… more like minute 2-3 of game one – he he!
I can’t see Barnes coming back to the Reds… and definitely don’t want Mitchell.
Damo said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Lee, You may have missed something here. The PHILOSOPHY is to reward the attacking team. That is not to say that the referee must in every instance penalise the defender or favour the attacker. It is about the enforcement of a single law at the breakdown. It favours no team because every team has to defend and every team gets to attack.
The news is that it is not an ARU thing but a SANZAR decision for the clarification of breakdown law for the good of the game. And to make it easier for everyone to see a fair contest at the breakdown. Who knows what difference it will make? Or if it will make any difference at all? There seems to me to be every reason to try a clarification in this area. It looks to me like a simplification that may force Mcaw, Smith, Pocock and Waugh to change their techniques to win the turnovers.
You seem to be ignoring the details of this tri-lateral decision for the sake of a prejudiced dummy spit.
Lee said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Spiro doesn’t say reward the attacking team, he says reward “teams that run with the ball, rather than kicking, defensive sides”.
That is not the same thing as saying reward the attacking team.
If Spiro has mis-represented what the decision was then thats what I want clarification on, if he is telling the truth then I think that is a slippery slope.
Terry Kidd said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I enjoyed the read Spiro but no mention of the Brumbies, Reds or Force? No mention of a particularly strong Brumbies squad that should be able to highlight running rugby?
Yeah, a referee’s mind set to ‘reward’ teams that play running rugby? That is frought with danger.
pothale said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Hmmm – I’d read about this new ruling decision by SANZAR officials in more detail on another site (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/news/3255710/Sanzar-looks-to-speed-up-the-game) and it left me wondering as to who actually runs the game of rugby.
The new initiative which apparently enforces what is already law is nevertheless a significant enough change in the game for it to merit substantial coverage in SH media, and creation of a number of committees/groups to ensure its successful implementation.
Where were the NH unions in all of this? Were they asked to be involved? Was there opinion sought? The fuller statement on the issue indicates that it will be brought into Europe during the 6 Nations or the Heineken Cup next season. This does not fill me with hope since the timeframe on these two comps is quite different. And why is not being introduced in the main European leagues – ML, GP and Top 14 – where it would be used the most?
And why are the SANZAR nations getting an 18 month run at this before the World Cup? If this change is as significant as it’s being made out to be, then test teams from NH will have had no opportunity to practise it before the next set of Sh/NH tests in June and November. Spiro says 2010 won’t have the nonsense of the ELVs being played differently in the two hemispheres and then goes on to herald a new ruling that will do just exactly that.
Since the SANZAR unions seem to be able to act unilaterally for the ‘good of the game’ no doubt, I presume it will be okay for the NH unions to introduce further new rulings when the current NH season ends in June. Maybe some of them around the ruck, change the ruling on the first tackler to the ball which was brought in with the adoption of the ELVs into the game, allow marks to be called outside of the 22, rigidly insist on straight feeds at the scrum, enforce rigidly the laws around players at the ruck, and penalise them accordingly, demand that a minimum of 26 weeks be used as a sanction for gouging, and that it be an automatic red card offence, These would start in the NH Next August and could be introduced in either the S14 or the Tri Nations in sometime in 2011 just before the World Cup.
For the good of the game obviously.
Sam said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:37am | Report comment
I don’t think it’s a change to the laws – it’s simply a different interpretation. That is why SANZAR are able to do it. Like Lyndon Bray said, allowing the tackler to hold on the ball as they get to their feet is actually illegal, it just hasn’t been refereed properly. I would say that the amount of kicking in the game has prompted many administrators, coaches and referees to reexamine the existing laws more closely to see what can be done and this is one of those things. It is the same with the scrum laws, they are going to try and establish consistency in order to prevent repeated problems at scrum time – this isn’t a law change.
As for the NH – the English have been the ones complaining the most about the rights of the tackler at the breakdown. They tried unsuccessfully to get the law changed at the end of 2009 to enable the attacking player to hold on to the ball longer while on the ground – fortunately the law change didn’t happen. I don’t think this is a radical reinterpretation of the laws, simply a re-emphasis on this aspect of the breakdown laws. There is still going to be a contest for the ball at the breakdown, but hopefully it will now be more balanced between the team in possession and that which is not.
Lee said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Yeah I got pinged for this last rugby season, I was the tackler and was told I had to release the player before I tried to get the ball from him…so not new per se, just defining the correct interpretation.
Have they still got the rule that the tackler can hold onto the ball still even after a ruck has been called? As far as I’m concerned that was an aweful addition to the rules!
pothale said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Sam
I would love to believe that it is “simply a different interpretation”. However, the change being implemented doesn’t just require the referee being told to enforce an existing law, but is also seeking to get players to play differently.
I know you could say that these are effectively the two sides of the same coin, but it seems to be more than just a re-inforcement of an existing law.
I just think that bringing in significant changes to the game – and around the breakdown it is always significant as the first man to the ball has proved – then these should be brought in some kind of unilateral way. If the ELV debacle taught us anything, it was this. I have no idea if there is or will be any resistance to this change in interpretation in NH unions or if they even know about it – I have seen nothing about it in NH media so far.
There is nothing on the IRB site about it. Nor on NH union sites. Yet something tells me that this change will be heralded as the latest successful SANZAR innovation, and the NH foot-draggers need to get on with implementing it.
It’s a recipe for confusion and disharmony that is not needed with the WC coming down the tracks.
Hopefully, it’s going to be relatively minor, and it will be assimilated without any great hoohaa or rancour.
Sam said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Its not a law change. This is a fact. SANZAR don’t have the power to change the laws of the game. I see this as just like when the IRB decided to crack down on crooked scrum feeds – not a law change just either a reinterpretation, or a new emphasis on a particular aspect of the law.
Lee, I don’t know about the law regarding hands on ball once a ruck is formed. However if the tackler has legally got to his feet without holding the opposition player (and more importantly the ball), then got their hands on the ball before a ruck is formed good on them – why should they be penalised for slow support play?
Lee said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
I think though in the past, that the tackler is fine to have his hands on the ball until the ruck is formed, once the ruck has formed he must release it. The law change brought in meant that he did not have to release it once the ruck had formed. To me this means that quick ball is simply slowed down further.
Daniel J said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Good Article Spiro
Nice to have an injection of optimism back into the roar, i am also buoyed by our recent trial win over the tahs, hopefully a sign of the times
pothale said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Am I being moderated? Was it something I said?