I recently read the Spiro Zavos report on the opening game of the Rugby World Cup, where he stated, “Referee Clancy ruins a brilliant RWC opening event.” Spiro, accurate as ever.
Referees are human and as judge and jury must law enforce the mangled mishmash of rules that the IRB seems to impose on all parties to the game.
I somehow still revert to the thinking that as policemen to the eighty minutes they officiate, the referee has little choice but to interpret these idiotic rules as written, and that it is the players who break them, not the referee.
The referee is then entrusted to be totally one hundred per cent correct in every single facet of the game, bar none, yet players have the luxury of breaking rules constantly, to be hailed as heroes if their discretion s result in the team winning, especially where the win is a result of officials missing a transgression.
We criticise any referee who makes a mistake when we should be sticking pins into effigies of the IRB for making such inanely stupid ones in rule books for everyone to abide by.
Spiro is right in that George Clancy made some clangers in his two referee outing of the All Blacks, but if he had found a fault with the Tongans after the constant scrum practise that wasted seven minutes of game time, a kick up-field would have brought the game back to worth watching, or, in other words, “make a mistake” for the games benefit.
IRB boss Paddy O’Brien has asked all referees in this tournament to be vigilant especially at two of the five areas of notice, the “Offside at the breakdown” and the “tackle roll away”.
Wayne Barnes in the SA v Wales allowed players to “creep off-side” from behind the ruck and slowing the ball down. By not allowing the ball to clear, and allowing players to flop all over the ruck, he clearly was not carrying out O’Brien’s instructions.
At the other end we have Bryce Lawrence and Alain Rolland delivering instructions to the letter and ending up being accused of whistle happy penalty freaks. The other minnow games had great games because referees permitted the games to flow and by the players endeavouring to adhere to the rules.
The big question I therefore ask is; “Why is there so much focus on these breakdown areas and not just as much focus on every other rule?” Simple answer, because the rules under focus are sheer crap and need to be totally simplified, again!”
Rugby is about contestability and both areas, the breakdown/ruck and the farcical utter nonsense whereby a team can retain a ball with grunt and shove, pass, grunt and shove, pass, grunt and shove at a goal line without the opposition being able to contest the ball, needs discarding into the Sydney harbour and sooner the better.
Treat it as a maul, three shots to use it and the ball then goes to the opposition to scrum at five meters.
Round one is now history; minnows have shown they are not just there making up numbers in the big pond, some big fish have found themselves in a frightening shallow watered small pond to swim in, and we can be thankful that the policemen on the field are not in civil law courts acting out all parts.
Round two will bring more of the same I am afraid to say, however, infringements will get less as the game stakes rise, and the policemen will find nothing wrong with the rules.
Footnote: In our opening round the All Blacks had a great first half and crappy second. The Wallabies had a crappy first half and a golden second. All the other senior teams played crap and the minnows played superbly.
I think it is obvious who the finalists at this point are likely be, baring a slip on a sloping NZ paddock.
Michael W
Guest
Thank you. Well put and interpreted. +++
Jock M
Guest
I am very pleased to have read the previous contributions. Am I correct bin saying that at last the underlying problem of modern Rugby is being recognised and talked about. The game at present is a farce and this situation will only change when full contestability at the breakdown is reinstated. Further to this the tackled player must not be allowed to play the ball on the ground. Any laws pertaining to how a player should enter a breakdown should also be removed. A full contest would see a return to a self policing scenario and a sence of urgency at the breakdown which would see improved running in the backline as a result of the forward momentum.
formeropenside
Roar Rookie
What curious said about bringing back rucking. Rucks are just pretend now - allow proper cleaning out, once a ruck no hands and you have to drive forward, but then again, a ruck is more than tacker and tackled player, or should be. I swear, whenever I see a cluster of one team all covering a ball, I wonder why you cant just walk around the back, take the ball, and keep going. Its surely not a ruck by then, not if there are no competitors from the other team. My other gripe is that outlawing the dummy pass from scrums and rucks was just stupid and pointless, and has de facto allowed defences to creep ever closer. Stupid IRB.
curious
Guest
I've read the comments, and with sixo concede I don't mind it when it the game can become technical, but Michael got me thinking. He correctly highlights it is 'the laws' that are the primary cause of the unsatisfactory parts of the game which are where contestibility is eliminated, unfairly reduced or too difficult to decide between I blamed players, coaches and referees; but after reading the article and comments above, and having a bit of a think, I now conclude they are all victims of the laws, and all try to find there own way out of the mess. As a consequence, we (the fans) are lumped with the following: * illegal play from the players: and the never ending drivel about "black7" - whether english or kiwi (sorry...) * negative tactics from the coaches: after all, if your team has 8 bullocks, why not drive them straight at the sheepdog to over run him * inconsistency from a referee within the one game, and from inconsistent interpretations from different referees Michael's implication is - fix these laws and you fix the game, and I think he's right. His "3 chances at flopping" rule is even a nice band aid fix that might work within the current laws ( although I'd rather a gridiron style reward factor " 3 chances to make 10metres" , so that appropriate and successful pick and drive aren't penalised0 But what hasn't been mentioned is WHY these laws were introduced - that they were a wimpish, poorly thought through response from the IRB to the mummies wouldn't let little johnny play in case he got hurt in a ruck the issues here for the IRB are: * MARKETING: no one will be watching the game within 1 generation anyway if you allow the stodge england served up against Argentina to continue - it was unimaginative, thoughtless, negative cabbage (and before anyone complains, remember Argentina had one game together to prepare - so I'll excuse their porridge) - the laws must allow teams like England to play to their forward strengths in a constructive rather than negative way, so we can appreciate their forward toughness applied skilfully for a change * INJURIES: no one wants to see players hurt, and especially intentionally - the authorities seem more interested in what might make the news than what might make a difference - they are quick to suspend for a strong tackle that might lift a player but causes no damage (normally the case as long as the tackled player isn't driven into the ground, or forced to fall badly) - yet how frequently do the authorities ignore actions (especially around the ruck) that have little to do with winning the ball but are designed to hurt someone by driving the shoulder into unprotected (and sometimes blindsided) victims (....how you doing tony w...) - change the ruck laws to make play safer, but understand the difference between knocks and scrapes (acceptable) and deliberate damage to a body (not) * RUCKS: the mummies minds must be changed through education and the influence of little johnny - mauls are when the ball is off the ground in a tackle: you can handle it - rucks are when the ball is on the ground in a tackle: no one can handle it - guess what - we've just taken 10 penalties and stoppages out of the game, maybe more - if the opposition have a big strong monster guarding the ball, I'll probably need to join up with 2 or 3 mates before we hit the ruck so that TOGETHER we can drive the bad monster back - even our little weedy bloke helped push him backwards ...hey, we just invented teamwork - if their bloke is lying on the ground near the ball stopping my team from getting it, we should step over him and go forward so he eventually ends up at the back of our ruck and out of the way - no one ever kicks someone lying on the ground - that is very bad form - designed to hurt someone , and should be sent off straightaway - if their bloke doesn't move when I go over him and roll away, I'm allowed to roll him with my boots as long as my boots go backwards - if it happens that I'm the one on the ground, I should cover my head with my arms and roll with them as they go over the top of me - johnny will probably end up with some ruck marks on his back and sides - maybe up his legs - the wounds are superficial and the dettol will hurt more than it did getting them - scratches and stud marks happen because johnny applied his physics knowledge and rolled with the force moving him - injuries happen when the current IRB laws require johnny to stand his ground against a monster charging at his stationary body CONCLUSION: allowing rucking again will invigorate the game. It will - allow strong forward packs (england et al) to develop their game and a style which suits them but doesn't become static - simplify it for players, referees and spectators ('hands' become apparent, 'the offside line' evident, going off your feet irrelevant - except to your coach who rightfully will berate you for being lazy) - distinguish it again from league, and allow it to be marketed as the game where the ball finds the holes and does the work rather than little johnny just bashing it up at that defensive wall again and again) - open up numerous marketing opportunities to mummies ("would you rather johnny be used as a battering ram (league) ... a launching pad(AFL) ... be kicked repeatedly in the shins and taught to dive(guess what) . .... OR be part of a team which requires him to play physical chess! Oops, got carried away. Yeah agree Michael. Current laws cause of most of the games bad issues - solution sounds gratuitous and too simple, but "bring back rucking" for lots of good, sound reasons.
AC
Guest
+5
AndyS
Guest
Absolutely agree. So long as the defending team is contesting the ball fairly and the attacking team is securing the ball without diving over and sealing off, multiple phase play of pick and drive can be a fascinating arm-wrestle. Much does come down to the ref though, as he sets the framework for the players. There is nothing wrong with the laws per se - if both teams abide by them and the ref enforces them they ensure a clean contest for the ball at the breakdown. If the ref starts focusing on one side or the other though, we either wind up with no defensive contest for the ball because it gives away penalty kicks, or endless territorial kicking by the attack rather than risk the turnover. So far, it has been better than usual. I would certainly like to see the offside line policed a bit better (which is on the assistant refs more than the field ref), and I'd LOVE to see some of the rolling mauls called for the truck and trailer they are (the ball carrier is supposed to pass the ball back, not slide his arm over the joining player to stay at the back himself), but on the whole it has been pretty good.
AdamS
Roar Guru
I'm lost. What do you mean by have 3 goes to use it? Use it how? Isn't picking it up and running into contact using it? You could make it 5 goes, another sport does that.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
I must admit that I like the game to be technical, difficult and at times pedantic, even Karmic. The boys need the occasional blow during a match. I also like the fact that refs do drop clangers and for purposes of the game 'get away with it'. I also enjoy their sublety when getting the balance right a few phases later (sometimes). I am sure the Richies of the world don't mind too much. This is not a computer game folks. 33 plus brains do not ever agree all the time and perfection is an immature ideal. I would like to see the end of endless reviews, TV match officials and the like. If a team wants a try to be awarded then make sure there is no doubt. The infallibility of 'sir' has been an important feature of the development of Rugby and it should be retained. To put an end to the second guessing of the chattering class all we need to do is either: (a) put the argument to and demand of the broadcasters that they will not constantly replay and review the 'moments' or (b) put GPS systems in the ball and maybe even on the players and put it beyond doubt. One bloke put the argument ''what about if you had a punt on first try scorer or something, they would miss out'. The reply was that as soon as you allow that to be a consideration then we will go the way of the Indian Premiership League with all manner of game tampering. Precision and exactitude are not a requirement for any sport in a real world. Accepting the decision gracefully of the match officials (who try hard to be accurate and have worked long and hard to be there) is an important lesson. Not everybody gets to wear their country's guernsey and there is an important part of the audience, the impressionable growing minds. Life at times can be unfair but how we deal with those setbacks goes into our resilience bank, without it we end up with whinging, whining incompetent little brats. Sport is the process of exposing ourselves to our inner natures and adjusting the weak points for a better life.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
"Rugby is about contestability and both areas, the breakdown/ruck and the farcical utter nonsense whereby a team can retain a ball with grunt and shove, pass, grunt and shove, pass, grunt and shove at a goal line without the opposition being able to contest the ball, needs discarding into the Sydney harbour and sooner the better. Treat it as a maul, three shots to use it and the ball then goes to the opposition to scrum at five meters". This is nonsense. We all know what happens when it becomes more difficult for the attacking team to retain possession - they kick. And then they kick some more. And they keep on kicking until everyone in the stadium is ready to go home. Most of the opening RWC games were infinitely better than anything served up in the kickfest years of 07-09. I think people need to stop whinging and just accept that rugby is a brutal, gladiatorial game with occasional episodes of wonderful skill and pace thrown in for good measure.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
At last! A cold blast of logic to cut through all the hot air _ not least the otherwise admirable Spiro Zavos's intemperate rant (with anodyne anti-Northern Hemisphere sub-text) aimed at poor old George Clancy, a victim if ever there was one. As Michael Warren says, the IRB in its infinite wisdom has imposed a mangled mish-mash of rules (laws) on the game that have made it increasingly difficult to referee, or enjoy as a spectator. I agree with Michael Warren that we need to do something about the dreadful pick-and-go. Yes, treat it like a maul. You get three attempts and that's it. What happened to the idea of rugby being a game played on the feet? Why do we have to endure the sight of a giant such as Dan Vickerman clutch the ball and then bend double before surrendering to the tackle (to be followed by his teammates flopping over him, or the ostriches scrabbling around for the ball with their hands? Nothing is likely to change. Real rucking is dead and won't be back any time soon. But the IRB has done a lot to kill the game as a spectacle. Don't blame the refs for the incompetence of the legislators.
jus de couchon
Guest
I tryed to referee a game of rugby once and was completely useless even though I had played the game at a high level. To this day I have no Idea how a referee does it.