The late comic genius Spike Milligan wrote one of the funniest books I ever read. It was about his war days and it was entitled ‘Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall’.
Of late, I’ve begun to wonder if Spike is in fact still alive and writes the IRB rule book, because some of the rule changes that have been made of late are so absurd that I find myself unable to contain outbursts of laughter that are both spontaneous and regular.
I could write all year about rugby’s rules. It is a subject dear to the hearts of many rugby followers.
It is ironic that a game which, as legend has it, started with an act of defiance should have itself become so technically bogged down in rules as to make it incomprehensible at times to both followers and non-followers alike.
If it’s not incomprehisible, it’s frustrating.
The soul of rugby union, if you believe the IRB propaganda, was characterised by a Victorian school boy’s disdain for rules. But today that soul has been enslaved by rules, regulations and interpretations that number in their hundreds.
I wholeheartedly agree with the recent post by biltongbek that the IRB must simplify the rules.
In my view, simplification means getting rid of rules, that is, reducing their number, rather than trying to re-write them.
At the end of the day rugby’s ethos, which is running with ball in hand, can be promoted by enforcing the rules against foul play, rather than focussing on a myriad of technicalities like hands in the ruck, coming through the gate, or truck and trailer.
Why, for example, are players not allowed to use hands in the ruck? Or play the ball on the ground with their hands?
Who says these actions will slow the game up? Has anyone actually conducted a study which proves playing the ball on the ground with your hand will mean the end of rugby union as we know it?
The ball will eventually emerge from the ruck one way or another, if the referee would just wait another five seconds.
I would rather watch a ruck that went on for ten seconds than have a referee blow it up the second it goes to ground then muck around for two or three minutes as a scrum is set and, inevitably, re-set one or two more times.
But I want to focus on two rule changes this year that have had me in stitches. The first is the new scrum re-set call, and the second is the expanded role of the video ref.
Just when the millions upon millions of spectators, players and referees from Buenos Aires to Capetown, from British Columbia to Nuku’alofa and all points in between were getting used to “Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage”, the IRB change it to “Crouch, Touch, Set”.
Why on earth would you change the call? The only result of the change I’ve seen is an increase in number of collapsed scrums.
But this is typical of rugby’s rules – they are designed to achieve a certain end but in fact achieve an outcome which is the exact opposite of what was intended.
Take the rule I mentioned above about playing the ball in the ruck with your hand.
Ostensibly this rule is designed to promote faster play, so the ball can come out of the ruck quicker with minimal interference.
But the exact opposite happens, because the rule just gives the referee another chance to blow his whistle for a penalty when someone plays it with his hand (which happens in every single ruck by the way), or for a scrum if the ball is tied up in the ruck.
The game would actually be faster and smoother if the rule wasn’t there. That’s the irony; the rule is supposedly there to make the game faster and smoother.
You could apply this reasoning to almost all of the rules in rugby.
Some rules are obviously necessary for player safety, but those that aren’t should simply be removed from the book.
It’s the complete opposite of rugby league, where every rule change since 1895 has been designed to speed the game up.
And guess what? They actually achieve that goal.
In regards to the expanded role of the video ref, the concern I have here is how far back in time can a video ref go?
We may as well have the 80 minute game, and then wait around for another 80 minutes so the video ref can review the whole match to make sure nothing illegal happened from kick off.
That, of course would be ludicrous, but in a critique about rugby union’s rules, such an outcome cannot necessarily be discounted as unintended by the IRB’s rule committee.
richard
Guest
That about sums up the wobbly scrum through most of its history.You regularly did this in the Eddie Jones era,perfected by Young,your TH prop,a point the late,great AB prop John Drake regularly pointed out when commentating on BC games.
mitzter
Guest
Yes, finished this article thinking that Malcolm really hasn't given any thought as to the results of removing laws. Everything is there for a reason and the laws are just about right
AndyS
Guest
There are no substantiative differences between the laws in 2008 and the laws either in 2010 or today. What does change, and what most people here are actually talking about, is the interpretation and application of the laws by the referees. While some of the rugby under the ELVs was interesting, I personally thought the best spell of rugby was in the couple of years afterward when the laws were more rigorously interpreted as written. It doesn't matter what is written, it only matters what the referees are going to play. It is pointless changing the laws if the refs are already ignoring them.
Jerry Graham
Guest
As regards point 2, you should probably add the world "apocryphal' in there somewhere.
Dublin Dave
Guest
1 Rugby has Laws, not rules. 2 William Webb Ellis's legendary "sublime disregard for the laws" took place at Rugby school in Georgian, not Victorian times. 3 You want to watch Rugby League, watch Rugby League. A few thousand Australians and Northern Englishmen, plus the odd Papuan can't all be wrong. 4 Totally agree with your assessment of Spike Milligan's war memoirs. Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall contains probably the funniest description of a "friendly" rugby match ever. Finishing with the fine admonition: "Nobody should play rugby. It's only for watching!" Damn right.
Handles
Guest
Afraid you lost me with "At the end of the day rugby’s ethos, which is running with ball in hand...". As pointed out above, this is not true. Even if it were true, it could apply to rugby league or rugby union. The real point of difference for rugby is that the ball is always in dispute. Every tackle is a contest, and the rules have to govern that contest to promote the right type of outcome, and protect the game from getting bogged down. There is always room for improvement, and as long as this goal is kep in mind, I don't mind the rule changes. The problem with "Crouch, touch, pause, engage", is that it was really "Crouch-pause-Touch-pause-Pause-pause-Engage". Too much pausing. Why have a pause before and after saying "pause"? I have never met a front rower who liked it. The change has been successful, and overdue, in my view.
Handles
Guest
This is a very sensible suggestion. The All Blacks robbed us in Brisbane a few years ago, bringing down the scrum severa ltimes, and delaying the reset, in the last two minutes of a game.
It is interesting, albeit a bit onesided on the analysis.
Superba
Guest
Go to YouTube and view " autopsy of a final " which is enlightening about refereeing a RWC final.
Superba
Guest
Go to YouTube and view " autopsy of a final " which is enlightening about refereeing a RWC final.
jason8
Guest
OK heres my 2 cents... Scrums are the source of most of our frustrations right ? Too many penalties for minor offenses ( change to a free kick ) also if the scrum is collapsing but the ball will still be made available they should just play on - resets are for when the scrum is completely dysfunctional and penalties for teams who persist in transgressing at scrum time. im pretty happy with the rucks and mauls but maybe a similiar attitude should be adopted for ruck and maul transgressions where after 3 transgressions OR any transgression in the red zone the penalty is awarded
matthew
Guest
Anyone remember SR 2010? The best season I've ever seen with open rugby and the ball in play for the vast majority of the time. The rules favored the team who held the ball, possession was valuable and kicking it away was senseless. Currently the rules give far too much leeway to the defense and rewards cynical infringements and killing of open play- no wonder everyone wants to kick the ball away and play without the ball until they're deep in opposition territory. Bring 2008 rules back! Daylight...
RedsNut
Guest
"Why on earth would you change the call? The only result of the change I’ve seen is an increase in number of collapsed scrums. " I don't get to see a lot of matches, yet to me, it seems that there are less collapses than before. And this season the refs are brining the scrums much closer together, so reducing the force of "the hit" which is what seemed to cause a lot of collapses. One thing that I don't understand is how the ball can be slowed down in the ruck LEGALLY? How often do we see a forward charge into a ruck so that his team mates fall forward to smother the ball from the opposition.Surely a penalty for dangerous play, or at least causing a dive over the ball
Ruggez
Guest
The problem is the hands in the ruck, the players trying to pilfer the ball get so low and dont support their own body weight its impossible to clear the player out of the ruck with out going off your feet. Sometimes the opposition have to commite 3 players to clear a player like David Pocock out. Take pilfering out of the game and it will promote counter rucking which will increase the number of players commiting to break downs and create more space on the field. Players from 1-15 are now so good at pilfering that all the defensive teams need to do is commite one player to slow or steal the other teams ball down and the rest of the defensive players just fan across the field. Hands also slow the ball down and allow teams to organise their defence when attacking teams break the advantage line. Also the ELVS were onto a good thing a few years back but the free kick should have allowed a kick to touch option so teams could re organise their attack and launch a pattern from a lineout instead of taking tap penalties which turned the game into a shambles.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Crouch, touch, set is because everything in life is done one, two, three and because "engage" was a two syllable word and therefore made timing of the hit more difficult. They do studies on these things and trials and the trials showed less penalties and collapses. They are trialling other changes to the scrum right now too. If you had hands in the ruck then it would be a turnover just about every time you went into contact or it would just end up a big wrestle on the ground. The problem is not hands in the ruck anyway - the problem is big fat blokes diving in off there feet to seal the ball off. This is what should be penalised. If a ruck was performed how it should be - by players on their feet driving over the ball, this wouldn't be a problem.
Jock M
Guest
Allow hands in the ruck,make the tackled player release the ball as he makes contact with the ground and get rid of all the silly laws about how you enter a ruck and the use it or lose it law and the game will take off like you would not believe. It would not be as pure as only being allowed to use your feet in a ruck situation but it would be a thousands times better than what we have now. Well dne Malcolm.
Jock M
Guest
Allow hands in the ruck,make the tackled player release the ball as he makes contact with the ground and get rid of all the silly laws about how you enter a ruck and the use it or lose it law and the game will take off like you would not believe. It would not be as pure as only being allowed to use your feet in a ruck situation but it would be a housands times better than what we have now. Well dne Malcolm.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Won't go into your suggestions, the answers are obvious. Why the obsession with speed? The game as played now is about as fast as it can get without allowing for subs. Any faster and it would slow to a walk in the second half with blown players.
Steve
Guest
The ELV's were a disgrace and almost ruined the game. Super Rugby in 2008 and 2009 was a disaster. Secondly I don't know how IRS possible to make the laws any simpler, they are not that technical. An interpretation of any law can make something look complicated. Look at the hands in the back rule in AFL, 10 different umpires appear to have 6 different interpretations. That's sport, get over it and move on. Far too much debate is centered on the rules of sport. If you want a continuous sport with simple rules watch a marathon.
Grimmace
Roar Pro
Scrum calls- Its gone back to a 3 call system as it was prior to th epause been bought in. Happends around 2007 from memory. Going back to 3 calls ahs been positive and my thinking is it's led to less resets. 5 seconds at the to pass the ball has also ped things up, good moves. I read an article some time ago on how the ELV's came about. They basically had 2 teams of 15 and threw a ball in, trialing rules as they went. One such trial was with hands alowed in the ruck. There's a good reason it's not alowed. A lot of it isn't the rules as such, it's how they're enforced. If anything the IRB needs to clarify how the rules are enforced Rucking was a fantastic way of freeing up the breakdown. Particulary at lower levels where the standard of ref's isn't always that flash. I can't recall any serious injuries and no one really got hurt.