Lyndon Bray, a good and unobtrusive New Zealand referee in his day, has made a great start to his job as SANZAR’s referees manager. And as rugby union is a game where complex laws try to impose a pattern on what really is organised anarchy, Bray’s interventions have created an environment where the Super 14 tournament should start with a bang of enterprising rugby.
The most important change to the laws this season, or more accurately to the way the laws will be interpreted by the SANZAR referees, is in the tackled ball area.
Last season, the interpretation was tweaked to allow tacklers to hold on to the ball in a tackle, even when they had their knees on the ground.
This ruling meant that the tackled player had little chance of releasing the ball, unless the tackler was knocked away. Sides became reluctant to run the ball anywhere within kicking distance, which when the South African kickers were playing meant even inside the opposition half.
The result was the aerial ping-pong which drove everyone mad.
Moreover, referees tended to further help the kicking sides by refusing to punish loitering inside the 10m circle where the ball was landing. Also, there was some unjustified indulgence given to chasers bashing into players trying to catch the ball.
Bray has got all the coaches and the SANZAR countries to agree to return to the proper interpretation of the tackled ball law, which is that the tackler must release after the tackle and if he is on the player or on the ground roll away.
He also has instructed the referees to be tougher on policing players advancing from off-sides positions during kicking phases.
Most people think that these changes will help sides that play skillful, enterprising, ball-in-hand rugby. The emphasis in the tackled ball situation, for instance, will come from the second player to ruck, rather than the first player.
Sides may now play two ‘fetchers’ or number 7s.
And the NSW Waratahs are experimenting, it seems, with playing Phil Waugh from time to time at number 8, so he gets to tackles second and can make his dig for the ball legitimately.
The protection of the catcher should enable teams, too, to run the ball back from kicks rather than kicking back themselves.
To ensure that the new intepretations work well, Bray has done something that I’ve been advocating for years – namely, he is starting the tournament with the best referees in the SANZAR countries.
In the past, the weakest referees have been given the early games in an attempt to somehow bring them up to scratch. The result has been poor refereeing that has stymied the play of enterprising sides early on in the tournament.
Thank goodness, Bray has reversed this stupid policy.
All the top referees are at work in the first round: Stuart Dickinson (Blues-Hurricanes); Steve Walsh (Western Force-Brumbies); Jonathan Kaplan (Cheetahs – Bulls); Chris Pollock (Crusaders-Highlanders); Craig Joubert (Reds-Waratahs); Jaco Peyser (Lions-Stormers); Keith Brown (Sharks-Chiefs).
The interesting appointment here is that of the Australian Keith Brown to referee the international match of the round.
Last season, the South African Andre Watson as SANZAR’s referee manager, introduced the scheme of local referees officiating for local teams, even when the opposition was from another country. So we had the nonsense of Jonathan Kaplan, a South African, refereeing the Bulls – Chiefs final at Pretoria.
Unfortunately this scheme has not been thrown away, as it should be.
For those Roarers in the tipping competition, you might like to know that in the second round, the local referee-local team nonsense starts again.
The South African Marius Jonker is refereeing the Lions-Chiefs; New Zealander Vinnie Munro, Hurricanes-Western Force; South African Mark Lawrence, Bulls-Brumbies; Australian Keith Brown, Stormers-Waratahs.
Jock M
Guest
Why not promote an attacking free for all and remove the defence all together? The breakdown is now a League style play the ball,nothing more nothing less. Rugby has gone.
david kibbey
Guest
Dear Roar, The better team lost on Saturday night between the Tah's and Brumby's because of two glaring and avoidable mistakes by the referee Steve Walsh (Hoiles not held in a tackle and Cooper try disallowed for double movement). The impression I gained is that Walsh went out of his way to penalise the Brumby's and was very tolerant of the Tah's. He ruined the season for an entire franchise and its hundreds of thousands of supporters. If he is appointed here on Saturday against the Reds, I and thousands of rusted on members will boycott the game. If he has anything to do with the Test here in June we will boycott this too. faithfully, David Kibbey AM JP
AL MARTIN
Guest
Talking about ''bums with whistles''...surely Keith Browns performance in Durban last week must make him Lord of The Rings. A worse display of whistle blowing you'll never see. I gaurantee, unless they let him out on the paddock again. Oh boy!
MattyP
Guest
Spiro: if you read IRB Ruling 2009:4 (May 11, effective May 23), what it makes clear is that, following a tackle, if a player gets his hands on the ball and a ruck subsequently forms, that player can continue with possession of the ball, SUBJECT to that player complying with all aspects of Rule 15 (tackle rule, which requires any player playing the ball at the tackle to be on his feet). So, the IRB clearly ruled last year that a player with his hands on the ball at a tackle must release once a ruck is formed and he is off his feet. Therefore, I am not sure about this statement by you: "Last season, the interpretation was tweaked to allow tacklers to hold on to the ball in a tackle, even when they had their knees on the ground." Could you please clarify which interpretation you are referring to?
Rusti Griffiths
Guest
when i played rugby in the 70's & 80's it was a pleasure to play with the rules of the day. now the game is becoming very confusing for the ordinary lover of the game and so much so that a lot of people are not bothered to attend a match anymore. i think the officials are making too many changes and allowin the bums with whisles far too much authority. as far as i am concerened the captain should have the authority to question a dicision (not all but suspect ones) made by the referee and have the tchnology that is boasted in sport today to verify certain suspect decisions. only then will it be accepted that a ref from any country can officiate at any super rugby match.if not then i think that with the amount of money paid to some of these bums, sanzar should rather have a panel of northern hemisphere referees to do the job during the super 14 season.
Ian Noble
Guest
Some might be interested in this article by Brian Moore. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/7206730/Brian-Moore-my-background-in-cheating-will-come-in-handy-for-life-as-a-referee.html
wannabprop
Guest
I must admit my memories of those days are now somewhat cloudy (and they were blurry at the time!), so I'll defer to your superior knowledge. I didn't get the chance to watch (or analyse) as much then as I do now, and I had also stopped playing a few years before the tinkering with the laws at the breakdown. Given my hazziness at the time, the reference to an 'interpretation' was tongue in cheek, and a dig at the rugby media (some have suggested the current 'interpretation' to be a law change). Gotta go, Force v Brums about to start...
westy
Guest
25 penalties and 3 free kicks. The whistle was busy.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Nine penalties... Oh yeah, go SANZAR... You got us into this mess, now you can't get us out of it.
Terry Kidd
Guest
No turnovers? I don't think so guys. It will all depend on how you play your defence and on the particular circumstances at the time of the tackle .... pretty much as it did under the old interpretations. For instance, tackler releases tackled player and rolls away, tackled player must also release the ball. Defending team has another player coming thru the gate immediately behind the tackler, that player coming in second may go for the turnover. Likewise, no second player immediately available before other attacking players secure possession after the tackle ... then defenders line up either side of the ruck to defend the next phase. Where is any of this different to what we already have? IMHO all the new interpretation will do is allow quicker ball by detering tacklers from holding it in and thus giving the attacking team more confidence to run rather than kick.
Drew B
Guest
G'day Ian,we have the same sort of thing, called Sports Ears.
mitzter
Guest
if I remember correctly 'use it or lose it' was trialled with rucks back in the 90s but was found it favoured the defensive side too much - how that led to the rugby league trench i don't know. I think it was more a combination of a. removing rucking, b. allowing people to go off their feet more (see reason a.) c.refs calling 'leave it gold, it's won by black' etc. and not allowing continuous competition for possession
Drew B
Guest
These ref's have years of experience explaining decisions to coaches and players during and after games, and whilst I expect a few cheap shots from the journo's, I also see a few journo's get put in their place, and exposed on the lack of technical law knowledge that many of them have. Biggest problem the ref's will have is they will be asked about incidents that the public saw 10 replays of, from 10 angles, which the ref saw once at full speed.
Drew B
Guest
Tacklers still are able to come in from any direction - 15.4(c).
Jock M
Guest
MattyP, handling on the ground is touching the ball when a ruck has formed-nothing more nothing less. If a tackler can bring a man down and steal the ball off him before the ruck forms all well and good.If the next player from either side can steal it or pick it up-still good. The defence must have the incentive to compete for the ball-taking away that incentive by giving all advantage to the attacking side has completely destroyed the very soul of the game. Do you realise that these ridiculous breakdown laws and interpretations these days are forcing players to the ground with the ball? In the old days the idea was to remain on your feet and maul the ball. If onlymore people could see the absolute folly of the modern game.
Jock M
Guest
Wannabprop, Thankyou. Rugby was a truly beautiful spectacle that has now been absolutely violated. We need to go right back to pre professional law book. Most of the comments on this blog are laughable and are concrete evidence of just how far the game has degenerated. I am particularly annoyed with ex test players and the older administraters who do and say nothing. I often wonder whether there would be any value in playing an exhibition match between two good teams that have had coaching in the old pre pro rules and letting people see the game as it should be. The players would also need to go on a strong fitness programme because I know that modern players would not be able to handle the demands of the competitive breakdown and chasing the ball from one side of the field to the other.
Ian Noble
Guest
As I mentioned on another thread, in the NH for all major matches including GP and HC, fans are able to hear the refs decision through "ref link".This an FM transmission which is linked to the ref throughout the game. In addition to hearing his decisions probably more interesting is the continual discussion with the players. You are probably not too surprised how many players still transgress even when warned by the ref. You can also hear any discussion with the touch judges and the fourth official, so he should not miss the forward pass, foul play, substitution etc. You also hear when captains question a decision or make a point about the opposition continually binding illegally in the front row as an example. It is very much a two way street with the better refs. Judging from the posts" ref link" is not available in the SH. To my mind the best refs are those that have the confidence to allow games to flow, in the NH, Barnes, Berdos, Rolland, Owens and Lewis are good examples and I look forward to them referring a game.They make mistakes nobody is perfect, but you can sense through the banter that they are enjoying the game and it transmits to the players. Indeed to hear Owens suddenly burst into a bit of Welsh when something interesting happens on the field, always brings a smile.
MattyP
Guest
Use it or lose it only applies to mauls, not rucks. It wasn't an i"nterpretation", it was a rule change (to promote the attacking team recycling the ball). Jock - it's easy to sum it up so simply "as the only inhibitions were no foul play and no handling of the ball on the ground" - but that's the whole point at stake right now - what is "handling on the ground"? You've responded to the issue by stating the problem as the solution. The current issue is, if a tackler gets to his feet, gets his hands on the ball, at what point must he release the ball, if at all, for example if he gets knocked to his knees by the next player in?
MattyP
Guest
You're missing the point mate. When you're in the back 5 of a scrum, you don't necessarily know whats going on up front. When a scrum collapses the ref is obliged to blow his whistle and stop play immediatley, so that all the piggies know to stop pushing, even if the thespians already have the ball. Hence, a safety issue. It's not the resetting that the rule is aimed at - it's looking after us fat boys.
MattyP
Guest
Seems dumb to me. Is there any precedent for this in any other major professional sports? It seems to me that well-miked refs, along with encouraging to explain their decisions in more detail contemporaneously and having the commentators shut upwhile they are speaking, should be sufficient insight. I don't see much good coming out of trail by media, although the likes of Spiro and his cohorts may enjoy the opportunity.