The new Super 14 rulings should be worldwide
By Spiro Zavos, 18 Feb 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Crusaders, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
Related coverage
It is early days, but on the evidence of a number of the matches in the first round of the Super 14 tournament, the new rulings have been a great success.
We need the referees, especially those in South Africa, a rugby nation that has a history of assaulting referees, to stick with their convictions and the rulings even if locals resent their errant sides being correctly penalised.
And we want the northern hemisphere authorities, too, to give up their traditional negativism towards making rugby an attractive, combative and high-energy spectacle and endorse the new Super 14 rulings for their next season. There is some evidence to suggest that this should (and will?) happen.
The new rulings were devised by the SANZAR referees boss Lyndon Bray, fellow referees and the Super 14 coaches.
The changes, put briefly, are: first, in the tackle ball situation the tackler must release the tackled player and roll away before contesting for the ball.
Second: defending players must be obviously behind the last feet on their side of the ruck.
Third: the scrum protocols regarding binding, making the hit and the props positioning straight rather than boring in must be observed.
Fourth: players cannot move forward if they are in front of the kicker before being put onside and they must withdraw from the 10m circle where the ball is landing.
The referees have been instructed to show zero tolerance to players who deliberately or lazily infringe on these laws.
In the Western Force-ACT Brumbies match, for instance, at a crucial time when the Force were coming back in the match, Nathan Sharpe was correctly penalised for deliberately falling on to the wrong side of the ruck while making a tackle.
The quality of all the matches in the first round, even at Durban where the players had to contend with high humidity, driving rain and a slippery ball, was very high.
Admittedly, the Hurricanes were able to kick 9 penalties to defeat the Blues.
But the game itself was an entertaining one and the Blues, despite scoring more tries, deserved to lose because of their inept and incorrect play at the tackle.
In the Crusaders-Highlanders match there were only four penalties in a game where both sides (and the scoreline did not reflect how well the Highlanders played played) ran the ball with confidence, pace and skill to produce an exciting contest.
The Queensland Reds-NSW Waratahs match was the best clash these two teams have played in many years. The Reds lost because their scrum was found wanting when the proper protocols were applied and, also, because the front line players just ran out of energy at the end.
The new rulings will mean quicker and more certain ball from the rucks and mauls and many more phases for sides to attack and defend against.
This brings the fitness factor as well as the skill factor into play.
I was very impressed with the Bulls scoring 6 tries against a Cheetahs side that will beat some good teams this year. Last year the Bulls, except on rare occasions like the Super 14 final against a tired and poorly prepared Chiefs side, kicked the leather off the ball.
Both Fourie du Preez, one of rugby’s greatest halfbacks, in my opinion, and Morne Steyn, ran the ball cleverly most of the time and kicked only occasionally, and with great purpose.
This last point is important.
Last year, under the way the laws were ruled it paid sides just to kick the ball away whenever they got. They would force a penalty by enveloping a defender in the tackle and not allowing him to release the ball. As a variation, they scored tries occasionally (Bryan Habana, in particular) by knocking away the catcher and pouncing on the loose ball.
Now with the off-side laws being properly enforced and with the side with the ball having more rights (and rightly so) than the defending side, it makes no sense in kicking the ball away. We saw this in the Crusaders-Highlanders match when the Crusaders scored a crucial try when the High;anders just booted the ball away to get rid of inside their own 22.
I was amazed during the Reds-Queensland match to see that the players and, presumably the coaches, had not identified this simple fact when players had the opportunity to kick for touch from inside their 22, and did not do it. When will the penny drop that inside your 22 just kick the ball out.
This particularly applies to my current pet hate, the box kick by the halfback. Teams should give this tired old ploy away.
When Lyndon Bray was asked about how he thought the new rulings went, he said he was ‘encouraged.’ He pointed out, too, that the IRB with their refereeing boss Paddy O’Brien had been involved in working out the new rulings.
This gave him confidence that to try to get the changes in place, worldwide, by next year’s Six Nations tournament. And, therefore, one would think for the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament.
Bray made the interesting point, too, that “even sceptics like the British media, like Stephen Jones” could be won over to the new rulings as rugby looked to better itself as a spectacle with the World Cup looming up.
“Interestingly he (Jones) wrote an article the other week after the first round of the Six Nations and the essence was that rugby needed to be far tighter to law. I would think that if he’s consistent to that he would sing off the same sheet as us.”
This is a very good point.
The article Bray referred was Jones’ Rolling Maul column in the UK Sunday Times in which the controversial journalist listed his 10 laws and by-laws referees no longer bother to apply. On the list were all the laws the new rulings require to be enforced.
One of the comments on Jones’ article by Al Rul Sheng made valid points that Jones himself and European rugby officials must accept if they want their rugby to be less boring: “Interesting to watch the contrast with SH rugby. I watched three game with weekend and it was patently obvious they can read and know the rules. Forwards on their feet at the breakdown, few scrum re-sets, a willingness to run and pass. AND no eye-gouging.”
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:
- Crusaders, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs


rugbyfuture said | February 18th 2010 @ 2:51am | Report comment
I noticed your tweet against stephen jones about complaining about the rules, thought it is quite funny. Still, there seems to be little progressive thought on changing rules. I’d refer to one of your articles (i don’t remember the name) about how Rugby stopped its progressive nature once league came around, and i relate this straight towards my own article on Rugby’s relevance to religious beliefs. The same thing happened in the catholic church, which was generally (pre protestanism) a very progressive and adoptive church, hence why it spread throughout the world. however it fell into a trap of conservatism to protect its own identity and be stubborn about how right it was. Rugby it seems fell into the same trap, and to this day is still stuck there. This isn’t to say it should be replicating league, but certainly certain rules which have been similarly adopted might be useful (where it seems many object). It’s good that southern hemisphere rugby is trying to move towards better rugby, and that northern hemisphere is waking upto itself, but more needs to be done.
pothale said | February 18th 2010 @ 3:29am | Report comment
I am now totally confused.
First we had SANZAR trumpeting in media about new laws/regulations/interpretations (take your pick depending on which media you read) being brought in that were going to restore the game in the coming S14 (Now started.)
Then we were told that just the three SH unions had got together and decided on these new rulings/interpretations/whatever.
We were also told that they might be applied in the NH in the H Cup or 6 Nations – next year at some point. Hopefully.
Then we had further reports complaining that the NH unions had declined/refused/been obstinate about bringing in the new rulings/interpretations/laws for the current 6 Nations because apparently they were in mid season. (not an acceptable reason clearly.)
Then we have reports saying that the new laws will be in force for the June tests this year and that the NH was going to be brought to book and made sure that the upcoming tests against NZ would be played under the new laws, if the New Zealanders had anything to say about it.
This then got applied to all the June tests against NZ, Australia and South Africa.
Then we got told that all the tier one countries had met and discussed these new rules last year – the implication being that everyone was on the same page and had signed up to it.
Then we get told that all the changes were devised by SANZAR referees.
Then there’s reports in the NH media that the new laws at the breakdown would have an effect on the current 6 Nations and it would be interesting to see what impact it would have.
Then Spiro writes an article in which he states explicitly what the changes are – which is great. He also adds that hopefully they’ll be brought in time for next year’s 6 Nations.
And that the signs are encouraging for the whole of the NH coming into line because Stephen Jones wrote an article saying that various laws are not being enforced by referees.
So….
Have these new laws/rulings/interpretations been brought into the current 6 Nations or not?
If so, why has there been so little commentary about them? Two of the tests at the weekend were cracking games and if the new laws, etc were part of the reason, great.
If they haven’t been brought in, did we miss them?
Why is there no clarity around when these new laws, etc will be brought into NH rugby – either from IRB or NH unions as opposed to the occasional baiting by SH media about intransigence, obstinacy, etc.
Was there a get-together of all the unions last year to discuss these issues, or were the NH and other unions invited to be told what the SANZAR countries intended to do?
If the new rulings, etc have not been adopted into the current 6 Nations, then what new breakdown laws are being talked about currently?
I’ll stop there. But I’ve more.
Anyone?
Bay35Pablo said | February 18th 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Pots, as soon as I saw Spiro’s headline (let alone the article) I knew you’d be all over this like Irishmen on free beer …
stuff happens said | February 18th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Pothale and Spiro, for what it’s worth I’ve given up on the laws and changes; it’s too confusing.I just let the thing wash over me as I’m watching the games. How ( or why?) they cope with all this nonsense in schools is beyond me.Football must look better by the day.
A letter writer to the Sydney Morning Herald expressed similar views and said that in his view the only law change necessary was to move the players back from 5 metres to 10 metres, thus creating more space and opportunities for more attacking rugby.
I thought about this during the weekend as I was watching the French ditz the Irish and the Welsh somehow managing to turn a well earned defeat to victory.Lines of players bashing into one another time & time again – yawn.
Anyway I’ve decided that 10 meters is a good idea; it makes sense to me and what’s more I can understand it!
Roger said | February 18th 2010 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Unfortunately Stuff, if the ball doesnt come out fast (or at all) from a breakdown, then the distance between the teams will be moot.
I for one do not need NH rugby to adopt the interpretations…one of the unique things about rugby is adapting to different referees, and provided S14 and 3N keeping running with these interpretations, I don’t think NH rugby need do anything, it is not like they need to make any chnages as TV, crowds and general popularity is fine.
I know , I know, what about internationals betwen NH and SH teams, and heaven forbid Wayne Barnes lets a NH team play over a SH team in a World Cup semi or final by allowing tacklers to stay on the players…well, lets call that the luck of the draw or at worst, a little handicap for SH teams that normally win WCs.
I for one think if in s14 and 3N that if the second defender to a ruck is expected to pilfer and not the tackler then forwards 1-6 and 8 will come out of our season as fitter better players anyway as they have had a season where they cannot just rely on their fetcher.
ohtani's jacket said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Pothale, my understanding is that the NH refs were going to apply the new tackle law interpretations to the Six Nations from the opening round.
Sam said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I imagine that if a referee in a 6N Test decides to crack down on the aspects of the law outlined by Spiro then they can. The rules aren’t new. Since when are players allowed to bore in at the scrum? or move forward if they are in front of the kicker? I think if anything all these new ‘interpretations’ are doing is focusing on a set of laws that have not been enforced as vigorously as they should have. Of course there are probably a bunch more (Stephen Jones listed 10), but these lot do seem the most critical.
So I suppose the question is, when/will there be a co-ordinated effort by all IRB members to focus on these interpretations?
I’m especially happy about the offside one. Players being offside on kicks, or doing the Habana trick of colliding with a player jumping for the ball (rather than contesting it legitimately) and then the player being done for a knock-on, or having a scramble for the spilled ball. It’s never been legal, but because it used to be so rare never really needed to be focused on.
I’d add something to the scrum things Spiro mentioned, apparently the referees have decided to extend the pause between the “pause, engage” commands. It is supposed to stop teams anticipating the command, and hence depower the initial bind a little bit, supposed to reduce collapses. Suppose it is one of those things refs learn that works – especially as it wasn’t too many years ago the scrum commands were changed.
MM said | February 20th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Pothale, due to work I’m not too in touch with who said what when etc.
I have experienced immense media interpretations though.
Enough to send one to the “loony house….”
MattyP said | February 18th 2010 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Are these “rulings” published anywhere?
stillmissit said | February 18th 2010 @ 7:28am | Report comment
NO MattyP my understanding is there are NO changes to the rules this season. Sam’s write up will be interesting as comments from Paul Honiss should clear a fair bit of this ‘agreement’ to enforce the standard rule book.
Bay35Pablo said | February 18th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
The rules haven’t changed, the way they are interpreted by referees has. It’s the change you have when your not having an ELV.
Sam Taulelei said | February 18th 2010 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Great post Pothale. I’m now just as confused and would like some clarification.
MattyP I have a copy of the rullings from the referees conference last year and will post them once I get into work, these aren’t online but published in the latest copy of NZ Rugby World by former referee Paul Honiss.
MattyP said | February 18th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Thanks Sam. Like Pothale, I am confused – about what the rules are, because the 4 points listed are all pretty clear in the Rules (along with IRB ruling 2009:4 in relation to the rights of a player to play the ball following a tackle) so I’m not sure what is being referred to here. Is this just an agreement amongst some refs that “hey, let’s actually enforce these rules”? (In which case it would beg the question – if they’re in the book, what the heck have you been doing until now, ignoring them?)
I assume they can’t actually change the official IRB rules or even be official IRB-sanctioned “interpretations” of the rules. Don’t referees interpret rules, not make them up? Do I now need to subscribe to NZ Rugby World to understand the rules of my game? The whole things just doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense to me (and I’m a lawyer).
ohtani's jacket said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
They are IRB sanctioned interpretations. The purpose of the new tackle interpretation is to make up for last year’s wonderful new interpretation where the tackler could contest the ball without releasing the player. The big difference is that the ball pops up out of the ruck a lot faster, so attacking sides get over the advantage line much quicker.
stillmissit said | February 18th 2010 @ 7:24am | Report comment
As an ex ref who is still on the email there has been no written instructions but there are meetings planned for pre-season but that is not unusual.
My limited understanding is this is what will be the focus:
tackler must release tackled player and move away
You can still attack the ball from ‘offside’ if you were the tackler and on your feet (although a couple of instances last w/e where this was diff)
Jackal must be supported by own strength ie no leaning against players on ground
These have been in the rules for a fair while and tackler releasing has been there forever. There is also a greater emphasis by refs on players laying on or near the ball and slowing/killing the ball but the refs have been trying to clean this area for some time. NZ have a great system to slow down opp ball and the refs haven’t stopped it yet.
Then I believe there is an understanding between refs, coaches and players to try to keep the scrum up and the refs have redoubled their efforts to police this area of the scrum.
PeterK who is a ref, might know more than I do.
Wish they would enforce the offside line. It’s a disgrace.
titus said | February 18th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
I brought this up on another Spiro article but Stillmissit as an ex ref, do you think that players who bring the ball carrier to the ground but they themselves are on their feet are ‘tacklers’? The lawbook at the start of law 15 lists definitions of a tacker and to be a tackler means that the player who brings the ball carrier to ground must also go to the ground. There is no reference to players who bring the ball carrier to the ground but who remain on their feet.
So assuming that tacklers who remain on their feet are not technically tacklers, they are not bound to the new interpretation of having to release the ball-carrier. I saw this on a couple of occasions over last weekend and the ‘tackler’ was penalised for not releasing the tackled player, when in fact he was on his feet at all times.
This is confusing as it seems that a player can perform a tackle but is not technically a tackler if he is on his feet the whole time. Not sure why the lawbook makes this distinction. I’d be interested in people’s views.
stillmissit said | February 18th 2010 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Titus – this is very interesting. If you are not a tackler ie haven’t gone to ground yourself and you let him go, you are offside if you are on his side of the man on the ground. If you hold onto him all you are doing is attacking the ball, providing you end up in an onside position from the ‘non’ tackle ie on your side of the tackled player. This could give a window for MCCaw and Smith et al to continue business as semi usual.
I’m pretty sure without looking that this is all within the current laws.
ohtani's jacket said | February 18th 2010 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Sanction: Penalty kick
ohtani's jacket said | February 18th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Just to clarify, if you don’t go to ground in a tackle then you are not a tackler as defined by law and are classified as “other players.”
titus said | February 18th 2010 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Ah thanks OJ. I knew I missed something.
titus said | February 18th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
yes I think you are right. The only stipulation for the ‘tackler’ on his feet is to be in an onside position before he attacks the ball as not technically being a tackler, he can’t come in from ‘any angle’. I can see this happening mainly in front-on tackes though where these would be more likely.
I still find it odd that a player can perform a tackle but not be deemed a tackler and therefore all the laws that apply to the ‘tackler’ aren’t applicable to that player. No wonder the laws are confusing. It’s another distinction the refs have to look out for. I don’t envy you blokes.
Sam Taulelei said | February 18th 2010 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Titus you are correct and this is one part of the law governing the breakdown that is difficult for players to adhere to as it’s unnatural to a players instincts. A tackler who remains on their feet after tackling a player to the ground must also bring at least one knee to the ground to be classed as a legal tackler before they can contest possession. Paul Honiss also wrote a column on this following a Tri Nations test last year where Conrad Smith was penalised for tackling a player, remaining on his feet, retreating to an onside position and winning the ball at the breakdown and was completely confused as to what he had done wrong.
titus said | February 18th 2010 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Sounds like Conrad did the right thing. Any idea where I can find that Paul Honiss article?
MattyP said | February 18th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
The rule copied by OJ above is the pertinent one. The rule requiring a tackler to be pleased and allowing them to place the ball applies to all defenders whether they are tacklers (ie off their feet) or other players staying on their feet. The relevance of being a tackler is tacklers once they have released the ball and are on the feet can play the ball from any direction prior to a ruck forming.
Justin said | February 18th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
There are no new “laws”, we dont have “rules” fellas!
Its merely refereeing what already exists more tightly from what all the comms have been saying.
Grimmace said | February 18th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Great article Spiro,
Am I reading correctly- Stephen Jones has written something positive?!? I need to lie down
soapit said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
stillmissit
one thing i wasnt sure about is the situation where a player manages to make a tackle without going off his feet. from what you are saying he must release the player but can then attack the ball immediately. in reality it doesnt happen that often but its a situation where i can see (and did see on the weekend) players being penalised for staying in the ruck but were still on their feet.
i think these new directions are a really positive step but i think with all the subtle changes over the years not to mention the complexities of your average ruck in the first place a statement should be issued about the current complete rules regarding the ruck so fans and players know exactly where they stand in each possible situation. without this it remains a bit of a mess tho the game will probably chug along pretty well for 95% of the time. just the 5% situations that will confuse everyone.
I’ve been a player/fan for 15 yrs now and i knew the rules when i started playing but i’d hesitate to explain exactly what the rules now are to a young player/fan.
communication should really be the easy part but is also easily forgotten.
stillmissit said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Soapit – The law has always been that if you are not the tackler ie only brought the player to ground (remained on your feet) you are offside if you don’t retire behind the offside line of the ruck or player on the ground.
Peter K said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
stillmissit – No new laws, just correctly enforcing exisiting ones.
Refs have done this at lower levels anyway. Just at professional level refs get into trouble for so many penalties so they historically have been encouraged to ignore many laws unless very blatent infraction.
\
Finally at s14 they are saying, no enforce them and keep penalising. I notice in SA colums some whinging re the number of penalties.
In the NH they are still not enforcing tackler releasing and hence slowing the ball down is easier.
The other mainly ignored law was pillars and defense offside near the ruck not being behind the last feet. Glad this too is being enforced.
ThelmaWrites said | February 18th 2010 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Peter K
For almost a quarter of a year now, I’ve been trying to find out about pillar/post/key. (When I googled it, most of the time I got firms selling fencing material. It was mentioned off-hand in two rugby club websites.) Hoy mentioned it in a post in reply to me. I would be very grateful if you would enlighten me? It would add to my enjoyment of rugby!
stillmissit said | February 19th 2010 @ 7:32am | Report comment
ThelmaW – I am surprised that nobody has given you a short answer.
Don’t be offended but I am assuming you do not understand why we have pillars and posts and what there job is.
P&P’s are the first follow up players after the opposition has secured the ball at the ruck. They stand either side of the ruck and protect the close in area against forwards grabbing some metres. It is an important position as prior to using them it was easy to attack close to the ruck and a few tries came from players not being able to stop forwards from driving over the touch line.
Every body in the team must be able to take up this position if they arrive at the breakdown at the correct time ie there forwards have attacked the ruck and not been able to get a turn over or the opposition has the ball under tight control and pillar and post is the logical position.
Regarding the rule interpretations this year P&P’s must now be onside ie feet behing rearmost feet in the ruck. In S14 and some internationals they were allowed to be slightly offside and I have seen them more than a metre offside.
The problem with P&P is that it does allow for some loafing by forwards. This is because they must make a decision when they get to the ruck whether to attack it or decide it is ‘all over’. You will see this laziness often if you watch for it. Australia under Eddie Jones almost never competed on the oppositions take into the breakdown as he preferred to stack the defences with 13 players ie P&Ps only missing players in the D.
If you want to see examples of how bad we were just look at the England V Australia game in the French World Cup where we were blown away by a bunch of second rate footballers totally committed to the breakdown. Another example would be the shameful game in Wellington last year where again we loafed at the breakdown and the AB’s blew us away.
It is a very interesting situation the breakdown and how you defend and attack it. Very complicated and technically demanding. SA is about the best in the world at it at the moment but it has been an area where the AB’s have dominated.
Hope this helps and doesn’t confuse. Others may wish to add to this explanation as I didnt refer to my manuals etc.
ThelmaWrites said | February 19th 2010 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Stillmissit
Thank you very much for explaining pillar/post. I’m saving your reply (as well as some of the other posts) so I can read it from time to time. No, I’m not offended. For seven months, my ignorance was bugging me. A lot of my enjoyment of sports revolves on understanding the tactics. Blame it on American football; I caught the bug when I was doing grad school in the US. I enjoy the exactness of refereeing, including the latest, the coach’s challenge. (I watched the SuperBowl twice.) Similarly, my enjoyment of rugby relies on my understanding of what’s going on. My kids gave me Gordon Bray’s book on the laws of the game for Christmas way back in the ‘90s. The other year, I was about to buy the latest compilation, but I had budgeted only on buying Matt Burke’s autobiography as a birthday gift for my daughter.
So I’ll be looking closely for pillars and posts!!! And get my DVD/
VCR fixed (or buy a new one) so I can watch the tests which you mentioned.
I’m elated that there is this coordinated effort to enforce the laws at the break-down. Whew, I was beginning to sound like a broken record.
ThelmaWrites said | February 19th 2010 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
Dear Editors
I’m really sounding like a broken record, but….my comment is “awaiting moderation” again. Can you fix it please?