It’s time to re-word rugby’s rules
Roar Guru
By rugbyfuture, 11 Feb 2010 rugbyfuture is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- IRB, IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, rules
Complicated rules have been a fact of rugby, and many other sports, since their inception, mainly based on the variety of rules used before the official sanctioning of a law book. A focus of this is the league fan criticising the over-complication of the rules in union.
There is an easy way to fix this, the IRB could easily recruit marketing, communication and legal experts into a panel, to rewrite the Rugby Rule book (keeping rules with different wordings). Streamline it, if you will.
I am sure that with careful precision, any law book could be simplified (and a few finalised ELV’s possibly added).
The integration and streamlining of rules, rulings and referees etiquette is how people could finally understand rugby, from an outside view. This isn’t to say that the rules should be changed yet again, but the clarification of all things, to all people is part of product design.
There is a topic in Industrial design called Design for manufacture and assembly. This outlook on product design, is talking about the integration and simplification of parts, using similar materials and reducing manufacture times. It doesn’t manipulate the function of the product, nor the way it works usually, but does simplify what it’s made of.
All in all, this concept behind the design of a product sets out a clear path to where it is heading, and what to do with it after its use. A similar function is needed within the laws of Rugby.
Currently on the IRB website there are three parts to the laws and regulations category; laws of the game, regulations and law rulings.
Why can none of these aspects affecting the play of the game be integrated into a simple, single product?
One can somewhat understand how the traditional white class has effected this game. Much like normal laws, no one knows and understands the full set.
But the way it has run for well over a hundred years does not cut it in the more transparent and demanding society we live in.
Clarity, understanding and modern in-use language is the key to gaining the public’s attention.
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.
The Crowd Says (15) | 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? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- 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:
- IRB, IRB Laws of Rugby, Rugby Union, rules
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
There’s a reason why laws and rules are written in a complex manner that takes multiple sentences to say what one can do.
They were written by lawyers for lawyers and they use formal English as opposed to colloquial English because the meaning of commonly used words can change over time. Doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be simplified though.
sheek said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Just keep marketeers, consultants, lobbyists & dare I say, lawyers, out of this!
Well, maybe lawyers, but only if they have taken their medication…..
stuff happens said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
As I’ve posted before the rules of rugby are absurdly complex far more so than League, AFL and especially Football.One of the reasons for football’s great popularity is that it is so easy to understand ( OK the offside rule is difficult sometimes)
Anyway good luck with rewriting the rules;but it’s the rules themselves that need to be made simpler.
Spiro talks today about refs trying to make rugby a more attractive sport to watch. This says it all. Let’s blame the refs, the players, coaches and everyone else when what really needs to happen is a complete revision of the laws. But the IRB and the ARU are little better than a men’s club.It ain’t goin to happen.
rugbyfuture said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
yeh, well the problem is that the ARU has to conform to the international body, the biggest problem yet a great advantage.
AndyS said | February 11th 2010 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
“marketing, communication and legal experts” – yeah, they are just the people you need to simplify something! I can get them started –
Law 1.1 SURFACE OF THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
(a) Requirement. When playing the IRB(TM) limited liability version of Rugby Union Football, the surface must be safe (to the agreed definition outlined in Appendix A Clauses 1-253) to play (as defined and constrained by the laws subsequently and inclusively defined in this document) on without constraint as to times and places.
etc, etc
elbusto said | February 11th 2010 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
I spoke to a mate of mine last night about attending the Robbie Deans luncheon on 1 April in Hobart which is a Tasmanian Rugby Union fund raiser. He is a health professional (Dentist) who attended an elite school and played Rugby for thirty years. His response – ‘No I am not coming. Rugby is not interesting any more’. Good luck changing the ‘Laws’. Even the elite have given up. By the way – guess what he watches now …… Rugby League.
chris said | February 12th 2010 @ 12:21am | Report comment
The Brits seem to like complicated rules Rugby.
Ian Noble said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:17am | Report comment
“The Brits seem to like complicated rules Rugby.”
Presumably that is why attendances and interest in the game in the NH is at an all time high.
If you actually follow RU the rules are easy to understand with the exception of the breakdown where the interpretation by the ref can vary. However, as I am able to listen to “ref link” at Quins and indeed the majority of GP grounds it does help. Ref Link is a FM radio transmission which allows a spectator to listen throughout the game to the ref’s decisions. In addition to his decisions you hear his continual discussion with players, his warnings for example about hands on the ball at the breakdown and players in potential offside positions. You will not be so surprised how thick some players are in being penalised following warnings from the ref. Anybody can buy a ref link receiver inexpensively and it certainly adds to the enjoyment and understanding of the game.
Anyway part of the enjoyment is the post match discussion about some of the refs decisions over a few pints in the club bar.Where would we be without a few dubious ref decisions!!
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 12th 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
But Ian IF the rules are easy to understand, then why is that so many people fail to understand why the ref pinged a particular team when the scrum collapses?
Ian Noble said | February 12th 2010 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
In the majority of games where “ref link” is available, a good ref warns the front row in particular about boring in or illegal binding as examples. Generally the collapsing of a scrum, is caused by poor technique and repeated infringements. Of course there are instances where you might not agree with the ref decision, but that is the same in all sports.
In the NH all refs are assessed after each game and if they continually get their decisions wrong then they can be downgraded or suspended.
rugbyfuture said | February 12th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
the rules are easy to understand if you played, but many supporters of RL and the other codes tend not to play a game they follow, so they can’t understand a game that has developed as a players game. I understand the rules ofRugby fine, but i played for 7 years, the real reason would be to attract these supporters in australia.
having a ref interpreting laws so differently to a previous game is a burden, much like if there was a lack of common law, it would be horrific, they should be trained and base things on a previous ruling which has been defined.
Joh4Canberra said | February 13th 2010 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Re-wording the laws or changing the laws? What is it you want? Because they are NOT the same thing.
In my view (and I speak as both a referee and a lawyer) the problem is not with the WORDING of the laws; if anything it’s with the SUBSTANCE of the laws. This is an important distinction. Complexity in the laws of rugby does not really arise from the form of words used in the law book but rather from the concepts the words are trying to express.
If only it was as simple as re-wording the existing laws to make the language used a bit easier for people with limited vocabulary to understand.
John said | February 13th 2010 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
Ye gods, Joh4Canberra. A lawyer, a referee and a National Party supporter.
You are a bad bastard, aren’t you?
Joh4Canberra said | February 13th 2010 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Whoever said I was a National Party supporter?
Joh4Canberra said | February 13th 2010 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
RF asks:
“Currently on the IRB website there are three parts to the laws and regulations category; laws of the game, regulations and law rulings. Why can none of these aspects affecting the play of the game be integrated into a simple, single product?”
Well they certainly *could*, but this would be a very stupid thing to do because (1) we are dealing with three fundamentally different things and (2) consolidating them would make them unwieldy.
Look, there are two basic approaches to law: Either (1) a small number of generally applicable principles while leaving their detailed application to be filled in by the use of logic, precedent, common sense, explanatory rulings etc (2) a large number of detailed rulings put into law trying to cover the minutiae of every possible factual scenario.
Take time wasting for example. Law 10.2(b) simply says: “A player must not intentionally waste time”. It does not say what counts as time wasting or what counts as intentional. That is an example of the former approach to law — a generally applicable principle without going into great detail about what counts as “time-wasting” or “intentional”. Under the second approach to law, however, we could go about compiling a great big list of things which count as “intentional” “time-wasting” and writing these into the laws of rugby. But once you start doing that the laws will become more complicated, a LOT longer and open the possibility of clever coaches and players devising new ways of wasting time that are not already on your long list and claiming that they were acting within the law. So to keep things simple and the laws short we don’t write these into law. Instead we expect referees, coaches, players etc to play by the spirit of the law and to use logic and common sense in answering the question of what counts as “intentional time-wasting”. And from time to time explanatory rulings can be issued from on high to deal with a particular issue, promote consistency in the law’s application or otherwise give guidance in the laws interpretation.
Again RF quoth:
“One can somewhat understand how the traditional white class has effected [sic? I suspect you mean "affected" but "effected" is also grammatically possible but has a very different meaning] this game. Much like normal laws, no one knows and understands the full set.”
Ay yes, the old victim mindset. Let’s blame a bunch of old white men. Honestly!