When Steve Hansen says the laws of rugby need to be revised, modified and made easier to play, to referee, and to understand, the rugby world should take notice.
The All Blacks under Hansen’s adroit coaching are in an era even more golden than previous great eras.
They are not only playing winning rugby, they are playing rugby the way it is supposed to be played – with courage, physical strength, high skills and the intent to score tries while stopping opponents from doing so.
My guess is that the USA Basketball side, with 63 consecutive wins and Olympic and world titles by the net-full, are the best team in international sport right now. But the All Blacks must be close behind them.
The point is that when leading New Zealand rugby men speak passionately about the need to improve the laws of rugby, the rest of the world should take notice. There is a history in that country of profound thinking about the game that needs to be appreciated by the rugby community outside of New Zealand.
So it is disappointing to me that the ARU and Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie haven’t caught the ball passed to them by Hansen and run with it. The benefits of a more easily understood and playable rugby game should be obvious.
What’s more, the solution to the problem stated by Hansen is staring them in the face.
The ARU needs to form a grouping with the New Zealand Rugby Union, Argentina, France, the Pacific Island countries and any of the other European nations concerned about improving rugby as spectacle, to lobby for an implementation after the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament of the entire Experimental Law Variations package.
The point about the ELVs is that they are a comprehensive re-writing of the laws of rugby to make them less complicated, condensed, easier to play, with the intervention of 50-50 refereeing decisions being de-powered in main to short-arm penalties.
In other words, exactly what Hansen is calling for.
A short history of the ELVs starts with trials at Stellenbosch University in 2006. I wrote an article for The Roar about these trials on 9 April 2007.
After the dismal Rugby World Cup 2007 final between South Africa and England, the IRB decided to put into match play 13 0f 23 variations.
The Australian expert on the ELVs panel was Rod Macqueen, in my opinion the most thoughtful and inventive thinker about rugby the Australian rugby community has produced in the last four decades.
In 2009 the IRB approved of 10 of the 13 variations. Unfortunately, the most important variations were excluded: the pulling down of mauls was rejected, numbers in the lineout was brought back from the ELVs proposal of as many as a team wanted to put in to the throwing side deciding, and the sanctions punishable by free kicks were abolished.
This last variation allowed for only two full-arm penalty offences at the ruck and maul (for fouls and offside) and the rest being short-arm penalties, with the scrums being subject to the same law.
The two rugby powers who were most adamant that the ELVs package be frustrated were (and is any one surprised!) England and South Africa.
Both these rugby powers see rugby as an attritional, set-piece dominated game where scoring through penalties and drop goals is somehow the point of the game, more so than scoring tries. They are wedded to rugby as a rugby football game.
It was no surprise to anyone with a smidgin of knowledge about the history of rugby that when England toured New Zealand earlier this year, they spent an eternity going into lineouts. They slowed the game down as much as possible.
Then last week, we had the sight of Richie McCaw complaining to the referee at Wellington that the Springboks were deliberately sending players down to stop the flow of play.
Bill Pulver needs to show some leadership in Australia and in world rugby. Next year, for instance, the NRC should be played under the 13 ELVs. This would enable law-makers to evaluate them and apply them to world rugby in 2016.
So let’s see some action from the ARU. The New Zealand Rugby Union will come on board. I see nothing but a win-win situation in all of this.
Australian rugby thrives when it is energetic and full of action, qualities the ELVs rugby bring to the game. The rugby game, too, will be given a rocket boost in 2016, the year of the Olympic Sevens, as it continues its astonishing spread around the world.
Paul Kruger
Roar Pro
Ripping up the rule book implies that most of these reffing blunders are occuring because of needlessly complex laws strangling the game. I disagree, the biggest reffing mistakes I've noticed have been regarding basic laws of the game. Sure enough the penalty against Richie in the SR final might be attributed to the breakdown quagmire, but generally refs are struggling with the most basic officiating: - Vermeulen makes a sweet hit in perth: penalty - Habana a marginal high tackle: yellow card - Argentina scores a charge down try: knock on? - Bismarck takes DC out of the game legally: card Ripping up the rulebook won't do jack for these errors which are catastrophic failures in interpreting the most basic, fundamental laws of the game. If the refs can't even recognize a high tackle then I shudder to think how basic people propose to make the game. Solution: captain challenge with TMO review.
scottmit
Roar Rookie
Are you serious? The only time I saw them played in their entirety was in the old natrional rugby comp and they worked a treat. The games were fast and clean. The application of the laws was transparent - exactly what was the intention. The real problem with the application of the ELVs was that they were designed as a package NOT as a pick and mix. I agree: taking a couple of rules and applying them over the old set WAS a disaster
scottmit
Roar Rookie
I suspect your suggestions would make the game MORE complex, with different interpretations depending on the circumstances, the period of the game and the position on the field. The ELVs were about SIMPLIFYING the rules and were not a pick and mix set. They were designed to be applied as a package. the old National Rugby Championship held some time ago applied the rules in full. I thought they worked fantastically well. The ruck/maul worked a treat - the forwards worked out quickly how to protect the ball, backs were getting quick ball and there was some great competition for the ball as well.
RobC
Roar Guru
Cool. Same for maul Add extra point for each 15m gained through the drive :)
Bakkies
Guest
So everytime Hansen talks drivel we have to agree with him because he knows more about Rugby? Come off it.
Bakkies
Guest
Look what that did to the game in northern England and Australia. Think before you post.
Bakkies
Guest
It's to stop teams from deliberately avoiding joining the maul to get a obstruction penalty.
Bakkies
Guest
If the dominant force the opposition to lose their binds and collapse is a clear cut penalty. What's confusing about that?
Bakkies
Guest
The Lions manager was a back of course he would say that.
Bakkies
Guest
It's called a contest. If the attacking player gets isolated that's the usual result.
Eagle roarer
Guest
Not a big change? if you use your example the AUS vs NZ game would have taken about 6 and a half hours to play!
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I am not sure he is as worried as you think. 20+ games and counting without a loss. he is one of the best rugby brains in the world. Based on objective facts he knows 1,000 times more about rugby than anyone in this thread and his peers are only other professional coaches and top players. If he struggles to understand rulings then he should be listened to. The yellow card issue is something the All Blacks can solve by simply not infringing. That does not solve the issue he spoke of which is being unclear about some rules or over complication of the rule book. My self I don't know how to simplify it or if it even can be but smirking at Hansen just makes people on here look silly.
The Battered Slav
Guest
You're South African, aren't you Harry...
AndyS
Guest
If they went down that path, then I would also revert to the requirement to stop and plant a foot in order to call mark. I wouldn't want to see the current system where even if the ball was contested it could be called; that would just be the AFL. If they feel safe enough to catch the ball set in a static and fixed position fair enough, otherwise no mark.
Zack
Roar Rookie
I suspect Hansen's view of referees' calls is not too dissimilar to that of someone following the flow of traffic on a 3-lane highway who gets zapped by the revenue collectors for exceeding the speed limit: "Why me?? Everyone else is doing the same speed!!"
Collin Meads
Guest
Great point Cal. This would stop those frustrating and niggling players walking away with the ball. perhaps you could add CK5 and TTF1.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Back to the future with that idea of calling a mark from anywhere, Redarmy. That used to be the law, and not only that but you could kick a goal from a mark from anywhere on the field. The first Test match I ever saw in the flesh, as it were, was New Zealand v England at Lancaster Park in Christchurch in 1963. All Black fullback Don Clarke called for a mark just inside his own half, near the left-hand touchline. He moved back a few yards, set up a place kick and conned the English forwards into charging prematurely. Then, with a subsequent charge-down ruled out, he kicked the goal, one of the longest goal kicks I have ever seen. An alternative would have been to have someone tap the ball to him, after which he could have launched a drop-kick. I think he drop-kicked some goals from marks in South Africa in 1960. I like the idea of the mark being taken anywhere on the field, providing the alternatives of a kick for goal or a quick tap. We might see fewer of the dreaded box kicks as a result.
Zack
Roar Rookie
That's all the invitation the Poms will need: they'll fast-track Ronaldo into their squad as the designated kicker to be wheeled out to kick all penalties ala gridiron... The Laws are fine as they are: it's how they are interpreted by referees which is subjective and confusing. Control the clock and all the time-wasting in scrums and line-outs disappear overnight. If the front rows want to be silly, they can just keep re-setting all day til they collapse in exhaustion by regulating the clock: ditto in line-outs. Regulating dead-ball time will remove all the nonsense a lot of teams engage in now when they realise they still have to play 80 minutes of rugby, and would be the most transparent and least disruptive enhancement to the Laws.
Bakkies
Guest
Ah yes they did just not in the pro competitions. For the record there are four major comps in Europe. If one comp adopted the free kicks and the others did it would be a farce to follow.
Bakkies
Guest
Pot kettle. I have already given my reason to ignore Hansen's nonsense. If he wasn't constantly talking drivel and behaving like an arrogant git in his pressers he would be worth listening to.