A tick for the Stellenbosch Laws

Rugby Union has to realise that what it wants- exciting and attacking football can be found in the other rugby code- league. Although league has all but eliminated the contestion for possesion- who cares- can anyone see the entertainment in a ruck or maul- no. The turnover aspect of the contestion of possesion- the reason i assume rugby union has kept it all these years, has been eliminated as teams develop techniques and tactics to keep the ball for 20-30 phases- and i kid you not - i use the example of the Kiwis vs France Semi FInal- although they didnt win, on two occasions the All Blacks picked and drove for 25 phases- entertaining? NO!! It is time for all of rugbys old hard heads and traditionalists to realise that Rugby lEAGUE HAS developed a far superior spectator sport with more tries and a less unpredictable edge- by 2020 i fearlessly predict their will be one code of rugby, played under league rules with some watered down union aspects.

these new laws (if they work) will be excellent for the game, but in effect, are being put in place to create a more free flowing game of rugby... But i believe (and i am entitled to my own opinion) that the much simpler alternative of reducing the value of the penalty and drop goals would have been adequate.

Reading through previous comments only breifly, I cant help but notice that the deterent effect that a potential 3 points has for teams or players who would break the laws to gain an advantage, has not been adressed. Also not only kicking for goal but kicking for touch has also been removed by giving only short arm penalties for most infringements. Why not just remove the kick for goal option and still have the deterent of losing 50 meters to a good kicker? Under these new laws, if I am tackled and isolated there is absolutely no good reason for me to let go of the ball. It wont give the oppertunity for the opposition to kick 3 points, or even to kick for field position. All they get is a scrum, with a defensive line ready and set in front of them or a tap kick which gives my team more time to get back and line up in front of them than they would get if I let go. The laws should always provide a penalty severe enough that a player does not gain an advantage by breaking them.

The variation that allowed anything-goes in the ruck and maul, aside from offside and having to come in through the gate, was trialled and scrapped. To the best of my knowledge the Stellenbosch Laws maintain the present ruck and maul laws. I support the no-marking up variation in the lineout. And the variation that will allow the rolling maul to be pulled down. This won't stop mauling. But it will quicken it up. It will also remove the annoying business of allowing a maul to stop two times before the ball must be released or a scrum set. Most referees allow these slowly rolling mauls to stop about five times. I agree with the idea that the pause be eliminated. The props whould touch and immediately engage. And the halfback should immediately feed the scrum. This business of penalising a scrum for 'pushing over the mark' is ludicrous. How can a dominant scrum just stand still. Even worse, scrums that are being beaten just pulled back and win a penalty from referees who are clueless about how scrums work.

Good points and well made. I look forward to seeing if the new laws work out as planned. I hope they do but I have reservations about teams killing the ball at the breakdown. If hands in the ruck, lying all over the ball and collapsing mauls are now legal/short arm free kicks, then defensive teams aren't going to let the attackers use the ball in the way that we hope, they are going to slow the game down instaed, letting their defensive line reform whilst the opposition takes the free kick. I also wonder about the numbers in the line out rule. Why is this being done? the obvious result is that it will eliminate short lineouts in favour of full, forward stacked affairs. I know there will be no driving from the lineouts any more, but most quick backs ball comes from short line outs as there is less disruption, more space etc. Finally, the 'pause' part of the scrum engagement should be eliminated. this is where all the uncertainty occurs for scrum units (not just front rows, every one is waiting for the hit).

Julian's point are well-made. The complexity of the rugby laws is the basic reason why the starting point of the Stellenbosch Laws focusses on the need to remove as much subjectivity from the decision-making of the referees as possible, while retaining as far as possible the richness and the complexity of the laws. Allowing unlimited numbers in the lineouts and no necessity to mark up is a case in point. If the side with the ball decides on a short lineout and stacks its backline with forward-runners, the defending side may mark up in the backline, or, and I think this might become the norm, play its full coompement of forwards. There are at least wo reasons for this strategy: 1. the defending side has a greater chance of winning the lineout, or preventing a quick release. 2. the forwards are 10 metres closer to the stacked backline than the backs are. The important point is that the referee does not have to do a head count at the lineout. The law revision, if it comes in, makes rugby in this instance, an easier game to referee and a cleverer game to play.

Currently there are a huge number of laws that a referee needs to adjudicate on at the set pieces. Some are about safety, others are based on strong notions of what the game is about, while others are laws introduced to try and shape how the game should be played. It is the later that have proliferated as the game has speed up but also because of the superior fitness and size of the modern player (15 blokes just about all of whom are 100kg plus), and stronger defensive patterns. At the ruck and maul there any number of rules that could be invoked, and this is the maddening thing about rugby, it puts too much emphasis on the one person to set the tone of the match - the referee. Consider a ruck - does the referee ensure a fair contest for the ball or does he try to facilitate the ball coming out as soon as possible for more running play? If the first, does he let it go or rigorously enforce the laws around staying on your feet, coming in from directly behind, policing those not rucking from moving offside, does he police the attacking player for lying on the ball and not releasing, etc. And if the referee opts for the second, when will the defensive team get a chance at the ball and stop one-out running until the defence falls over exhausted and a try results (which is what the 10m rule did to rugby league). As you can see a tough job for the officials is then made tougher by the various philosophy's at play and the whim of the IRB to decide which philosophy to adopt each year. It for this reason that I'm not sure that adjusting the laws is the way to go and players like Richie McCaw and George Smith seem to get around them almost at will. The better solution is for teams to try and negate it by avoiding a ruck in attack as a matter of course. It is here that NZ have lept ahead of the rest of the world, and especially Australia. Because the All Black teams specialise in avoiding engaging in rucks whenever possible. "Off load always - always be in support, - no one-out running, or wasteful pick-'and-drive". Australia by contrast still have a strong vestage of the old Brumbie focussed mulit-phase play, with endless re-cycling until a gap opens. This stopped working with the arrival of the British and Irish Lions around 2001 and certainly neither the Blues nor the Crusaders, let alone the All Blacks play it. Defences are too alert and the chances of an infringement or knock on are just too high. It was painfully obvious at the end of the Jones era that the Wallabies were still trapped in that mode of play - especially when the team would believe they played well ("We had most of the possession and territory") and get beaten by 14 points through an inability to score with the ball, while the All Blacks would score quickly on turnover.

Terry - I think you are right about Jeff's idea on points for distance but I think Jeff is absolutely correct on the landslide of stoppages for injuries. Spiro - anything in Stellenbosch about this. I believe the constant breaks before set pieces for players who are injured is one of the biggest blights on the game. Unless there is foul play your inability to make it to a set piece should be an advantage to the attacking side. It's got a bit like under 7's where the Ref acts like Dad and makes sure everyone is okay before play can continue.

Sorry Jeff, but I can't agree. How does less points awarded the further a kick is situated away from the goal line encourage more try scoring? Yippee, a penalty inside the 10m, the defence is strong, so we'll take the kick and at least get 3 points instead of 5 .... doesn't seem to match up as you envisage it. What if a penalty is awarded inside the 10m but near the sideline? Is it further away from the goal line or further away from the posts? Methinks this would create greater complexity and confusion .... not really the way forward.

My two bobs worth Anything that speeds up the game and keeps it flowing has to be good. Modifying the rules a la Stellenbosch has a lot of merit and support as indicated in this debate, but the pedantic interperetation by referees will be a major inhibior even with Stellenbosh I predict.. How many times have refs stoped a quick free kick because it was 2 millimeters short of where the offence took place (in his opinion) and lines outs have been slowed down because he hadn't blown time on and so on, or he wants to stop the game completely to say in a school ma'am-ish way, "you're a very naughty boy and I might have to slap your legs" to some hulking forward who has just attempted to crush an opponents skull like a sparrow's egg with his boot. Either send him off or let the game flow, don't piss about. Also there is far too much time off for injuries... this is a major blight on the game, they should continue to play and if the player wants treatment he goes off and gets it unless it is very serious incident. And finally on the subject of kicking, IMHO the points for kicking of penalties and drop goals should depend on where the kick is taken from. The further away the LESS the points. So for penalties, if it is inside your own half, 1 point, if it is between the halfway and the 10 meter line, 2 points inside that, 3 points. For drop goals the same idea, but no points if it is from inside yor own half- in which case why do it, 1 for between the half and the 10, and 2 if closer. This way teams are encouraged to always go for tries. That's my forts anyway.

My 10 cents worth: 1. Agree with Spiro et al the drop goal should be worth less but I'd pull it back to 1 point. It should grab or break a draw in the dying minutes - not set up dull teams for grinding victories from the opening minutes. 2. Agree kicking out on the full should not be rewarded behing the 22. Would add though that this currently only benefits teams with monster kickers - smart teams like the Crusaders have long realised the deep kick down field gives the ball back to the opposition on their 10m mark or further back (if well executed) whereas the average kick from behind the 22 usually gives the ball back to the opposition via a lineout in ones own half or worse. 3. Australian rugby is cyclicaly weak, stretched by 4 S14 teams, suffering from poor management and lack of tough decision making since 2003, further hit by a horrendous injury toll and suffering from a weak club feeder system. Rugby as a game is not the major problem - the Sharks, Crusaders, Blues, Brumbies and Chiefs recently, Highlanders, Lions, Force and Canes at times have managed to play some fine rugby. It's the style of the Tahs and Reds, historically the strength of Aussie rugby, that is damaging the game on the East Coast. Those who blame the game in my opinion aren't watching the right teams play it. 4. The new scrum laws don't work and should be repealed immediately - they are more dangerous than the old ones. Blind Freddy can see the disruption caused by the inconsistent timing of the ridiculous "...pause...engage". Scrums are being wound up too tight, in particular by the SA refs who take an eternity to go through the motions. The kiwi refs seem to get quicker and smoother rythmn - but it's still a shambles. Ironically saying "pause" is supposed to generate a pause but the refs actually pause before and after they say "pause" - what is that a silent pause followed by a vocal "pause" followed by another silent pause??? They should not have a gap - maybe they should say "crouchtouchnowI'mgoingtopauseandnowyoucanengage" in one unbroken smooth sentence! The whole fiasco smells like a recomendation from a third tier management consultant fresh from an MBA from an outback NSW business school!

Dan, all the points you make are valid. The Stellenbosch Laws are more exhaustive than I had space to detail. For instance, they require the corner post to be moved from the sideline to a metre or so away, like the other posts on the 22ms and 50m mark. This is a small but profound change, in favour of attacking sides, and also in achieving rulings from referees that are objective rather than subjective. Referees and video referees will no longer have to work out whether a player touched the corner flag before he scored or not. They will only have to decide whether a part of his body was on the line or over before the ball is grounded. I asked Rod Macqueen to do something about one of my favourite (not) illogical and time-wasteing laws. When the ball is feed incorrectly into the scrum, the penalty is a tap kick. But when it is thrown incorrectly into a lineout, a much more difficult re-start, the penalty is a scrum feed to the opposition. There is no logic in this. Having banged on about it for years I'm hoping that Rod Macqueen and the Stellenbosch Laws team finally make the penalty a tap-kick or the option for the defending side of a lineout.

Why don 't we step back and consider all the 'revolutionary' law changes over a longer period. I'm not an expert and will miss many but here goes. No kicking out on the full except between 22's, ten metres back from the lineout for those not in it, all forwrda bound in the scrum till the ball is out, lifting in the lineout, differential penalties, i.e free kicks, (NOT' bent arms and straight arms), yellow card sin-binnings, tinkerings with scrum laws, tackled ball rules, including various definitions of 'dangerous" placing the ball and not having it held for conversions, grounding the ball, and so on. Make your own additions but remember how many were going to revolutionise the game, make it faster/safer/more exciting, etc. All teams not profitting have found ways to nullify and advantages, so law-makers will always be trying again. Spiro-you'll remenber who said, probably in French, the more things change the more they remain the same.

Julian Evans, Agree with your observations re your last post. You sure you weren't reading my thoughts? No need to add anymore at this point.

Terry, Another view is that unlike the Kiwis, we either lack the confidence, or the players, probably both, to play the game as we see it. The Kiwis don't seem to worry about the laws, & I don't say that unkindly. They (Kiwis) inately know they have the quality of players, & skill level, to improvise, adapt & overcome. Aussies currently don't! Spiro, With respect to pointscoring, I think it's about right at the moment - 5 for try, 2 for conversation, 3 for penalty, & 3 for drop. Would accept drop goals being reduced to 2 points.

Spiros, re : "2. I am opposed to all shots at goal being awarded one point only. I believe that cynical and illegal play needs the discipline of a potential 3-point punishment" I agree but if the team that was fouled was given guaranteed possession down field (see league) it would promote more running… 1 point is still enough to break a dead lock etc but not enough for someone to base their ‘attacking’ game around it.

Sheek, I agree that it will recover, the question is to what level. Rugby had its biggest opening to a wider audience after the 2003 World Cup - the efforts of our team to make the final and take it to extra time, when the forward pack was laughable and England had the finest collective group of forwards (including those who didn't even make the touring squad), enthralled the Australian public. So how did rugby fall so far in 3-4 years and what happened to the $millions in surplus from the RWC?. My answer is that the Brumbies largely held Australian Rugby up, especially after Rod McQueen left. Thus the competition for the existing players, rather than growing the pool, which the introduction of the brumbies caused, just weakened the provinces. Yes we will get back and the extra team will strengthen us. However, we will do it sooner if we: 1) stop wasting resources chasing league players, who can only play in the outside backs; and 2) establish a high performance forward-finishing school unit, preferably in Western Sydney. One area where league has it over RU is getting young talented athletes on contracts at 14-17 years old, and putting them on programs to get them first-grade ready at earlier ages. Our weakest area is the tight 5, particularly the front row. Unless we establish such a finishing school, and attract young players earlier, we will always be behind not only NZ, but England and SA. Club rugby, which did this admirably in the past, just doesn't have the resources to do it now, especially when league has so many rich clubs to pay for the development of players - there's no salary cap on junior development.

Well said Sheek, that is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier .... Oz players seem to be waiting for the opposition to make mistakes and the ref to 'gift' them the game, rather than playing rugby aimed at winning the game. Maybe they are 'ref shy' .... too scared of trying something for fear the ref will blow the pea out of his whistle? I have only seen one glaring example of this so far this season ... Matt Goodard 'blew' the Reds out of a second half and lightened Eddie's wallet. I too agree that the drop goal is currently worth too much, 2 points or even 1 point is enough. Why should un-enterprising rugby be rewarded with 3 points when enterprising rugby (a try) is only rewarded with 5 points?

Matta, great comments on the scrum. Few props become referees, & fewer still have a say in the lawmaking. No wonder the lawmakers have little idea about the scrum. Julian Evans, introducing the Force was absolutely necessary. Although it has had the effect of diluting the strength of individual Aussie provinces. However, bear in mind, there is the equivalent of a provincial squad of Aussie players plying their trade overseas. Many got sick of waiting for the 4th province to happen. I agree, the 4th province should have happened sooner, about 2001-02. Australian Rugby will eventually get back on its feet. Just why was it allowed to freefall so far so quickly, in 3-4 short years? Re the Stellenbosch laws, hopefully it will help the game. I can't understand the amateur attitude of rugby lingering. We're in the entertainment industry, whether we like it or not. Every sport should be streamlining its rules/laws to allow players to showcase the sport to its maximum potential. When watching Australian Rugby, I get the impression the players are more concerned about what the ref is going to do, than trying to play constructive Rugby themselves. No sport, or individual players, can excel in such a restrictive environment.

I'd like to make two further points about the interesting and informed discussion of the Stellenbosch Laws. 1. I think consideration should be given to stopping the clock after say 30 seconds from the awarding of a penalty, until it is taken, and for scrums and lineouts in the same way. The clock should then be restarted when the play begins. My guess is that this would add a further couple of minutes to real play. The more real play there is, the more aerobic energy the players need and the greater possibility of fast, skilful players getting a chance to run the ball. I believe kickers are given 40 seconds to make their shots. My guess is that many kicks at goal take far more time than this to be completed. The same goes for scrums, particularly with the new mantra of 'crouch, touch, engage' being required. 2. I am opposed to all shots at goal being awarded one point only. I believe that cynical and illegal play needs the discipline of a potential 3-point punishment. Under the Stellenbosch Laws it is only offside, foul play and not coming through the gate at rucks and mauls that get the long-arm penalty. There should be fewer kicks at goal from penalties. But the punishment for what is major negative play remains sufficiently punitive as to discourage it. This discouragement should, in turn, allow play to be more open. I would advocate, though, that the drop-goal be reduced to two points like the conversion. I belong to a generation, now alas in its anecdotage, that played in an era when the drop-goal was worth four-points. The continuing high value of the drop-goal is one of the last vestiges of the laws and practices of rugby when it was seen more as a 'foot-ball' type of game rather than a 'handling-ball' game it was evolved into. This era of 'rugby football' lasted from 1861 with the first laws through to about the 1970s.