By Spiro Zavos
January 25th 2010 @ 6:07am
Related coverage
The 2010 rugby season is shaping up to be a cracker
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!
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:
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...
(57)
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?
Terry Kidd said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
G’day Pots …. well that got thru so I don’t think you have been zapped mate. What did you say?
pothale said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Just a comment on the intorduction of the new ruling initiative by SANZAR.
It was an NH grumble but nothing offensive that I could see. I’ve now managed to post it twice by mistake, thinking I was editing the first one.
Never mind, it may squeeze through the Roar’s penetrative defences at some point.
Was wondering if NH unions had been consulted on this ruling, or are we going to be playing catch-up again? Will it be used in June tests, etc, etc?
GM said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Good article Spiro,
However Rugby still has an image problem to rugger supporters and to the wider Aust audience. This is a huge year for Super 14. With NRL getting its house in order, Football world Cup and the usual AFL season, another boring year of Rugby would be huge setback for the game.
One thing rugby could improve on is the current seven tournament. I think if this was hosted outside of Adelaide (Melbourne perhaps) and given the exposure it deserves (Olympic Sport) it could really be rugbys response to 20/20 cricket. This includes the Aust team supplying big name players (along with NZ) and have a weekend tornament before Super 14/AFL/ NRL kicks off.
Terry Kidd said | January 25th 2010 @ 9:52am | Report comment
No worries Pots … all questions that I also would like to see answered.
sheek said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Playing the Devil’s Advocate for a moment, the cynic in me wonders if we can ever again see running rugby?
There have been glorious passages in our past, but dark ones as well. ironically, when the game was amateur, the players & coaches weren’t obliged to entertain, but often did. Under the professional era, the pressure of retaining lucrative contracts has seen players & coaches become conservative.
Aided & abetted by stupid law changes.
Maybe when all the people actively involved in the game – players, coaches, administrators – realise their bottom line is affected by the product they deliver, will we begin to see some attractive rugby being played.
I don’t quite understand how professional rugby has somehow seen itself ‘quarantined’ form playing attractive sport compared to other professional sports. The game won’t survive unless a “spirit of adventure” is infused into each professional player, coach & administrator.
Sorry, end of sermon. Yes Spiro, looking forward to 2010!!!
Lee said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Super 14 finals and semi-finals were hardly boring kick/chase games last year.
Test matches are always tight affairs but the Super 14 last year contained some fantastic running. If it wasn’t for the Waratahs decision to play ugly badly, then I think there would be less complaints from the Australian contingent.
Richie said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Good post Pothale
I see SANZAR are going it alone again ‘for the good of the game’ with more unsanctioned rule changes (and they wonder why the game is in the state it is)
No doubt Spiro will post soem insightful journalisim in the coming months stating that the SH is once again leading the charge to make the game better, with a barb or two directed at the NH (or England to be specific) for waterever reason suits at the time
As the RL and AFL seasons approach you can almost smell the paranoia amoungst our SH rugby playing counterparts
Richie
Mike G said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Ritchie, whilst taking issue with your entire post I will only comment on one thing here…that is, why does the Rugby Union of England remain the RFU? It is a point that to you may seem irrelevant but to the rest of the world it’s not – OK, great, the game was invented in England but the union should be called ERFU or the ERU. Perhaps that would be a good first step in showing us “paranoid” SH types that you and your type are willing to grow up a little.
BigAl said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
. . . yeah! – and what about the Royal Navy !
Bay35Pablo said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Richie, if the game relied on the NH for reform and change we’d still have no World Cup.
Spiro Zavos said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
The new SANZAR regulations on the tackled ball and scrum areas came after consultation officials, players, referees and players. A coach and a referee from each of the SANZAR countries nutted out the regulations which have been agreed to by all the franchises and SANZAR unions. My understanding, too, is that these regulations will come into play in the northern hemisphere with the Six Nations tournament.
Let’s not have another argument, therefore, over the southern hemisphere trying to ram things down the throat of the northern hemisphere countries.
The main principles of the new tackled ball regulations are:
1. the tackler will no longer have unlimited rights to go for the ball
2. the tackler must release the tackled player completely and get to his feet before they can go for the ball
3. SANZAR will monitor the performance and interpretation during the Super Rugby tournament
4. players and coaches have agreed to the change of philosophy around the tackled ball area and the scrum
My hope is that the Fox Sports rugby commentators understand these principles and stop their boring and repititious rants during the Super Rugby matches about alleged (almost often incorrectly) refereeing mistakes.
One of the main causes for much of the discontent with the game with rugby followers in my view can be attributed to the negative match calling from the Fox Sports commentators (with Rod Kafer being an honourable exception).
No one wants a Bill Lawry type of over-hyped commentary but you want commentators who seem to be enjoying the rugby and have a passion for the game.
The European rugby I’ve watched over the last month on television has shown a distinctly positive attitude to running the ball. I think referees there have been much stricter on the strictures that should be applied to kicking teams with the off-side law and also playing the man in the air.
Nothing much, alas, seems to have been done about the way halfbacks allow the ball to sit for many seconds behind the last feet of the ruck while they slowly organise another boring one-off charge. I agree with Stephen Jones (is this a first!) that the referees should call out clear it and give, say, five seconds before ruling a scrum and an opposition feed if this is not done.
Sam said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Good point Spiro, one question about your last comment. If the referee calls clear (this is a good idea I think), then why can’t an opposition play just run in and jump on the ball? If they can do this then why does one need the scrum ruling?
ohtani's jacket said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
Totally agree about the commentating and coverage.
If you log on to ESPN.com and look at the coverage of today’s AFC and NFC championship deciders in the NFL, the hype for these championship games is matched only by the endless amount of analysis. The Super 14 may be chicken feed compared to the NFL, but the sheer amount of knowledge from journalists and NFL fans about *other teams* is the point I’d like to highlight.
If you ask me, commentators and journalists in Australia and New Zealand don’t do enough research about the sides outside their countries. The South Africans are slightly better in this regard, but you can’t hype up a visiting side unless you know something about them. For most of us, the only South African players we’re familiar with are those who play for the Springboks but you could guarantee that NFL fans know who’s who around the league.
There may not be much SANZAR can do to control the way the Super 14 is broadcast, but if they want the competition to be important then it starts with the men in the booth and filters out to the media.
pothale said | January 26th 2010 @ 2:17am | Report comment
Hang on Spiro. Let me just replay what you wrote:
“The new SANZAR regulations on the tackled ball and scrum areas came after consultation officials, players, referees and players. A coach and a referee from each of the SANZAR countries nutted out the regulations which have been agreed to by all the franchises and SANZAR unions. My understanding, too, is that these regulations will come into play in the northern hemisphere with the Six Nations tournament.
Let’s not have another argument, therefore, over the southern hemisphere trying to ram things down the throat of the northern hemisphere countries.”
So you are saying they are new SANZAR regulations. You state that they arose with consultation with officials, players, refs, etc. But which ones – SANZAR only? You say that they were agreed to by the franchises and SANZAR unions – but were they run by the NH unions?
Your understanding is that they will come into play in the 6 Nations tournament. I presume you mean the 2011 tourney? There has been this wooly statement that says they’ll be intorduced in the NH, but no specifics on by who, when, and on what terms?
I haven’t used the phrase ‘ram down the throat’, but it’s a fair question to ask:
What consultation, if any, was there with the NH unions on these ‘new SANZAR regulations’?
Why are they being introduced now for SANZAR, and being left to the 6 Nations next year – which occurs in the middle of the NH season – this seems nonsensical.
Are they being used in the June tests? Or will they be under ‘old rules’ in order to accommodate the NH unions?
Are they being used in the November tests? Or will they be played under the ‘old rules’?
Why is there no mention of these new regulations on the IRB website?
Who specifically says when these ‘new regulations’ will be introduced in the NH?
DCR said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Well I’ll sit on the fence as to whether rugby is better this year than last year. I think many Waratah supporters have a biased view about last year, ie. it was a dud. I didn’t mind watching the Bulls and Boks kick because I have never seen such intimidating, towering and accurate punting of a rugby ball whether by union or league. The Boks were terrific. The final game in NZ between the Boks and All Blacks was rugby at the highest level. The Bulls were superb and destroyed their opponents in the final. There were other positives in 09. The Force won all the local derbies including a win in Sydney and the Wallabies ended the year with close to the strongest scrum in the world; who would have credited that.
As to the negatives the resetting of scrums is a massive blight on the game. I have finally come up with a suggestion as to fixing it. Stop the clock from the time the ref calls a scrum until the ball is out of it. That way no team gains an advantage by collapsing a scrum and they know that the ref is under no pressure to get the game going again because no time is being lost.
I’m happy to hear any other suggestions.
What I am looking forward to in 2010 are:
The return of the Link. Yes, McKenzie. Let’s hope all teams have a relatively injury free year.
Watching Hickey sort out his backline. How do I fit Beale, Halangahu, Barnes into it. Ummmmm.
Seeing the Wallabies finally beat the All Blacks without jet lag or scheduling playing a part.
The final horrah of a fantastic Bok team. Matfield, Botha, Smit, Habana, du Preez, Steyne.
The return from Europe of the old All Black guard.
The rising vibe of the NZ World Cup. I thought is was too much for them. But having spent three weeks there for a summer holiday what does it matter if there aren’t any hotels, we can sleep on the lawn, on the beach, under a tarp, bloody hell it’s going to be amazing.
Yeah 2010 might be a bit better than 2009 but the future always is! Good luck to all players and coaches. Be good sports!
NickF said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Spiro, your last point about the halfbacks and the Ref calling the ball is clear is a good idea. Also I do get annoyed about scrums being feed crooked, it is a small point but if you allow this infringement, then they start chipping away and before you know it you will have a scrum like rughby league.
soapit said | January 25th 2010 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
i’m actually pretty pumped about this change. nice little tweak so should help i suppose the tackler will then have to re enter through the gate if theres any other players around to form a ruck?
also alot of tackles nowadays are gang tackles involving more than one player so it will be interesting how it all pans out with player trying to roll away and others attacking the ball. should even up the numbers a bit though and you might get away without having a have mupltiple support players right up your backside. should be interesting. will it change too much or not enough?
Angus Boyle said | January 25th 2010 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Really enjoyed your article Spiro, as usual.
Maybe I’m just what they call in the UK an ‘anorak’, or in Australia a rugby tragic, (or others could say a nitpicker!) but I think there are currently six local derby games for Australian Super 14 sides and not the three as you say.
Three for each Australian team at present, of course, and eight for each Australian team from 2011, which you correctly state will bring 20 local derbies in total for Australian sides from 2011.
Spiro Zavos said | January 25th 2010 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Sam, when the referee calls or should call ‘clear it’ the ball is still lying under the feet of the last player in the ruck. It can only be played by either side when it is cleared.
Hansie said | January 25th 2010 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
The big variable for 2010 is the performance of the Wallabies, who had a mediocre season in 2009 and were at times dreadful. When the Wallabies start performing strongly, the problems apparently facing rugby will seem much less. I’m not sure what came out of the O’Neill-Deans review of 2009, but it can only be hoped that changes are made leading to on field improvement.
CraigB said | January 25th 2010 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
From a diiferent angle – Last year the defensive side was given more latitude, thus encouraging players into the ruck. This in turn encouraged (forced) more attacking players into the ruck. The result being that when the ball did come out there is room to run.
This year the focus is on the defensive side doing everything right. The possible result being the defnsive side now don’t bother to attack the ruck and just line up and defend. In return the attacking team do not need to attack the ruck meaning they too have more players in the attacking line. The result being a clogged attack fronting a 13 man wall with no chance of getting through. What will the attacking team do? Continue to run at said wall until the penaly or knock on against them occurs. Or will they kick it down field and setup their own wall, hoping for said penalty?
AndyS said | January 25th 2010 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Which was precisely why they tried to encourage competition for the ball at the breakdown, but it is more likely they will just see endless recycling hoping to draw the penalty.
You get the feeling they are just blind lab rats responding to the latest stimuli, alternating to and fro betwen two sucky outcomes. Maybe they will eventually strike the right balance, and all will be sunshine and light until two referees have slightly different interpretations. Or pehaps they will just decide which of either constant competition+kicking or assured recycling+penalties is least unpalatable and just stick with it. But in all likelihood, after a few more years of tedium, they will start the whole process over of trying to find a set of breakdown laws that are not completely labyrinthine, can be evenhandedly administered without requiring too much creative interpretation and (least likely) are acceptable to everyone. But just like last time this is likely to be a long expensive waste of time. For mine, there is actually a good chance that this issue will be a constant as it is simply not possible to resolve the complexity of a constant contest with the simplicity that would be necessary to achieve a consistently clean and law-abiding breakdown. If that is the case, perhaps we all need to go back to focusing on the positives of the game we love and stop constantly agonising over perceived negatives.
Dogs Of War said | January 25th 2010 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
The breakdown is also the area that needs to be cleaned up the most if you are to grab more of the casual supporter. It is one of the biggest turn offs in the game. Though it’s a job that I would hate to have, as it is hard to please everybody.
Dave said | January 25th 2010 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
15000 rugby fans get money’s worth
2010/01/25
Chumani Bambani SPORTS REPORTER bambanic@avusa.co.za
AN impressive 15000- strong crowd turned out to witness a heroic effort by an Eastern Province Invitation XV give the Vodacom Cheetahs a scare when they held the Super 14 outfit to a 13-9 score line at the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium on Saturday.
A surprisingly large number of tickets were sold on match day after only 7000 had been sold by Friday for the pre-season friendly.
Eastern Province Rugby chief executive Anele Pamba said: “The people of Port Elizabeth and the Eastern Cape community have come out and shown that they support us and proven that they are hungry for rugby.
“They want to see more games being played here in the province.
“We could not believe it when we had 8000 tickets being sold in one day. It shows that there is a lot of interest from the people.
“When we can get 15000 people coming to watch a friendly match, imagine the numbers if we could have bigger matches played here.”
The home supporters got their money’s worth as EP put in a Herculean effort against a side that included Springbok players Jongi Nokwe, Juan Smith and Heinrich Brussow. Captain and centre De Wet Barry led from the front, while flanker Zolani Mofu had an outstanding game among the forwards.
An even bigger crowd is expected when EP take on Argentina at the stadium on February 27 in another friendly game.
“I don’t see why we cannot get at least 40000 people coming to watch the Argentina game,” said Pamba.
“There are signs that we can expect to see great things in this province.”
http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=522652
ohtani's jacket said | January 25th 2010 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
The seasons are so long these days that I think it’s better to take it one game at a time than making any wild predictions.
I have my doubts over whether the new tackle law will make a difference. The only way to get the running rugby that people want is for the tackler to have no rights to the ball. Can’t see that happening.
funmaster said | January 25th 2010 @ 11:12pm | Report comment
The Bulls certainly played some entertaining rugby last season. The exect opposite of the tahs. Which team will be the surprise package of 2010? Perhaps the Stormers?
allblackfan said | January 26th 2010 @ 6:48am | Report comment
I’ll go with the Highlanders
Nelson said | January 26th 2010 @ 1:03am | Report comment
The new interpretation is a good step but only halfway. when i played once you were tackled you could no longer move. As a result the both the tackled player and tacker rolled away (ok also becuase of the use of the boot as well, but thats naother story) and there was a fair contest
These days, the tackled player can continue to crawl along the ground until “held”, which must have crept into the game from league, and therefore the tackler gonto him for longer, and inevitably gets trapped. A few years ago when there was a crackdown on not rolling way, tacklers being (unfairly) penalised for not rolling away became an issue. as with any rule change there are going to be plenty of penalties in the adjustment period. I hope it works smoothly this time.
I agree with Spiro and OJ comments above. the fox sports commentators need to sell the product a bit better, show a bit more enthusiasm , celebrate the diversity of the teams playing which other sports dont have . you often get the feeling they wish they were calling another sport.
Ziggy the God said | January 26th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
Even the diehard Union supporters on this thread are confused as to what rule changes or ‘interpretations’ are going to be made, and who is going to use them.
Then we have the commentators being slammed because they don’t know the rules, who in the main are ex-players.
What hope does the casual viewer of the game have to know what is going on?
westy said | January 26th 2010 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
I think the real test will be which Australian franchise will be competing hardest for player retention with the incoming rebels.
I think the Reds might start moving up ( they cannot possibly underperform again ..five years is a long time in the bottom 5).
Force have dropped aplace each year for the last three years. Although they perform well against the Australian franchises they may unfortunately be on the decline at a bad time . The Brumbies if they keep their experienced players on the park ( three Australian captains in your squad is pretty good) may be very dangerous although their squad may be aging at the wrong time.
The Waratahs as always could do anything best to keep quiet although their access to depth may as always give them some protection.
Timing is everything . You do not want to be rebuilding a squad at the same time as the Rebels are rebuilding theres nor being unsuccessful.
westy said | January 26th 2010 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Here is the test rank the order of finihing of the Australian francises Waratahs 3rd/ Brumbies 4th / reds9th / Force 10th