With Super Rugby Aotearoa due to kick off this weekend, and Super Rugby AU still aiming for the first weekend in July, there’s no coincidence that the closed competitions will take the opportunity to try a few law variations.
New Zealand Rugby didn’t muck around, announcing a couple of variations that will undoubtedly change the game.
The allowance to replace a red carded player after 20 minutes will have huge implications on rugby going forward. You can almost hear the keyboards bursting with anticipation, waiting to punch out the first article explaining how a game wasn’t ruined by a red card, especially if said card comes well before halftime, a la Scott Barrett in the Bledisloe Test in Perth last season.
Scott Barrett of New Zealand. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
The allowance does what it says on the tin. A player issued with a red card is still sent from the field, and still cannot take any further part in the game. NZR even went to the length of clarifying that the dismissed player will still face the standard Super Rugby judicial process.
But twenty minutes after the red card is issued, a replacement player can come onto the field, restoring the 15-on-15 contest for the remainder of the game – except of course, if the red card comes inside the last twenty minutes.
On the surface, foul play is still being dealt with the same way. And the player responsible for the red card will still face the same disciplinary process afterward. At the time of the incident, and for twenty minutes thereafter, the opposition team will still have a numerical advantage from which they will be looking to benefit.
But it will be when the offending team is allowed to send the replacement player onto the field that will be the focus of the articles.
We’ll quickly find out whether opposing teams, coaches, and fans alike like the idea of facing a full XV after a red card, especially if the player on the receiving end of the red card-worthy foul play is also unable to take any further part of the game.
Just as there will be commentary around the contest being restored and the game uncompromised, there will also be commentary on whether it’s right that a team losing a player to an act of foul play should be penalised for doing nothing wrong.
Already, it’s being reported that Rugby Australia will carry this variation over into Super Rugby AU.
It’s unclear if Australia will follow New Zealand’s golden point trial at this stage, though no doubt they’ll be keeping an awfully close eye on things when the trial begins this weekend.
I have to admit, I’m a bit ambivalent about this move. I get the motivations, and I even get the potential for what would likely be very exciting finishes. But it also feels a bit like the answer to a question no-one asked.
In New Zealand derbies, yes, there were three draws last season alone. But there has only been one more draw after that going back to 2011.
In fact, there have only been nine New Zealand derby draws in Super Rugby history, and two of them were because of match cancellations; after the Christchurch earthquakes in 2011, and again after the mosque shootings in the Garden City last year.
In all Super Rugby matches since the competition began in 1996, the number of drawn matches is just 52. I’m not sure two drawn games per year is that big a problem.
In Australia, a Sydney Morning Herald report late last week outlined that along with the red card replacement, the line drop-out and 50-22 kick variations used in last year’s National Rugby Championship will carry forward into the new Super Rugby replacement, assuming of course, the competition gets the final go-ahead.
On the whole, these worked pretty well in the NRC, though I still don’t like the 50-22 opposite allowance, which allows teams pinned in their own 22 to kick and hope, and then regain the ball via attacking lineout if they happen to find touch on the bounce inside the opposition half.
I wrote a couple of articles on these variations during the NRC, and my position hasn’t really changed.
The 50-22 kick worked exactly as it was intended: rewarding tactical kicking from teams on attack on their side of halfway, and setting up further attacking opportunities via set-piece. Additionally, it forced defensive sides to play a much better positional game at the back, often forcing shorter defensive lines up front.
Why wouldn’t the 22-50 kick similarly reward tactical kicking, I hear you ask? Well it can, and it did, on the very rare occasions it was attempted. But more often than not, it came from speculative box kicks from the back of a 5m scrum, or worse, a couple of pick and drive rucks to edge closer to the 22, and then hope for a lucky bounce.
On paper, it can reward tactical defensive kicking; in practice, it was seen as an easy out with nothing to lose.
The line drop out, rewarding the defending team if they were able to hold the attacking team up over the line, was brought in as a faster way of restarting play – rather than an attacking 5m scrum and all associated resets – and it certainly did that. It also forced a lot more accuracy from the attacking side if trying to score via pick and drive.
What will the new rules change about rugby tactics? (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
Western Force coach Tim Sampson raised a really interesting question during last year’s NRC about this variation that still hasn’t been addressed, however.
“If the attacking team has a dominant rolling maul, and they maul from ten metres out and get held up over the line. They shouldn’t be punished for good execution by losing possession,” he offered. It remains a very good point, and it’s hard to disagree that they shouldn’t be.
But the intent of the variation – faster restarts, and more ball in play – was certainly realised, and no doubt that’s why it will carry over to Super Rugby AU.
What will be interesting in all these variations on both sides of the ditch, will be when the broadcasters start comparing notes.
If they find that the variations are producing games that are more engaging and contests that are more absorbing, then even without a sudden upsurge in ratings, they might see enough in the product that they can get behind as a product not just worth showing, but worth actively promoting.
That’s what leads to healthy conversations with governing bodies, and what leads to increases in the value of broadcast rights – especially if the Super Rugby product that SANZAAR keeps wanting to remind every of simply cannot be delivered in its contracted format.
If the broadcasters on either side of the Tasman find common ground in which variations can produce the best rugby product, well that’s a strengthening of the business case for a new competition right there.
And that’s why the rugby played under these law variations for the next few months could be fascinating on so many levels.
ThugbyFan
Roar Guru
Mitch, the attacking team still gets the ball after failing to ground the ball in the opponent's goal, albeit from a kick. Tim Sampson (in the article) is also in error with the failed maul try when he says "... get held up over the line. They shouldn’t be punished for good execution by losing possession,”..." The attacking team doesn't automatically lose possession as the defenders have to kick the ball from their tryline towards the attackers. This brings back into play the main criterion of the rugby Laws, the attack and defend sides now can contest for the ball. And as with a 5m scrum, the attacking side holds the advantage. Whether it's by scrum or kick-recieve the defending side has a small chance of winning the ball, by deception in the kick-chase or tweaking one of the "dark art" scrum rules. Dare I suggest WR is trying to minimise the number of scrums and especially resets in a match. I would prefer they look at the atrocity called rucks (or more ref interpretation/allowance) and the constant time-wasting by hordes of medics and water persons on the field, rather than try to make rugby union into NRL-lite.
Daggett
Roar Rookie
G'day Brett, will there be an article for tipping this weekend's NZ games? Canes by plenty?! :silly: Cheers!
Johnny J-Dog
Guest
Jacko, both teams lose a player if the red card offence causes a game ending injury. The offending team is only disadvantaged by 20 minutes for a red card offence. The non-offending team is also disadvantaged by the disruption caused by the loss of their injured player. To make up for that I suggest that the offending team also lose a second sub so that it is 15 v 15 on the field after 20 minutes but overall it is now 21 v 20.
John
Guest
Rugby does need need the League variations like goal-line dropout or 50-22 Rugby just needs to apply the laws as they stand 1. Lineouts. Move to the line of touch form up and get the ball in 2. Scrums. The same as above If teams delay free kick against them NZ law of only allowing 1 movement of tackled player this is great evens up the contest and may allow more turnovers. Rugby's best attribute is its un predictability. Counter attacking from turnovers and poor kick chases Just sped up the set pieces, as the laws state League has yes sped the game up, but still basically 5 tackles then kick.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Brett, I liked your point on the broadcasters. This is the sort of 'out' they need too. Rugby is a potentially valuable piece of content. They have already invested a lot in the past, especially Fox record deal over the last five years for what turned out to be a pretty ordinary product. Without a deal in place RA cannot expect a broadcaster to shell out good money (or enough money) for only the 2020 season. They need to negotiate the longer deal at a low base because they don't deserve anything better. I would be trying to build an incentive deal around a strategic plan so that your extra money is not just tied to extra ratings. The broadcasters should be sophisticated enough to accept a case that broadcast value should follow value creating strategic initiatives. This is my continuous complaint. The 2016-2020 strategic plan was a flimsy set of aspirational objectives and motherhood statements. There is no evidence of execution and certainly no attempt to report on progress. An interim CEO taking a convenient break from his holidays and a Chairman from outside the game don't fill me with confidence. Yes, McLellan has appropriate experience as a sports broadcaster but all I hear so far is about his input to the Big Bash and that his plans are rule changes for SR and a SOO. He will have limited input on rules beyond this season and the last thing Australian rugby needs is NSW supporters confused about which NSW team they support.
Jacko
Guest
Yep thats it. legally fine but Morally wrong lol
Pickett
Roar Rookie
The red card is a good move because union has so many whistle happy refs who'll send a player off for just blowing a kiss. Refs penalise, yellow card or red card a defender who tackles around the chest or arm pits these days. Ridiculous.
Digby
Roar Guru
Hi Soap, Wouldn't have thought so but we will see how it is interpreted, my assumption would be to face towards your own, pass etc but will be interesting to see, typical of rugby laws with a broad interpretation.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Lavanini felt very sorry. Very much so. Humbled and depressed.
Micko
Roar Rookie
As a West Aussie kid I could never figure that out when I was a kid watching on TV. If there's supposed to be a contest for the ball, why do they allow that weird method of obstruction?! If you go tackle the guy with the ball presumably the ref will punish you? :shocked:
Micko
Roar Rookie
And why are drop goals still worth three points?! :shocked:
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Guest
Ive not read all the posts so might be way behind a discussion. I hope the red card replacement after 20 mins means that refs will enforce the red card sanction right from kick-off. And we see an end to going for the yellow not the red because the match has just got under way. If it's a red, then it should be a red at all times over the 80 minutes.
Ex force fan
Guest
A drop goal in extra time can be exciting to watch. Just have a look at photos of the spectators’ reaction when Joel Stransky’s drop goal went over in extra time in the RWC 1995. Even the camera men forgot to take a picture!
Ex force fan
Guest
I agree with punishment of the perpetrator but not with punishing the spectators, viewers or sponsors. This can better be done after the game than during the heat of the moment and will lead to less error. Thugs should be so severely penalise that no-one should even want to consider it and the penalties should extend to lifetime bans for the player e.g.Johan le Roux and the coach if he acted on instruction from the coach.
Ex force fan
Guest
I have no problem with tweaking the rules to make rugby better for viewers and spectators as well as safer for players. This is the way to go and those that believe that rugby little competition in NZ, South Africa and Europe is casting the net not wide enough to include other sports and entertainment product that compete for viewers and spectators. One think you cannot do is stop innovating.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
My concern is that some absolute thuggish acts wont really get punished My biggest concern too. Maybe one way to solve it is very harsh citings and fines? If you take out the star player in the other team blatantly, you will get a year suspension with no pay.
Bourkos
Roar Rookie
I very much doubt that professional teams will go out to hurt another player. Imagine a coach saying that. Yeh get in his face etc, but not break a rib
Carlin
Roar Rookie
Thanks Brett. Not long to go before we have the great game back in action. On the rule changes, with the red cards I am still reluctant about this one. I totally agree this will help with fan engagement and not ruin the contest. My concern is that some absolute thuggish acts wont really get punished. A player might get two yellow cards (the second equating to a red) in a game for a couple of acts of silly play such as slowing the ball down and the team suffers for 30 minutes. Yet a one off deliberate act like Sebastian Vaahamahina's in the World Cup which is a lot worse than 2 professional fouls a team only suffers for 20 mins. The goal line drop out rule I like after at first thinking not to change. A lot of teams that get awarded 5m scrums do not really show any intention of attacking and really only scrum for a penalty or to chew up the clock. Golden point, I feel there is no need for it in a round robin competition.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Yea, it’s all technical in there, when forming a maul. The opposition need to be able to connect to the ball carrier, then the ball can be moved back to the base of the ruck. You see teams sometimes pulled up when the jumper feeds the ball back to the carrier before the opposition have bound properly into a maul, but not nearly enough. Some teams even try and not bind at all to prevent a maul from forming, but that relies on the refs actually recognising that and pulling the attacking team up. Truck and trailer and ball carriers that are not really bound at all are all issues that frustrate me. Too many times you can see clear air between the ball carrier and the maul for them to just lean a shoulder on and be counted as still bound – does my head in. I think the bigger problem is how easy it is to milk a penalty or for the defending side to be done for illegal pulling down when often the attacking team is at fault. Maybe more onus on forward momentum and once static it can be sacked without rebuke. Might help with the ‘use it or lose it’ mantra they use for rucks to keep play moving. TL:DR – apparently I’m not a fan of rolling mauls as they are currently policed. Too technical for everyone including refs.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
It seems we have closed the gap, from 40/20 to 50/22. And correct me if I’m wrong, I tend to think Union boys kick it further than the league boys?