Rugby: Growth and Turmoil

Here's one question for those who think the game can be legislated into Nirvana: Is there anything about the new laws (whichever version is deployed--at the moment I think there are going to be three sets trialled in different competitions this coming season) which will prevent teams from playing a conservative disruptive game? After all, we only brought in wholesale changes to the laws (ie the use it or lose it philosophy) just over a decade ago. That was supposed to free up the game, make it more exciting, reward pace and skill, etc etc etc. You wouldn't know it if you read the whinging from some quarters down under about how boring the game is now and about only a change in the laws can rescue the game from oblivion. Players will always find a way of closing out a game and preventing the opposition from winning a tight one. For example, bowling the last ball of the game underarm. I don't think Greg Chappell was from Munster, do you?

Ian Noble i watched the HEC final and lost all respect for the monster ahem Munster.They played boring,fussy,messy,ugly non skilled Rugby and watched by an irish bandwagon alongside some classic Soccer play acting.

"When rugby went professional" 1895?

Garth Reading between the lines the IRB knew they were not going to succeed in getting approval to all the ELV's and they decided to take a vote on each one, hence the compromise. Personally I think the balance is about right and I shall watch the trial with interest, which looks as though it might be the EDF Anglo-Welsh cup with a pool stage followed by knock out. As for Munster, not really a surprise to me a classic HC team, bags of experience in the HC with an excellent pack and an improved back line with O'Gara on form and Howlett to provide the flair. With their frantical support they will give Toulouse a great game in the Final in Cardiff, can't wait to see these two teams go into battle. real war of attrition between two excellent packs with exciting backs on both sides. As for the supporters should be quite a contest to who wil be the loudest in the Millenium Stadium which is great stadium for atmosphere, particularly if they close the roof. If you get the chance soak up the atmosphere on your TV, presumably Setanta.

Dublin Dave, You make my point exactly. By including soccer in the discussion I was trying to add some meat to my argument that all sports do change. I have neither interest in nor any great knowledge of the beautiful game outside of what I pick up whilst flicking through the back 5 pages of the Metro each day. Incidentally this week's coverage of Ronaldo's dalliance with some overly masculine ladies of the night has been very enlightening. I would much prefer rugby's laws were changed in the incremental and progressive fashion that they have been in sports like soccer rather than the wholesale and idealistic fashion that is heralding the introduction of the ELVs. I personally see no reason why all of these ELVs need to be introduced at the same time (I would say 'if at all' but as I am still unsure about the ELVs I am happy to revert to the far better judgement of Spiro for now). Did the IRB consider trickling these rule changes in, one by one, over a period of say 5-8 years? Or was the vote simply a 'yes' or 'no' for or against the final cut? If it was the later then I would think the matter was very badly handled.

Garth, You can't liken the minor tinkering that soccer makes with its laws to the wholesale changes that rugby regularly makes. Soccers "Changes" are mostly to do with interpretation. Especially wrt the offside law. A player in an offside position deemed to be "not active" is merely a different interpretation and one more favourable to the attack than the traditional "not interfering with play" dispensation. Similarly the greater sympathy given to players at the receiving end of physical play is one of interpretation. It has had the effect of rewarding "Divers" rather than "physically imposing defenders" but diving was always in the game even in the old days. The only laws that have changed have been those regulating how a goalkeeper can play the ball, ie he can no longer handle a ball kicked back to him by a team mate and the number of steps he can take with the ball in his hands has been changed and rechanged so often I don't know what it is any more. But if soccer were to change its laws to the same degree as the ELVs will change rugby, then the administrators might consider the line of argument: "Why don't we just get rid of goalkeepers altogether? All they do is stop great goals from being scored!! It's goals that fans want to see. Only boring stodgy traditionalists would object"

Bradley - under the old rules for penalties, you may not have got the throw to the lineout but you did gain ground also. Unless the free kick is given in your own 22, there's no point kicking it out on the full as the lineout will be where the kick was made. Also, lineouts were more of a free for all before the rule was changed to give the team with the penalty the thrw. As there was no lifting, a team stood a better chance of winning opposition ball.

Jock, One of the greatest things about the roar is how many people who are genuinely interested about their sports of choice get to share their views. Your promise to your son is a good one and you are right to say that rugby has been damaged by previous law changes. I think you will be surprised to know that our opinions are not that different. My views are neither overly for the ELVs or against them. This year's NH season has produced some great rugby under the 'old' rules. Unfortunately it is the job of administrators to administrate. The laws of rugby will inevitably change as administrators seek to put their mark on the game and outside factors force change in the game. I think the best hope we have of maintaining the best parts of rugby in the game is by trying to influence these changes rather than to resist them. I see how this particular article can be perceived otherwise, but I have tried my best to express my caution at the introduction of the ELVs. I don't believe that this selection of ELVs should be brought in all at the same time. I passionately agree that the issue of consistant refereeing and refereeing that actually adheres to the laws of the game is a far more important issue than the development of the laws of the game as they stand. Further to your arguments about the allowance of hands in the ruck I would add that the removal of proper rucking from the game has done a lot to hurt the game. If I could change one law it would be to re-open rucking season. I have yet to find a more effective way of forcing the ball carrier to release the ball when he is on the ground. Ian, As always I look forward to your comments about NH rugby. I had written Sale off earlier in the season but they seem to be playing some good football now. I have Toulouse over Munster in the HK but then again I didn't expect Munster to make it this far. Ulysses, I am glad you I read your post. I agree that there was something of a stand off looming and that the resolution was relatively civilised.

Amigo and Garth, I am very thankful for your responses on the releasing the ball aspect though Garth I think that you are on the wrong track and Amigo is spot on. Grath, Your views are an indication of how Rugby has lost it's way-it amazes me that most people cannot see the damage that has been done to the game by allowing the tackled player to play the ball on the ground-as Amigo says it has turned the game into unlimited tackle league.It may be messy having to release the Ball but that is were the skill of teams of securing possession and committing to the breakdown comes in.AFL is messy but at it's best it is magical-soccer can be a little ordinary at times but look at the highs that game reaches. Rugby has been turned into a lowest common denominator junket. If a law was brought in where the tackled player had to release the ball and there was no restrictions on competition at the breakdown except for foul play the game would change in an instant. People like you Garth who have the means to influence should be pushing the game heirachy in this direction. I will be doing all that I can by continually writing and talking. I have promised my son that by the time he retires from Rugby the game will have been restored to it's former glory through forwards being able to enjoy the sheer joy of unhibited committment to the breakdown.

It seems that inconsistent refereeing is one of the biggest problems that rugby is facing nowadays. Taking a page, from the NHL, which changed it's rules quite a bit following the lock-out of the 2004-05 season, the league introduced referee seminars before the season. Basically, the league sat down all their referees and other officials and showed them tape of penalties and said "this is how we want you to call this penalty". Basically, getting everyone on the same page. I don't know why the GP, Magners League, Top 14, and SANZAR can't do the same.

Jock - could not agree with you more. In these debates - everyone seems to focus on the misdemenaours of defensive players , which is fair enough but it misses a major point. There has to be some incentive for the defensive side to commit bodies to the breakdown otherwise we basically have unlimited takcle rugby league . If the tackled player is forced to release the ball instanteanously once hitting the deck (which was normal in the 80´s and 90´s) there is more chance of a turnover, hence defences will commit to the breakdown. the result is that we either get a turnover or more space across the park for the attacking team to exploit (in other words a much more open game )

Garth Having seen Bath v Saracens perhaps you might understand why in the NH there is a reluctance to see too many changes to the union game. The free flowing game was obviously spectator friendly judging from the packed ground plus others taking every vantage point to watch the game and is indicative of the demand to watch rugby both on TV and at the ground in the NH. The following day I was at the Quins v Sale game, very different game, hard fought between two very committed teams, but the game was sold out two weeks before the game and there was a waiting list of 3000 for any returns. Compare that to S14 which seems to have run out of legs, with ARU and NZRU running around trying to agree a revamp to protect the income from TV, faced with TV audiences and spectators voting with their feet and hoping that the ELV's will provide the miracle cure. It is all rather pathetic which could be exacerbated if a NH country was to defeat either OZ or the AB's on home soil. The fundamental problem is that since the ELV's were first mooted in 2004, the game in the NH has moved on leaps and bounds, whilst in the SH it has gone backwards with an almost desparate need to find someway in which the game can become more spectator friendly. What is more telling to me is that when Nick Evans was thinking about moving to the NH, he spoke to fellow AB's who have made the move, namely Hayman,Mauger and Howlett. They all concured on how much they were enjoying their rugby, the intensity and the greater number of games they actually played in the NH. The game is flying in the NH and change as in any walk of life needs to be carefully managed. If the ELV's are to be trialled then the 13 chosen seems a sensible compromise and falls in line with many NH objectives at the outset of this exercise, with the exception of collapsing the maul which is considered to be dangerous in the NH.

I think the outcome of the ELVs is another sign of the overall health of the game you talk to Garth. It was written up beforehand as being a "death or glory" stand-off between the north and south. Instead we saw an intelligent and reasonable compromise between the stongly held views of the parties. Sure I would have personally liked to see the full package of laws implemented. And freekicks over penalties (and resulting kicks for penalty goal) are to be preferred. But I disagree that the ELVs are some perfect package unable to picked apart without losing all value. The approval of the "no pass back to the 22 for kick out on the full" rule is a BIG change for the better. How many more times must be the ball be effectively kept in play versus kicked out now in game - 10 or more? Easily. That makes a big difference. And as for the tackle/breakdown area - well I don't think it much matters what subtle laws are or are not in place. The ref can pretty well do what they want under any set of laws - just look how differently the game can look under the same laws with a different ref. There is a huge discretion for the ref at the breakdown - always will be under whatever set of laws are in place. That's rugby, like it, love it, or leave it.

On the ELV's the free kick ruling has resulted in teams taking quick taps or calling for a scrum cos if you kick the ball out you do not get a lineout, but remember back in the day when if you kick directly out with a penalty you still did not get the line out, teams did not take quick taps and scrums back then but they do now. The reason is because of the new line out laws of lifting etc have taken the contest out of the line out. Clearly one rule change has dramatic effects down the line now and in the future. Maybe the IRB should also be fixing the refereeing and not the laws

Eric, Thanks for the response. If you have a bit of a closer read you will I was actually refering to Loane's integrity not his intensity although I personally rate him pretty highly in both areas. Great players that both Gregan and Mortlock were, I do not believe that either will be remembered for their captaincy and leadership the way Loane is. I agree completely with your analysis of the current interpretation amongst referees about 'diving over the ball'. This weekend I watched Bath destroy Saracens and the referee in that match seemed completely oblivious to numerous incidents of players throwing themselves into the ruck with no intention of staying on their feet. Jock, The only thing that has stayed the same about the game of rugby down the years is that it has always changed. Sometimes the changes were in the laws, sometimes in the interpretation of those laws by teams and referees. Rugby can and will continue to grow and change. My argument is that the management of that change needs to be handled a bit better than it is now. By the way Tennis, Golf and Soccer have all changed. The introduction of the 'electronic umpire' in tennis and the massive change that occured with the increased technology incorporated in raquets. Only last year there were a raft of rule changes to the game of golf from the Royal and Ancient golf club that is effectively the game's governing body. I believe soccer introduced its last lot of rule changes in 2004/5.

Jock, Obviously you didn't see the Force v Chiefs game. An unbelievable final 15 minutes or so to cap a great match. Nor could you have seen that Highlanders v Cheetahs, where the H'lander flanker, pinched the ball, ran 50 meters, gave a great flick pass when cornered, then backed up to run the last 20 meters, with nothing but will power driving those big legs. It was fantastic.

Ok Jock, but at the moment a player is not "tackled" until he hits the ground. You want the attacker to release before he is tackled or you change the definition of "tackled". Consider the senario where a ball carrier also carries a tackler or two over the tryline to score a try. You're suggesting the try scorer must release the ball before he hits the ground, so that means try scorers have to score untouched and can't even dive for a try! Also, consider smother tackles. When must the tackler release the ball carrier to allow him to release the ball. I don't think your suggestion is the way to create a breakdown contest. You are wanting a contest at the breakdown, but on the other hand you admire the way the Kiwis developed the art of ball retention, starting with John Hart and Auckland in the mid 80's, and thence to the All Blacks. Mate, once they got the ball, no-one could get it back, and not for lack of committment. It was technique.

Roger, AFL and Soccer and Test Cricket can be boring but the potential for breathtaking beauty is unlimited,That is where Rugby has lost it because now it has been reduced to a lowest common denominator sport. The higher the level of Rugby before the corporates got hold of it the greater the potential. I cannot believe that more so called experts have not picked up the fact that playing the ball on the ground is a disaster. When players have to release they either stay on their feet,take another option or require their team mates to drive in on the ball in support. The effect of the up and under has been nullifies because the catcher can play the ball on the ground. Can someone organise a match where players have to release-you watch,they would soon learn how to roll in a tackle,or to stand and set up a maul.

Good sentmients Jock, but if players are required to release the ball before the hit the ground, wont it be a little messy and start resembling AFL where they release the ball upon contact? I think that if refs start sin binning players straight away who fall on the wrong side of the ruck between ball and halfback, players will soon leanr some tough lessons.

At last a response. The tackled player must release the ball before he makes contact with the ground. If this was made a law the game would change overnight-it is basically the crux of Rugby's woes. Organise an exhibition game and try it-trust me it will make a huge difference-the defence will have a fighting chance of getting the ball and the attacking side will have to be a lot more committed to secure possession-that is what Rugby was like in the old days-the Kiwis were the masters of committment and urgency.