Well, rugby lovers, this question will finally be answered on the May 13 when a definitive decision on the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) will be reached. And not a day too soon.
We are currently playing numerous versions of the game around the globe: one set of laws for Super 14, another for the Six Nations, another for the Guinness Premiership, Magner’s League and French Top 14, and another for Japanese Top League.
You get the point.
Isn’t it time we finally give the game one set of laws? That is easier said than done.
On one hand we have the game being pushed to become more ‘entertaining’, a greater spectacle for the viewer who might take to the faster, more open, less technical versions; where tries and line breaks are in some cases seen as more appealing than the games’ end result.
Is it financial, match revenue, corporate interest, merchandise sales and so on that drives this agenda? Or is it a genuine desire to see the game played in a less conservative fashion?
While, on the other hand, rugby traditionalists are desperately trying to protect the fabric of the game, the heart of what truly makes our game unique.
Yes, it’s more technical and at times a little slower when the clock ticks as teams do battle at set-piece, but it’s still rife with strategy and tactical precision.
Is it fear of change, evolution and the not knowing with certainty what the outcome of competing under the ELV’s might be? Or is it that the importance of the games’ integrity runs so deeply in the veins of rugby lovers globally that change is incomprehensible?
Can we satisfy both?
In my opinion, our game has the ability to evolve without risk of eroding either the tradition or uniqueness that makes rugby what it is: a game for all shapes and sizes, contested with tactics, strategy and skill amidst physical confrontation.
Recent reports from the two-day conference in London revealed that the International Rugby Board (IRB) has made recommendations that 10 of the 13 current ELVs being trialed in the Southern Hemisphere should be permanently included into the sports’ law book.
It is, however, the other three that will cause the most resistance.
The rugby world appears split in this debate by hemispheres, with the South urging more for the inclusion of the entire ELVs, while the North would be happy with none, or just the more cosmetic laws with little tangible effect on the game, such as changing touch judges to assistant referees, corner post no longer touch in-goal, or lifting in lineouts ‘officially’ allowed.
Where the law-makers will find the most resistance is with:
1. The sanctions for ruck infringements
2. Collapsing the maul; and
3. Lineout number
as these will have the greatest effect on the direction of our game going forward.
I am currently coaching in Japan, where all infringements – free-kicks (short arm) or penalties (full arms) – inevitably result in a quick tap followed soon thereafter by an error. A coaches’ nightmare, I can tell you.
This aside, I do see merit in the sanctioning of free-kicks for ruck infringements to encourage speed of play and increased ‘ball in hand’ strategies.
The success of this in the short term, however, will no doubt come down to how it is managed by the whistle blowers as, if they are too quick to shoot, teams will play under the banner of ‘better off playing without the ball’, which inevitably will result in a kick-fest for territory control.
Being an attack and backs coach, I must plea to the rugby gods to outlaw the legal collapsing of the maul. It might appear strange on the surface that I would make such a statement, but it’s simple.
An effective maul attacks defenders to repel its forward momentum, hence taking defenders out of the defence line and creating space to attack with ‘ball in hand’.
Here we satisfy the ‘traditionalist’ up North and the ‘entertainers’ of the South.
Simple, isn’t it?
Without entering into the realm of encouraging more kicking, the 22m law in relation to ‘kicking directly into touch from ball played back into the 22 equals no gain in ground’ does promote the ball being kept in play, as opposed to simply being kicked into the ’cheap seats’.
As we adjust, adapt and gain a greater understanding of ways to use this law, coaches and players will become more innovative.
Counter-attacking options and variations will be implemented, as opposed to simply kicking back. Thus more ‘ball in hand’ and teams who kick aimlessly will be punished.
However, It would also be fair to say that as oppositions take pressure out of the front defensive line to resource their back field for these counter attack opportunities, teams could elect to run to get the advantage.
Here lies the true essence of our game: a battle of strategic contests.
So on May 13, our law makers will decide whether we take the game along the less traveled road ahead or the well-trodden road behind. Either way, I assure you, the game will survive.
The original rational for the ELVs was to breathe attacking life into rugby, and evolve it from the defensive dominated condition that had engulfed world rugby.
The ten proposed ELVs to be permanently incorporated into the games’ law book:
Law 6 – ‘assistant referees’ as opposed to the previous title of ‘touch judges’.
Law 19 – lifting in the lineout allowed.
Law 19 – positioning of receiver must be two metres away from lineout.
Law 19 – pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed.
Law 22 – corner posts no longer touch in goal.
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into the 22 equals no gain in ground.
Law 19 – Quick (lineout) throw permitted in any direction except forward.
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch.
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the scrum.
Law 20 – Scrum-half offside line at the scrum.
Shannon Fraser is the former Waratahs Kicking Coach and Fiji RWC Backs Coach
Roger
Guest
Hi Frase, MOB012 here...nice article.
Derm
Roar Guru
Update on one of my earlier comments, which I've mentioned in another thread. Robbie Deans made comments to Rugby Heaven to the effect that the sanctions Law may get resolved before end of year, with a better mix of what incidents merit free-kick and which merit full penalty. He admits that the current ratio is wrong and on average out of 24 penalty/free-kick awards in a match - 17 are for free kicks and 7 for full penalties. He said a better balance would be to reverse this for what he described would be a 'perfect game' and that practically everyone NH/SH was in agreement on this. Let's wait and see.
Derm
Roar Guru
Interesting points, Katipo - nicely put. The instinct in TV is to always 'get close to the action', when in fact, an appreciation of the tactical and strategic nature of rugby union, is better served by overviews, and or accompanying graphic analysis. Of the TV coverage, I've seen, Sky Sports in UK does a good job on some of this analysis, but it sometimes comes down to the TV camera positions that they have available. The Millenium Stadium, for example, has cameras on track wires above the pitch and these are able to provide superb 'birds-eye' views of the pitch showing the stance and positioning of players at particular times. It's an angle that I wish was used more often.
Katipo
Guest
Thanks for the article Shannon. Check something for me next time you watch a game of rugby on TV. Would you check how often you can see the attacking and defensive back lines while the ball is in play? I like to see what is happening off the ball to get a sense of the strategy and tactics of a game. TV coverage tends to pull in tight that this 'context' is lost. Often the view is so tight on a break down that the half passes the ball off the side of my TV monitor. I can't even see who the ball is going to be passed to let alone get a sense of the options available for him with the rest of the back line or the defense. As a result of this poor TV coverage, and so much video analysis, rugby has lost sight of its chess-like strategic contest and so have the viewers. This is really IMPORTANT and it's missed by the majority: Rugby doesn't televise well because the TV coverage is poor, not because of the rules. Rugby has tried to change its rules to make it more viewer friendly when the pressure should be on the broadcasters to provide more interesting coverage. In comparison, when the ball isn't in play in NFL and cricket - sports that are much more long winded than rugby - the broadcasters provide the entertainment. Over the years I have watched a lot of rugby and seen many dull rugby matches with moments of greatness. Many great tries were scored direct from set-pieces never more than 2 or 3 phases yet 10 players touch the ball. Try! Fantastic! It is the anticipation of those moments of greatness that keeps me watching. Due to the poor job that broadcasters are doing in telling audiences rugby's strategic story rugby has compensated by trying to keep the ball in play more continuously. Now we often see 7+ phases but no try scored at the end. There are less 'lows' for the viewer but the highs have got lower too. Keeping the ball in play actually reduces the appeal of the sport. (We need to get our heads around that... give it some thought). Here is an alternative...take a leaf out of NFL and crickets TV coverage book. When the play stops TV should show entertain the viewers. For example, replay scoring highlights. Then the commentators could set the scene for the next play, talk us through the possible attacking options etc while the players set up, instead of complaining negatively about the referee or dwelling on confusion at the breakdown. There are many different world views about rugby and what makes it a good sport. I think we need to look beyond the rules. I reckon that the game itself is OK. It needs 'tweeking' but it is the TV coverage that is the real problem. Remember, rugby is in the business of sport while TV broadcasters are in the entertainment business. It's not rugby's job to entertain viewers it is the broadcasters job. This I think has been misunderstood by many rugby administrators and it's causing all sorts of problems.
Craig Johanson
Guest
Personally I think the implementation has been done in such a hodge podge way that the results were never going to be conclusive. Several of the rules are designed to work with each other and half of them have not been implemented so how can we get a proper view of the changes? It takes time for teams to adjust to the changes, develop their skills and work out new tactics. The numbers in the line out I understand is not the best rule as it fails to allow a team to apply tactics, by soaking up the opposition forwards or not, to set moves. I believe it was an attempt to simplify penalties being awarded at line outtime however so perhaps it missed the mark. The collapsing of the rolling maul I think is a great rule. It allows much better competition for the ball and gives the defending teams a way to combat it. It also rewards teams who have the technique to still use the maul and we have seen several great tries come from rolling mauls in the Super 14. Interestingly enough, I believe the abolishing of the truck and trailer rule (ELV rule #27), was meant to work in conjunction with the collapsing of the maul so it's a shame we haven't seen this implemented. It's a shame the IRB didn't apply all rules to all levels of the game since the last world cup, have it run for the next 4 years and in the next world cup. You've have consistancy at all levels, good and thorough feed back and be able to make a proper decision for the next 4 year period if there needed to be any changes made.
Derm
Roar Guru
I hadn't realised that there was one set of Laws for the S14, another for the 6 Nations, yet another for the GP, Magners and Top 14, and then yet another for the Japanese Top League apparently. Obviously I missed something that Mr Fraser has spotted. And there I was thinking there was just a Global Trial of Experimental Laws and a derogation for the S14 and 3N comps which allowed them to continue to trial the sanctions ELV. Let's get the logic and facts on this straight. The Laws of the Game are already established and set down. ELVs are being proposed to change or amend those Laws. Maybe Mr Fraser is not aware of it, but the "10 of the 13 current ELVs being trialed in the Southern Hemisphere" as he puts it, are being trialled globally (unless something else is happening in Japan that I'm not aware of). There are, as far as I'm aware, no differences in the ELVs being trialled globally. Teams/coaches may choose to interpret them differently, or decide how their team should play them, but the ELVs are the same. The additional Law around sanctions is still being trialled in S14 and 3 N comps, and at domestic level in SANZAR nations as far as I'm aware. A derogration was sought and granted by the IRB to do this during the Global Trial. Based on the Lensbury conference, 10 ELVs were recommended to the IRB for incorporation into the Laws of the Game. Based on the outcome of the conference, it is highly unlikely that the experimental Law allowing pulling down of the rolling maul will be passed, since it has met resistance from unions right across the board, not just NH unions as the writer attempts to assert. Making a plea to the Gods to outlaw an ELV sounds somewhat contradictory. It isn't set in stone, and more than likely, will not be, come August of this year. There was similar resistance by representatives to the ELV on lineout numbers by various unions, including representatives from SH unions. It was not supported by the majority of the unions present, and was not recommended to the IRB for incorporation. The ELV on free-kick sanctions was kicked into touch by the conference, stating that it needed further review. In all likelihood, though not definite, this review will happen some time away - probably after WC 2010. Some of its supporters, hope that the Law or a variant of it, may still get incorporated into the Laws before year end.