The newest set of law changes by the IRB is only coming into effect on the first of August, however the SARU have decided to implement the new laws at the start of the new Currie Cup season, which kicks off this Friday.
The main priority of the new laws are to improve continuity in rugby matches and reduce risk of injuries, however in my view their priorities are all wrong.
Before I get into that, let’s look at the new laws and how it will impact the game.
Scrum
There will be a new scrum engagement sequence and there will be more focus on a straighter scrum feed.
Props will now be required to pre-bind before the ‘hit’, resulting in the scrum call being changed from ‘crouch, touch, set’ to ‘crouch, bind, set’.
In other words the front rows crouch and using their outside arm, each prop must bind.
A loose head prop must bind on the opposing tight-head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight-head and gripping the tight-head prop’s jersey on the back or side.
A tight-head prop must bind on the opposing loose-head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose-head prop and gripping the loose head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back or side.
The props must not grip the opponent’s chest, arm, sleeve, or collar.
As for the scrum feed, referees have been told to more strictly police a straight feed by scrum-halves into the scrum to allow more contesting at scrum time.
Rugby pitch dimensions
Rugby fields must be no longer than 100m in length and 70m in width, while the in-goal area should not exceed 22m in depth.
Judicial sanctions
Judicial officers may now apply sanctions of less than 50 percent of the lower-end entry and in some cases no sanction for offences.
In the past they could only apply a minimum of 50 percent of the entry-level sanction.
Yellow cards may now be expunged from a player’s disciplinary record in the case of mistaken identity, while red cards could be expunged if a judicial officer believes the offence did not warrant a red card. This was not previously allowed.
Ok, so let’s now get down to the brass tacks here.
It is obvious that the IRB’s decision to look for the umpteenth time at how to change the setup of the scrum in order to reduce the number of collapsed and reset scrums is a high priority for them.
By removing the ‘hit’ they are now effectively removing a part of rugby that has been a contributing factor for dominant packs over a period spanning a century of tradition.
By constantly looking at ways to speed up the scrum, the IRB is effectively only concerning them about the amount of ‘entertainment value’ ball in hand will provide to the spectators out there that has become accustomed to highlight reels and the fast forward buttons on their remote.
Rugby has never had a tradition of being all things to all people, but rather a sporting code where supporters appreciated the core value of each facet of rugby.
However the demands for instant satisfaction, entertainment, or should I say, what is deemed entertainment by a generation who is more interested in results than the process necessary to achieve the results are slowly but surely taking away from the core values of a sport once dominated by physical prowess and skills.
You only have to look at the areas the IRB is not addressing.
The breakdown is the one area of rugby union more prevalent than any other facet of the sport, on average there are as few (if you can call it few) as 100 rucks to as many as 200 rucks in any 80 minutes of contest.
It has also become the most contestable area and therefore the most controversial.
It is as wide open to interpretation as a gymnastics judge deciding your fate for a potential gold medal based on the angle at which he may or may not see you point your toes.
Unfortunately I can only assume the IRB is less concerned about whether a match is won by the superior team or the team ‘getting away with the most transgressions’ than the entertainment it provides.
They are less concerned about the controversies surrounding results, the incredible complicated laws surrounding rucks which make it rather impossible for two referees to officiate the breakdown area with any consistencies.
Over the past few weekends I have read complaints across a number of websites where the referee took centre stage in post-match discussions rather than the actual performance of players.
The questions I leave you with are these:
– Has the IRB now come full circle where the governing body of rugby union is now more concerned with the entertainment ‘value’ required to broaden their market? Rather than keeping our sport free of controversy which will ultimately result in a sport comparable to WWF where the match in itself is a pre-ordained arrangement, where every move is rehearsed and planned by opponents and the entertainment value is based on being a farce rather than a true battle of skill, power and credibility in results?
– Does the IRB concern themselves with the validity of rugby union or just the bottom line in their financial statement at the end of the financial year?
– Is the responsibility of the governing body only the bottom line, or to keep our sport intact with the core values I would expect them to protect?
I love rugby because in my mind it is how during times of peace we have a vehicle which allows us to compete on equal terms with the richest and biggest countries in the world, based on the physical battle, the necessary skills and vision to prove our dominance on a match to match basis.
I want rugby to retain the values I hold dear, not only in the sport, but in life as well, if it becomes a sport where ‘smarting up to the referee’ becomes the catalyst for results, and where controversy of interpretations dominate post match discussions, then sadly what is left?
Rassie
Roar Rookie
Thank God for this. Our prop stocks looks a bit thin.
Intotouch
Guest
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this. For player's health, I'm delighted to hear that the force of impact in a scrum will be reduced. (When I was a teenager a man died in a scrum at our local rugby club. His neck was snapped) I agree with you though Biltong that the lure of penalties will still have people collapsing scrums. My own solution to this would be to have two referees on the pitch, or have one of the assistant referees on the pitch during scrums.
CizzyRascal
Roar Guru
I haven't read any of the other comments but I think you will find what they are doing with the scrum is in fact making it more of a contest in a variety of ways. Over the past 10 years, it has become all about who could win the hit. This has not always been the case. In fact, they used to engage quite quickly and it was about scrummaging technique, not who had more weight and power on the initial engagement. The problem with scrums, in the NH especially is it now becoming who can win the penalty from it, not it being a base for set piece plays. Secondly, this will also allow for a greater opportunity for the referees to adjudicate the scrum feed, making sure it is fed straight which might make there be more of a contest for balls won against the head, a now very rare occurrence at the professional level.
Yeah, but in my time we didn't pre-bind.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Yes it has been. You're actually only just reinforcing Bay's point. His point was that the hit was present even back when binding was commonplace. Won't change a thing.
Jeffro, my whole club career we used the hit, our scrums very rarely went down. If you want to keep a scrum up, it stays up. The penalties at scrum time has provided coached a way to score points, and until that is sorted scrums will continue to go down in my opinion.
Cheers, Jeznez, update us on your experiences with the scrum please.
Ian
Guest
Pre-bind and straight feed into scrums is a good move. The only other thing that needs changing is making all kicks worth 2 points.
JeffRo
Roar Pro
The "hit" is a recent addition to the game and failed one in my opinion. Scrums have always been an important phase of the set game and still will. The the feed is policed how it should be, then the scrum will become more of a contest for the ball, which is what rugby is all about, the ball being contestable.
Lets hope so Objective.
Bay, I played rugby in the late eighties and early nineties, and when I stopped playing 19 years ago we still had "The Hit". So yeah, as much as my "century" was used for dramatic effect, so was McKenzie's 15 years. The Hit has been around for what seems a very long time.
Jon from Scotland
Guest
Agree 100 per cent. Back to the days when hookers needed to be skill players! No disrespect to the current crop - but at international level they seem to be very large and very good at the hit. Not the far more difficult act of challenging for the ball in the tunnel. Club hookers a different story though!
Objective
Guest
Spot on, WCR. The proposed scrum law was trialled in the Pacific Rugby Cup played earlier this year with great success. It almost eliminated scrum resets, but still enabled a contest, and the opportunity for the stronger scrum to show dominance. It will obviously be evaluated further, but it looks promising. So Biltongbek, hopefully, your concerns - at least regarding scrum - will not eventuate, and we may get a higher completion rate, fewer resets, and still have a contest. A win for everyone.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
Amen. This 'new' law is effectively just 'back to the future' at the scrum time. And as Bay alludes, McKenzie who played in the pre-hit era detailed that even with the bind there is is a hit. It's just a more controlled hit. You can still dominate an opponent with it if your any good. As I have said previously, I've played under the 'new' laws and the present ones and the difference between impacts aren't that massively different. It's just the bind brings stability and eliminates many of the current illegal tactics.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
If the ball carrier splits off with another player then yes, I agree it's illegal. However if there is a continuity in the bind when the maul splits, it is allowed to continue being seen be an extension of the original maul.
Dog
Guest
You watch the classic Bledisloe Cup games. Around about the Kearns and Fitzpatrick era. The pack walks up and sets in the blink of an eye. The ref has no input and half the time the half back is 10 yards away picking up the ball or talking to his backs. Hilarious when you compare it to today’s production.
gazbe2
Guest
The only point I disagree with is if the maul splinters and then drives forward all the players in front of the ball carrier are obstructing and should be ref'd as such. And if the ball carrier looses the bind he should immediately clear the maul else all those players from the maul are then offside and obstructing. The ball carrier swinging to the side with one or two binders is illiegal and should be called.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
"By removing the ‘hit’ they are now effectively removing a part of rugby that has been a contributing factor for dominant packs over a period spanning a century of tradition." Which is why Ewen McKenzie said in a Ruggamatrix podcast las year or the year before there never used to be a hit years ago, and they would bind first. Strangely sounding like the new law. Remind me what they were doing a century ago? Did you actually view some video from any rugby more than 15 years ago to look for any hits ...? Hyperbole beats facts any day, hey?
dadiggle
Guest
The average Aussie is of the opinion that Australia can only be successful in rugby if they play a style very similar to League namely a fast tempo game in which the ball flash from hand to hand in spectacular movements. The great curse of Australian Rugby is not that it was not close enough to League in design and method,?but that it is in fact too close. Hence the lack of emphasis on scrummaging and the dark arts of the game. A second misfortune of great consequence to the game as a whole is that it is ridden by a Sydney, or metropolitan complex. What will sell to the Aussie public- dictates how the game is developed and approached in Australia. Spectacular back line movement and a fast pace game has become the norm and none are more critical about the forward dominated style of 10-man rugby than the Aussies. Aussie rugby is being turned into a league hybrid which is all about flashy fancy pants razzle and dazzle with orgasmic style yelling by television commentators whose main job and objective is to make it sound and look more spectacular than it really is. The art of rucking, lineouts, and mauls, has been lost. Next on the agenda is to get rid of the scrum.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Got me to bite Biltong - the IRB/Bath Uni studies claim the hit at the Elite level has doubled in force in the last 20 years. The pre-bind apparently in testing has reduced the current force by half - should mean scrum engagement force goes back to 1990's levels which is still going to mean the coal face is no place for the meek. I have concern that some skill is going to disappear from front row play and size will become more important - I'm against this on principle but will wait until I see these scrums in operation before I cast judgement. Have switched back to coaching rather than playing with a recent move to HK but will have to take the boots down to training and pack a couple to see what it is like next season once we start using the new process.