I was reading the comments of some English and Welsh supporters on the weekend and the conversation inevitably moved on to Steve Walsh and the manner in which he officiated in the match.
As some might know the English coaching staff wanted some explanations on certain interpretations during the game.
Graham Rountree, the forwards coach, wanted clarification on the scrums and breakdowns.
England only managed to win one out of four scrums on their own feed and conceded a total of 12 penalties and four free kicks during the match.
According to one article, the Welsh have conceded that they dropped six scrums in total, but the English were penalised for not being able to keep the scrum up.
Further to what I read this weekend, the Welsh supporters are rather proud of the fact that their team “played to the referee” better than the English.
Going back to a rather painful episode during the quarter final when South Africa were ousted by Australia, a similar situation occurred when John Smit, then captain of the Springboks, and Victor Matfield the vice captain commented after the match that Bryce Lawrence was not interested in communicating with them on-field.
They felt like Australia was getting away with murder at the breakdown.
In that game Australia managed to defend their 22 without conceding one penalty in the red zone, despite the fact that they spent a very large proportion of the match under pressure.
This after John O’Neill criticised Bryce Lawrence heavily for his performance during the pool loss to Ireland.
“There was some pretty nasty political stuff going on about that appointment.
“I refereed Australia versus Ireland and Ireland had won but behind the scenes guys like John O’Neill were kicking up a massive stink.”
“I knew a bit about that and it was enough to affect me, and it probably made me freeze on the biggest stage.”
The sad thing about refereeing rugby on such a big stage is the impact that they and their interpretations can have on the modern game.
Their every move can now be scrutinised in slow motion and high definition and any flawed performance is there for anyone to see.
Obviously not all these performances will impact the result of a game.
It does, however, have the ability to influence large parts of the game at critical moments. An incorrect penalty against an attacking team can halt momentum, release pressure and importantly swing that momentum and pressure to the opposite side.
But, and this is a big but, it is unfair to lay the blame on the shoulders of referees as it is nigh on impossible to get two referees to agree on the course of action when some of these indiscretions occur.
I have spoken to a candidate referee within the Lions rugby union, and he tells me when they discuss video tapes of ruck situations, the varying opinions in regard to these studies are scary to say the least.
The reality is referees are human, and with the complications of rugby laws and the varying manner in which they are interpreted in classrooms would suggest it to be very challenging to get a clean sheet during a match.
In my view this all boils down to the number of sub-divisions you would find under each law, be it the breakdown, the scrum or any other area.
It is therefore imperative that the IRB look at simplification of the laws. Not more laws and no further subdividing of laws, but simple, easily understood and interpreted laws.
Just an example of these laws are the breakdowns, where a referee has so many different issues, be it entering through the gate, the offside line, holding on, releasing the tackled player and numerous more that need to be monitored.
In all likelihood you could find a penalty at every ruck.
I don’t want to see rugby being touted as a game where supporters are proud that their team “played to the referee” better than the opposition.
This is not the diving board or gymnastics (Pieter de Villiers will attest to that), where a panel of judges score you for pointing your toes, or entering the water with minimal disturbance.
This is rugby.
It is supposed to be about physical dominance, superior skills and execution. It is a game where men and women grunt, bellow and bash their opponents with the aim of putting fear and hesitation in your mind.
Where you run an opponent into the ground, and in some cases (most likely amateurs) can have a beer after the game and swap stories until midnight.
IRB, please get your act together and simplify our sport.
spikhaza
Guest
I think it's a good model. You kick for touch on a standard penalty. Take 3 points for foul play. If they are penalised in the red zone it's cards time. If teams offend their players will go to bin. Less players on the field = less defenders = tries
Rob
Guest
I have to admit I wasn't a fan of rucking players when it was allowed. But I have to admit that it stopped cynical infringements such as lying on the wrong side of the ruck/ not rolling away. People need to know that if they try to illegally slow the ball down, they will end up with a studs imprinted across the skin of their back. If rucking was still allowed we would be saying RIP Richie mccaw.
30mm taga
Guest
Rugby rules , particularly scrum rules, reward what is disproportionate to the skill that is needed to gain that penalty. Lawmakers rewarding attacking scrums that deliver a 3 point penalty where a man using his arm on the ground props up a scrum to avoid a dangerous collapse. Insane logic for what is meant to be the running game. It appears the driver is not to make the game entertaining, nor rewarding for effort, but to perpetuate logic that has had its day and does not simplify the game. Small drip feed modifications that have been made over the years are as welcome as one sip of cold beer from a keg on a hot day but if they let common sense operate , throw away the bung and then lets party with a game that can be so much more entertaining.. I doubt for one moment the lawmakers ask what can they do to simplify this sporting contest and make it entertaining, not as monotonous as League but just by eliminating the pedantic and rewarding the referees` dominance.
Agree sledgehammer It made good viewing to see a true contest.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
Very good explanation of ELVs. In terms of the breakdown, the goal was to remove the subjectivity. Some very good rugby people spent a lot of time and effort in developing the ELVs and I think before people shoot off the hip with new ideas, they should at least review them first hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb90uHwqlFw
sledgeandhammer
Guest
So a true contest for the ball is a complete mess now? The rucks under the ELVs were ballistic and great fun to watch, players just went hard to win the ball, not BS. I loved ruck and maul time under the ELVs, better than the contrived crap we have now where a defender only has to keep his feet and lay one hand on the ball to win a penalty.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
That's just rewriting history. While a few crusty old NZ pundits may have opposed the laws, surveys of actual super rugby level Kiwi players were overwhelmingly in favour of, and postive about the ELVs. No offence, but between your opinion and the players, I side with the players.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
It can be done, and was done succesfully through the experimental law variations. These were unaminously endorsed by all players who experienced them, but were rejected on political grounds by home unions, who had not even trialled them (with the exception of Scotland).
Bakkies
Guest
League's rules are simple yet they require two referees to police them and to count to five so the players know when to kick the ball away.
Bakkies
Guest
It already is relaxed. Look how often McCaw gets away with lying on the wrong side of the ruck, coming in from the side, not staying on his feet. It has led to opposition taking the law in to their own hands with cheap shots to take him out of the game as referees are refusing to penalise his cynical ruck play. It's just an example of what happens when referees are lenient at the breakdown. If they do it correctly you increase the chances of getting a good, quick, clean game of Rugby.
nomis
Guest
I think we saw the aerial ping pong in SR where the full ELV's were not used. I don't think this occurred in the ARC where they used the full ELV's
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_law_variations Informative, with criticism, good links.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Very good point, well put. Especially like the treatment of cynical play, the Laws are available to all and should be understood. Any flouting of these is an indication that the player or team are not fully simpatico with those aspects and need a 10 minute revision period just to catch up. One law I would like to see is that a player is tackled when any part of his body apart from his feet or hands touches the playing surface and he must surrender the ball after placing it. This will speed up breakdowns and encourage athleticism. But it will also impact on senseless linebreaks which end up isolated, and encourage more support by followers. Probably an ELV anyway. Will try to download them.
AndyS
Guest
Ah, gotcha, but would have said that that particular law is a pretty minor contributor to breakdown penalties relative to the all the other transgressions that are open to interpretation (entry, releasing, holding on, sealing off, supporting weight, rolling away, etc). As noted, it was tried in the ELVs - led to a lot of kicking as most of the hands in the ruck weren't trying to secure the ball, just stopping it coming out. Made the breakdown a big raffle, so players went to the boot instead and hoped the opposition would take it in.
Andy the biggest difference is to allow hands in the ruck at any time as kong as you are on your feet. The interpretation of when to release as a ruck has formed is the greatest commomn denominator for penalties. By saying to the players yoy may contest the ball, AS LONG AS YOU ARE ON YOU FEET, irrespective of the fact that the ruck has formed, allows both teams to contest for the ball. If the team taking it in, similar to a team taking a ball into maul doesn't manage to bring it out, lose possession.
AndyS
Guest
So which laws are you saying should be eliminated in the interests of simplification then? From the sounds of this and the response to Mitzer above, it seems what you are actually saying is that all the current laws are fine so long as they are all infallibly applied. That is quite a different thing from the IRB simplifying them though. Agree on the maul though. I was dead against allowing it to be pulled down when the ELVs first came out, but changed my mind as the season progressed. Far from destroying the maul as an option or being dangerous, it forced players into far better tehnical execution and made the rolling maul much better.
Mitzter, I don't see how my suggestions are not workable. A ball carrier gets tackled, him and the tackler are on the ground, therefor both have to release the ball, the next arrival if on his feet can play the ball, be it a support runner or defender, if the ball is not immediately secured by either the ruck will effectively commence as both teams fight for the ball. consider those playing the ball must be on their feet. Thus far easy to offciate. Did the players (tackler and carrier release the ball?)( those arriving are they on their feet?) (Are anyone sealing off the ball?) (Did every player come through their respective gate?)(those standing off the ruck are they onside?) Ball is either won and play commences, or the ball is not coming out, possession goes to the defending team. What is not workable there? Mauls, I don't want mauls to be removed, I just want mauls to be allowed to be pulled down. That is the only change. It is up to the attacking team to keep it up. Simple
mitzter
Guest
You haven't proided a workable solution biltongbek. As much as Spiro loved the oiginal elvs there were good reasons why they weren't used.The rucks were a complete mess withmany players of their feet and rucks unplayable. You might think hands would be fine (aftr all if hands are in there first we allow them) but this actually encourages going off your feet rather than pushing past the ball. The problems were much worse the more sklls the players had. We have already discussed mauls on anoher post so i won't repeat why I think they're great and shouldn't be rmoed from rugby as was the result of the elvs.
How do you get from making the ruck and maul more in line where players are doing to competing, to taking it away?
Andy you are being pedantic now, it is logical that going off your feet to seal the ball off is the same as being off your feet and playing the ball. You are preventing those on their feet to participate