“The choreographed pursuit of kickable penalties.” That is distinguished English rugby commentator Paul Hayward’s elegant definition of what we lesser talents call Whistle Ball, “the game of organising the ref into blowing his whistle within a specific 40 percent or so of the grass.”
Writing in The Guardian, Hayward describes Whistle Ball specialists England as spiritually paralysed.
He goes on to praise “the run, the surge, the feint, the sidestep, the flow of ball from hand to hand.”
Could be an ad for Real Rugby.
Real Rugby, you will know (if paying attention), is the pursuit of tries, conversions and drop goals.
In the 14-game, just-finished season (Tri-Nations, Bledisloe and Spring Tour) Whistle Ball on 303 beat Real Rugby 279.
The 303 came of course from over a century of penalty goals. The 279 was from everything else.
This change of heart by Hayward may have been influenced by the Twickenham booing of England’s all-kicking game.
Or the recent embarrassing defeats of the Whistle Ball experts, England, France and South Africa.
Or perhaps All Blacks coach Graham Henry’s description of Whistle Ball as tennis, his support for the full ELVs, and his proposals to give twenty metres for clean marks and only one point for penalty goals.
Henry has also commented along the general lines that while a city as large as London might produce enough hard-wired Whistle Ball buffs to fill a stadium, the same cannot be said of Auckland and Wellington, let alone the likes of Rotorua, Christchurch and Dunedin, the heartland of the world’s best rugby.
We could probably add most Australian cities.
Henry has also commented along the lines that modern balls (and one might add, modern fitness and training) enable players to boot such massive distances that it has changed the game from its original character.
His current proposals flow in part from the size of grounds inhibiting expansion of the field of play.
The temporary negative entity called Whistle Ball will never kill the permanent positive entity called Real Rugby but it is doing its best.
Exhorting the coaches is not the answer. Changing the laws is.
Gatesy
Guest
Henry was right - if we still had the old leather ball, getting nice and wet and soapy and heavy as the game progressed, how much of the current type of kicking do you reckon we'd be seeing? Most of the current prima donnas would have very sore feet and ankles by the end of a game
Matt
Guest
Is there a way of achieving what rucking did but without the boots on body? Rucking meant that teams stayed on their feet and virtually ran over the tackler and tackled player, effectively requiring teams to commit forwards to the ruck in order to 'blow over' the ball. That goal of rucking would be to allow attacking teams fast recycled ball and to force teams to commit more players to the ruck to creat space for the backs. Surely this is the case? So why can't their be a similar law set to achieve what rucking does, just without the hard to sell boots on bodies? Maybe make it that the tackler has no rights to the ball unless they get back onside and are through the gate. Or is the issue that players aren't rolling away? Or could you take two flankers off the scrum so there is more space to attack and less players to slow down ruck ball and force turnovers? I'd like to see both options trialled.
Matt
Guest
The reason that teams like Man U, Chelsea and the Aussie Cricket team are/were so successful is because they have a team of superstars who tend to be a cut above the opposition individually. The issue is not that coaches are conservative by nature, it is that to beat a team who have better players than you the best option is to not play at all, just let them make mistakes and kick the goals. That is the issue I have with the laws, that they give inferior teams with limited skill sets the advantage when it comes to winning. The fans of inferior teams will take the win anyday compared to the superior skilled teams who's fans demand that they win with style.
Ian Noble
Guest
Tim Yep of course it has to be part of a package but I would still argue that coaches have a big influence on the game and the pressures of professional sport dictate probably more how they play the game. Are they confident enough to allow the players to express themselves or is it a case of safety first? Are players overcoached? Of course, I realise the present difficullties at the breakdown but there are teams who seem to be able to overcome the problem without compromising on their style of play. As for the refs, all teams analysis the past performance of the refs before a game, take note of the manner of their game management indeed as we do as supporters. I always look forward to games reffed by Owen, Berdos, Barnes, Dickinson, Rolland amongst others because I know that where ever possible they will allow a game to flow. Ok they may make mistakes but they have the confidence to appreciate that players and fans have not come to hear the tone of the ref's whistle!!
MattyP
Guest
Bring back rucking!
Tim O'Connor
Guest
Ian; it would have to be a package. The problem is, we know from experience, from everything we've seen, from the way that refs bottle out of cards even now, that there's more chance of Santa delivering that package than the refs. And if you only get half the package, it's worse than it would be now. This happened before, remember. When the try was first increased to five points, teams gave away penalties left, right, and centre instead of tries. And won as a result. Net result was the introduction of the sin-bin to deal with that. The best way to change it is to change the percentages for a team. At the moment, it's not to try to score tries because the chances of being turned over are so high. That's not the result of the old laws, or the ELVs. It's the result of Paddy O'Brien unilaterally deciding he wanted to say the law on hands in the ruck wouldn't apply. Not passed as a law, just a "ruling", all because Paddy threw toys. Get rid of that, and crack down on teams going off their feet, suddenly you have counter-rucking, teams on their feet, and it being worthwhile taking the ball into contact to set up attacks. We were getting there last season in the NH with all of those. The simple change has been that idiot ruling from Paddy, and it's killed everything since then. Get rid of that, and you're half-way there already.
Ian Noble
Guest
On another thread I argued that the coaches dictate the style of play of any teams regardlesss of the rules and I compared the styles of Quins against the Saracens, who incidently are currently top of the GP in England. As Nick Easter of Quins recently remarked "It's been dull, hasn't it, and the players were getting bored, Chasing a ball back and forth in the skies is not why I signed up to be a professional player. We're using our strike-runners at Quins and it appears to be paying off." In the last three games Quins have scored 9 tries and have averaged over 30 points a game after a very average start. The coaches together with the players have made the difference. I am firmly convinced it is the approach of the coaches and their confidence in the players to create a expansive game that has a bigger impact. If the coaches are lacking confidence their immediate reaction will be defensive, yet I have always maintain that attack is the best form of defence. In other sports look at Man U, Chelsea in football, the Aussie cricket team over the last few years. why are these teams so successful? Because they take the attack to the opposition, rules don't change a mindset!
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Tim O'Connor, Its a package. Deal with it. Alternatively, cope with an inferior version of Australian Rules.
Tim O'Connor
Guest
Yup, make penalties worth one point. And then see what happens. Every blindside in creation will kill the ball, dead, and give away a penalty worth one point instead of a try worth seven. You'll never see a try again. And don't tell me the refs will card them. Because they won't. We know they won't. They didn't under the ELVs, when their refusal to card was one of the biggest problems with the free-kick ELV, because to take one example, in one 2008 S14 semi, you had 20 free kicks in the first 18 minutes and no cards. Look what happened to Goddard when he carded people. It won't happen. The last thing to do is make a penalty worth less relative to a try, because then it means it you're more likely to win if you give away seven penalties instead of one try. And winning is all.
Rabbitz
Guest
I don't know if Gilbert and Steeden would be happy but, why not make kicking hard like it used to be? How about we construct a ball that is made of leather, with a rubber bladder stitched in and laced up. Harder to kick 70m and would have a certain "olde worlde charm" Of course this would also entail the current so-called "professional players" learning about handling and ball security (because they currently have no idea even with a ball which is designed to stick in your hands) Just a thought, just throwing it out there...
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Two very simple changes. One, penalty kicks go to one point. Two, repeated foul play and professional fouls rewarded with the sin bin or a red card. Point one makes a strategy of relying on the referee pointless. Point two makes repeated illegal play a definite loser.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
BN Australia is the exception not the rule.
BN
Guest
So where has Leauge failed in Australia? Last time I looked if was union that was failing here, even after trying new things (ELV' s anyone).
jus de couchon
Guest
True. Rugby hasnt been that good. Been a few good games , but from a spectators point of view[sadly too old to play now] its been largely dire. Should Rugby change to interest new audiences? League has tried and failed to popularise their game. In my experience one can never understand Rugby unless youve played it.This is both a strength and a weakness.