SANZAR referees to promote attacking rugby
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 11 Feb 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- International Rugby, Lyndon Bray, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
Lyndon Bray, a good and unobtrusive New Zealand referee in his day, has made a great start to his job as SANZAR’s referees manager. And as rugby union is a game where complex laws try to impose a pattern on what really is organised anarchy, Bray’s interventions have created an environment where the Super 14 tournament should start with a bang of enterprising rugby.
The most important change to the laws this season, or more accurately to the way the laws will be interpreted by the SANZAR referees, is in the tackled ball area.
Last season, the interpretation was tweaked to allow tacklers to hold on to the ball in a tackle, even when they had their knees on the ground.
This ruling meant that the tackled player had little chance of releasing the ball, unless the tackler was knocked away. Sides became reluctant to run the ball anywhere within kicking distance, which when the South African kickers were playing meant even inside the opposition half.
The result was the aerial ping-pong which drove everyone mad.
Moreover, referees tended to further help the kicking sides by refusing to punish loitering inside the 10m circle where the ball was landing. Also, there was some unjustified indulgence given to chasers bashing into players trying to catch the ball.
Bray has got all the coaches and the SANZAR countries to agree to return to the proper interpretation of the tackled ball law, which is that the tackler must release after the tackle and if he is on the player or on the ground roll away.
He also has instructed the referees to be tougher on policing players advancing from off-sides positions during kicking phases.
Most people think that these changes will help sides that play skillful, enterprising, ball-in-hand rugby. The emphasis in the tackled ball situation, for instance, will come from the second player to ruck, rather than the first player.
Sides may now play two ‘fetchers’ or number 7s.
And the NSW Waratahs are experimenting, it seems, with playing Phil Waugh from time to time at number 8, so he gets to tackles second and can make his dig for the ball legitimately.
The protection of the catcher should enable teams, too, to run the ball back from kicks rather than kicking back themselves.
To ensure that the new intepretations work well, Bray has done something that I’ve been advocating for years – namely, he is starting the tournament with the best referees in the SANZAR countries.
In the past, the weakest referees have been given the early games in an attempt to somehow bring them up to scratch. The result has been poor refereeing that has stymied the play of enterprising sides early on in the tournament.
Thank goodness, Bray has reversed this stupid policy.
All the top referees are at work in the first round: Stuart Dickinson (Blues-Hurricanes); Steve Walsh (Western Force-Brumbies); Jonathan Kaplan (Cheetahs – Bulls); Chris Pollock (Crusaders-Highlanders); Craig Joubert (Reds-Waratahs); Jaco Peyser (Lions-Stormers); Keith Brown (Sharks-Chiefs).
The interesting appointment here is that of the Australian Keith Brown to referee the international match of the round.
Last season, the South African Andre Watson as SANZAR’s referee manager, introduced the scheme of local referees officiating for local teams, even when the opposition was from another country. So we had the nonsense of Jonathan Kaplan, a South African, refereeing the Bulls – Chiefs final at Pretoria.
Unfortunately this scheme has not been thrown away, as it should be.
For those Roarers in the tipping competition, you might like to know that in the second round, the local referee-local team nonsense starts again.
The South African Marius Jonker is refereeing the Lions-Chiefs; New Zealander Vinnie Munro, Hurricanes-Western Force; South African Mark Lawrence, Bulls-Brumbies; Australian Keith Brown, Stormers-Waratahs.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- International Rugby, Lyndon Bray, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
February 11th 2010 @ 10:07am
Go_the_Wannabe's said | February 11th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
I really like the NFL system where the ref explains the infringement and the penalty to the crowd. It keeps everyone happy….the crowd understand what the penalty was for and the ref gets his moment in the spotlight. Everyones a winner!
February 11th 2010 @ 10:24am
Sam said | February 11th 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Yeah but you can’t have quick taps in that case.
February 11th 2010 @ 10:26am
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 10:26am | Report comment
GtWs, that’s actually not a bad suggestion, though you could just about count on a riot in Christchurch (for eg) the first time a ref explains “Penalty against Red 7, repeated infringements, Yellow Card”
Maybe the TMO could jump on the PA??
February 11th 2010 @ 11:23am
Hawko said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
I reckon using the TMO to relay the ref’s decision is a terrific idea. Ref gets on with his job and crowd/TV audience understand the ruling better. Won’t be perfect but it would be a huge step forward.
February 11th 2010 @ 11:40am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Would you like to be the TMO trying to explain the Refs decision that you didn’t understand?
February 11th 2010 @ 11:43am
ohtani's jacket said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:43am | Report comment
In Jaoan, they announce penalty rulings over the PA.
February 11th 2010 @ 11:47am
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:47am | Report comment
OJ, I’m sure there used to be something flash up on the screen (both on TV and at the ground) in Aust at one stage too, but perhaps as Blinky mentions above, it got too confusing for the man in the chair. I often listen the ABC coverage, and even they sometimes admit they’re not sure what a penalty was for…
February 11th 2010 @ 11:02pm
ohtani's jacket said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
Perhaps the refs could be a bit more demonstrative with their hand gestures.
February 11th 2010 @ 10:45am
GM said | February 11th 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
We have the same discussion at the start of every season on how to let the game flow. I think the laws are not the issue, its the way the game is being played and the attitude of coaches that is the problem. The win at any cost and fear of being beaten is much greater than the desire to “chance your arm”.
I think that we can expect more structured and negative play this year. Especially on Aust teams as they have hge pressure to make the semis.
February 11th 2010 @ 11:46am
ohtani's jacket said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
The whole thing is a mess and has been since they trialled the ELVs. I can’t believe they’ve wasted three seasons on this garbage already. How many penalties are we going to see in the opening rounds?
February 11th 2010 @ 11:54am
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
One thing I’ve struggled to understand is why refs so often pull up a scrum & start again when the ball is already out.
I’ll bet that there’s a very good reason but I’m buggered if I can spot it.
February 11th 2010 @ 1:26pm
Rickety Knees said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Me too BBoB – I would like to know also
February 11th 2010 @ 1:56pm
mitzter said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
I know, I know but its a fine line. I understand that the reason is mainly over the issue of poor scrummaging sides who aim to collapse after winning the ball to prevent getting pushed back or collapsing on teams trying to pushover for the try. The ref’s usually aim that if neither of these is the case, and the ball is at the back, to allow play to continue.
A few years ago it was decided in u19s laws that it was unsafe to allow play to continue after the collapse but am unaware if this is still the ruling
February 11th 2010 @ 6:18pm
Sam said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
I think if there is a collapse they are obliged to stop the scrum because of safety concerns.
February 11th 2010 @ 7:20pm
allblackfan said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
It has to do with safety. If the ball is not coming out fast enough, the ref will blow it. Sometimes, that happens when the ball is out.
The next time a scrum collapses and the TVfootage allows it, take a look at the angle of the necks in both frontrows. That should explain everything!
February 11th 2010 @ 8:15pm
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Safety concerns? But………the ball is out, AND sometimes even being passed to the 5/8. Seems way better to just play-on unless of course there’s some dastardly scrummaging trick going on that I’m not spotting.
How is resetting the scrum good for safety? What kind of like coaching them to scrum you mean? As if you average ref could help. Nah it’s got to be something else like ‘gee doesn’t this whistle sound good’.
February 12th 2010 @ 3:13am
MattyP said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:13am | Report comment
You’re missing the point mate. When you’re in the back 5 of a scrum, you don’t necessarily know whats going on up front. When a scrum collapses the ref is obliged to blow his whistle and stop play immediatley, so that all the piggies know to stop pushing, even if the thespians already have the ball. Hence, a safety issue. It’s not the resetting that the rule is aimed at – it’s looking after us fat boys.
February 11th 2010 @ 3:11pm
Jock M said | February 11th 2010 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
I think that the game now is a complete joke and these new interpretations will make it a laughing stock of gigantic proportions.
Rugby was a great game because of the freedoms contained in the breakdown -the only inhibitions were no foul play and no handling of the ball on the ground.
What a mess we have now-Rugby has actually been turned into a soppy Rugby League-I would not have believed it were possible had I not seen or were seeing it for myself.It all started with the use it or lose it laws and it has been down hill ever since.
February 12th 2010 @ 12:23am
wannabprop said | February 12th 2010 @ 12:23am | Report comment
Absolutely agree Jock that it all went pear shaped when they introduced use or lose it at the breakdown – that’s when the defenses stopped committing to rucks and fanned out across the field a la rugby league – changed the game dramatically and negatively . I imagine there was good reason for this ‘interpretation’ at the time, but buggered if I can remember. What I do remember was a team rewarded for ‘going forward’ with a scrum (so possibly trying to limit the number of scrums?). And of course the end of rucking (but let’s not go there – it’s gone forever MIRIP). The game’s been a shambles ever since the self-evident beauty of these laws were jinked – trying to find a balance between attack and defense…
February 12th 2010 @ 3:20am
MattyP said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:20am | Report comment
Use it or lose it only applies to mauls, not rucks. It wasn’t an i”nterpretation”, it was a rule change (to promote the attacking team recycling the ball).
Jock – it’s easy to sum it up so simply “as the only inhibitions were no foul play and no handling of the ball on the ground” – but that’s the whole point at stake right now – what is “handling on the ground”? You’ve responded to the issue by stating the problem as the solution. The current issue is, if a tackler gets to his feet, gets his hands on the ball, at what point must he release the ball, if at all, for example if he gets knocked to his knees by the next player in?
February 12th 2010 @ 7:17am
mitzter said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
if I remember correctly ‘use it or lose it’ was trialled with rucks back in the 90s but was found it favoured the defensive side too much – how that led to the rugby league trench i don’t know.
I think it was more a combination of
a. removing rucking,
b. allowing people to go off their feet more (see reason a.)
c.refs calling ‘leave it gold, it’s won by black’ etc. and not allowing continuous competition for possession
February 12th 2010 @ 8:53pm
wannabprop said | February 12th 2010 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
I must admit my memories of those days are now somewhat cloudy (and they were blurry at the time!), so I’ll defer to your superior knowledge. I didn’t get the chance to watch (or analyse) as much then as I do now, and I had also stopped playing a few years before the tinkering with the laws at the breakdown. Given my hazziness at the time, the reference to an ‘interpretation’ was tongue in cheek, and a dig at the rugby media (some have suggested the current ‘interpretation’ to be a law change). Gotta go, Force v Brums about to start…
February 11th 2010 @ 6:49pm
chief said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
I’ll say this. Mark Lawrence is one of the finest referees in the business right now, who has total respect to the players and rugby. Very much looking forward to what occurs during this tournament. I think O’Brien’s dressing down of Dickinson will have him improve, Dickinson is a very determined bloke, who loves rugby and is passionate about it.
Kaplan is a good referee, he was better a few years ago, but he’s still one of the best in the business next to Wayne Barnes. Let’s see what happens.
February 12th 2010 @ 3:43am
Ian Noble said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:43am | Report comment
As I mentioned on another thread, in the NH for all major matches including GP and HC, fans are able to hear the refs decision through “ref link”.This an FM transmission which is linked to the ref throughout the game. In addition to hearing his decisions probably more interesting is the continual discussion with the players. You are probably not too surprised how many players still transgress even when warned by the ref. You can also hear any discussion with the touch judges and the fourth official, so he should not miss the forward pass, foul play, substitution etc. You also hear when captains question a decision or make a point about the opposition continually binding illegally in the front row as an example. It is very much a two way street with the better refs.
Judging from the posts” ref link” is not available in the SH.
To my mind the best refs are those that have the confidence to allow games to flow, in the NH, Barnes, Berdos, Rolland, Owens and Lewis are good examples and I look forward to them referring a game.They make mistakes nobody is perfect, but you can sense through the banter that they are enjoying the game and it transmits to the players. Indeed to hear Owens suddenly burst into a bit of Welsh when something interesting happens on the field, always brings a smile.
February 12th 2010 @ 7:18am
Drew B said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
G’day Ian,we have the same sort of thing, called Sports Ears.
February 12th 2010 @ 5:39am
Jock M said | February 12th 2010 @ 5:39am | Report comment
Wannabprop,
Thankyou.
Rugby was a truly beautiful spectacle that has now been absolutely violated.
We need to go right back to pre professional law book.
Most of the comments on this blog are laughable and are concrete evidence of just how far the game has degenerated.
I am particularly annoyed with ex test players and the older administraters who do and say nothing.
I often wonder whether there would be any value in playing an exhibition match between two good teams that have had coaching in the old pre pro rules and letting people see the game as it should be.
The players would also need to go on a strong fitness programme because I know that modern players would not be able to handle the demands of the competitive breakdown and chasing the ball from one side of the field to the other.
February 12th 2010 @ 5:55am
Jock M said | February 12th 2010 @ 5:55am | Report comment
MattyP,
handling on the ground is touching the ball when a ruck has formed-nothing more nothing less.
If a tackler can bring a man down and steal the ball off him before the ruck forms all well and good.If the next player from either side can steal it or pick it up-still good.
The defence must have the incentive to compete for the ball-taking away that incentive by giving all advantage to the attacking side has completely destroyed the very soul of the game.
Do you realise that these ridiculous breakdown laws and interpretations these days are forcing players to the ground with the ball?
In the old days the idea was to remain on your feet and maul the ball.
If onlymore people could see the absolute folly of the modern game.
February 12th 2010 @ 10:35am
Terry Kidd said | February 12th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
No turnovers? I don’t think so guys. It will all depend on how you play your defence and on the particular circumstances at the time of the tackle …. pretty much as it did under the old interpretations.
For instance, tackler releases tackled player and rolls away, tackled player must also release the ball. Defending team has another player coming thru the gate immediately behind the tackler, that player coming in second may go for the turnover.
Likewise, no second player immediately available before other attacking players secure possession after the tackle … then defenders line up either side of the ruck to defend the next phase.
Where is any of this different to what we already have? IMHO all the new interpretation will do is allow quicker ball by detering tacklers from holding it in and thus giving the attacking team more confidence to run rather than kick.