An open letter to World Rugby: Part 2

Great article Highlander. I'm a purist and I hate the ridiculous time spent on scrums, especially toward the end of a match. Free kicks or penalties should be awarded more frequently if a scrum does not resolve on the first attempt. If the ref is undecided and a scrum can be resolved at the first attempt the advantage should continue and the Ref should award a free to the team that didn't knock on, ie didn't get an advantage. Resets should be an exception. And offside at the ruck is destroying the game. It makes such a difference when the refs enforce that Law in particular, it is arguably the most important Law not being regularly enforced. There should be clear space between the ruck and other players, if we need a number then 1 meter would do, with the only player allowed inside the 1 m (and behind the last bound players feet) would be the *receiver* -- who could be considered part of the ruck, like the scrum or lineout. When the receiver is at the ruck everyone would need to be behind that player.

I do get very tired of professional players having to have the Laws explained to them at the start of each and every game. They're pros, not U12s, and to be honest, having reffed, I think some U12s have a better undestanding of the laws than the Pros. I think those players are smart enough that if the get penalized immediately without explanation and then told. "Roll Away" or "Hands in the Ruck" they will soon work it out. Go hard early then ease off, is easier than trying to rein in a team that keeps pushing the boundaries. On that note, I'd love to see all the Pro players getting Level One Ref tickets and going out and refereeing Under Age club and school games on a Saturday morning. Might help them understand the rules, and the refs position a little better, and would be a buzz for the kids. "Guess who reffed us today!" Agree with the resets, unless there is a valid reason both teams slipping -- in poor footing conditions for example and moving the scrum to firmer ground. A reset should be an exception. As a scrum is often the result of an error (ie knock on), if the team doesn't get an advantage at the at the time, and the subsequent scrum doesn't complete, simply award a free kick to the team that did not get an advantage in the first place. Solved. Ironically, some teams knock on and then get a scrum penalty.

bring back rucking. The cleanout now as it stands relies on bigger & heavier players crashing into the ruck as a means of moving players = bigger players, bigger collisions, more concussions? If rucking were allowed players are gently persuaded to not handle the ball or lay on the wrong side. Compare the injuries of players from the 60's 70's and 80's compared to now.

I will take your word for it but do not think there is confusion. I think my first explanation is a better one, it is just hard to officiate if you want to be 100% certain and players will push the envelope and set their line where they can get away with it.

This mini-thread shows just why it's difficult getting excellent referees. Who'd want to listen to carping at any tiny mistake for months/years when all the correct decisions in an extremely complex game are ignored. There are two sets of fans who moan endlessly about the mistake that impacted their side. It would help get and keep good referees if we cut them the same slack we cut our favourite players who make far more mistakes than referees every week. And if the body responsible gave them a clear mandate and then supported them implementing it.

Definitely agree the law should be consistent and scrupulously applied. But you are wrong if you think "you are behind the offside line or you are offside" is some consistent principle within the laws. I agree it should be, and it wouldn't take much to make it so, but at the moment the phrase "in front of" is only used in a dozen or so places. One is in the definitions where the laws state that "Beyond or behind or in front of a position : Means with both feet...". Two others are with regard to offside, where they say "A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate..." and "Those who are in front of the ball when it is kicked may be sanctioned...". So while the absence of a positive definition of offside at the breakdown may allow the negative to be assumed, that is inconsistent with the positive definitions for the same offence in other aspects of play. It is also not helped by the associated illustration of the ruck, which specifically shows the offside player at the breakdown as standing with both feet well over the line. If standing with even their toes over the line would have made them offside (per the assumption of 'not onside'), then the corresponding illustration of foot in touch must show the player sitting in the front row of seats eating chips. The laws could be easily made definitive and consistent, but until they are I suspect referees will remain inclined to coach. And if the assumption is that these inconveniences could be ignored under the cop-out phrase in the definition regarding 'context', then the laws really would be little more than local rules and guidelines.

You will get greater consistency from the more experienced referees. The tendency to judge a referee on a very bad decisions early in their career is the problem as it pre-maturely end their careers. Some players also make terrible decisions early in their careers but time and experience get better to put in consistent high performances. We need patience to allow referees to do the same. If we have 6-12 referees with more than 100 tests under their belt I am sure you will get more consistent performance from them as well.

I don't agree with some of the comments, the law is pretty clear and consistent with all announcements; you are behind the offside line or you are offside. Are you referring to the players electing to stand around a foot (say) behind the line to ensure that they were not picked up by the scrupulous refereeing of 'offside'? Rings a bell and proves that players easily adjust to consistent rulings. That is why we need to support referees attempting to enforce the rules. They do not have the benefit of electronic doodads and replays, and we don't want to stop the game for them. It is up to the players to leave no room for doubt, not the referees to agonise over the doubt. That probably fits my views on scrums and lineouts. Holistically it probably forces the referees to make more contentious decisions and they will improve faster by jamming more experiences into each game.

On the basis of not much at all, I might agree with that. Would that be more calling of 'advantage over, penalty' while the ball was still in play, rather than waiting until the non-offending side losing the ball or the next infringement occurring? I may have noticed that, obviously unconsciously, so that it would be buried under all my biases.

The more I think about it the more uncomfortable I am with rigid times. We need the referee to referee the game he is involved in. If one team is set for the scrum or lineout, while the other is strolling around or having a chat then the referee needs to exercise his discretion about playing on or penalising.

Yes, the disadvantage of being given advantage. Need a little better doctrinal consistency here.

Ah well, I guess if you haven't heard it, it can't possibly have happened then... ;) Interesting you mentioned hands on the ground. You do realise that a whole bunch of guidance had to be sent around a few years back on that specific subject, precisely because the law was unclear on the subject? And you understand that, while I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of Peter's interpretation, it makes that one application of offside directly inconsistent with the other instances of offside which positively define offside as being in front of a player/ball and 'in front' as both feet. So what I am suggesting is that, if you want consistency between those three or four refs (and refereeing in general), making the laws themselves both clear and consistent is a good start. If nothing else, it might make the refs more confident to just penalise instead of feeling the need to coach and educate. WR are apparently messing around with all these laws as part of reviewing the whole breakdown area. It looks like it will finally codify the hands on the ground issue; fingers crossed it also makes the rest both consistent and, more importantly, definitive. They could literally do it with only a few words (just as they've quickly and quietly done with "last feet"), although they'd perhaps also want to revisit a couple of their illustrative pictures. That they are so slow to suggests that poor refereeing may be more a symptom of what ails the game than it is any sort of cause.

blah blah blah. I watched just about every game of SR for years and I’ve never heard a referee say anything about someone being onside because he had one foot onside still, I’ve seen penalties for hands on the ground in front of the try line, you’ve gone to great lengths there Andy to find a problem with the laws where there is none. Do agree that the refs, all three or four of them, need to come down hard on it though and penalise it as in early SRAO. The defence in the recent Eng-Fra game was laughable, no wonder the ball was kicked away

Another great piece thanks Highlander. Lazily I haven’t read the other comments so this may have been said several times now, but 2 points that really stood out for me (ie I agree!): - penalty advantage is often the opposite. Best weapon is usually the quick tap and dart. - refs coaching the players (roll away 7, etc) is also counterproductive: they know they’ll get a warning before the penalty comes. Looking forward to more of your work. Cheers.

No, that is only your interpretation. The law explains how a player becomes onside, and where the offside line is created, but not what subsequently makes a player offside. Most would say it is being over the offside line, but exactly as you said yourself, 'beyond' or 'in front of a position' means with both feet. So at the moment it seems to be treated like the 22 line...play might need to be pushed entirely behind the line, but thereafter even one foot on the line is still inside. I would prefer it made explicitly clear along the same lines as you are thinking, but that certainly isn't how it is currently ruled. It is particularly obvious in defence near the try line - players retreat behind the line, but then take a half step back. And I have frequently heard SR refs specifically explain to complaining captains (or scrumhalfs) that the player still had a foot behind the line...it is what first made me notice the imprecision within the laws. IMO it may also be why you so frequently hear supporters complain that the opposition were offside all day, yet that was not how the ref of the day ruled it. But as Highlander noted, if it were made clear and then applied consistently, it could make a big difference to the game.

It is not in the negative so to be onside you need to have both feet behind, if 1 foot is on the ground past that it is offside.

there are good refs around but they tend to get waylaid in the system in the 1st article i mentioned 2 guys who are not seen much and one has now retired. JP Doyle from england Matheu Raynol from France. these guys are too good for the game - s o the reviews and other things tend to be against them for eg - Raynol is the guy who penalized the crusaders scrum against the Lions only for the next ref to keep penalizing the Lionas scrum in tests crusaders scrum was more or less the all blacks those days. now how do u think there is a 180 turnaround between 2 refs? simillaly JPD had always been talked of a s s strict ref in Gallagher - thus he got very few tests while Barnes was free to ignore forward passes every other week HIghlander talks of nik berry - once i said he is the australian strawberry , in reference to the south african stu berry who was removed from super rugger after very rubbish and partisan performances. yes its easy to make mistakes in a fast and complicated game like rugger - but im sure there are avoidable mistakes aplenty. for eg - how did the touchies in the France v england game miss two knockk ons 5 meters from the touchline in those last 2 minutes?? how did the touchie miss a blatant crooked throw to france in that game? this is where more attention shud be given - to correct ot avoid the very bad and obvios decisions.

i think its necessary to call what exactly is happening - if its a tackle or a ruck or a maul or whatever. especailly for people like me who played cricket nd now watch rugger - and its tough to know what is what. i try to read the laws and understaand but then it seems 95% of the time referee has a different interpretation when i think tackle - he says ruck , when i think maul he says tackle or ruck mind u - i have seen even players being confused with these calls at certain times. i think its necessary to make these calls especially when rugger wants to attract more to watch it. those who played rugger think its easy to understnad - but rugger is a very complex game to grasp , even more than american football.

Yep, refs are not there to be coaches. I have said this elsewhere. Once team is read to scrum or to "lineout", as in packed, bound and aligned the other team should have a time limit to "front up". Be that 5 seconds or 10 seconds or whatever is decided, or its a short arm.