Do we need changes in the game?

funky penguin

Article from Gerry Thornley, suggesting ways of improving the game as a spectacle.

ON RUGBY: By enforcing the present laws and trying out some new ones, the IRB can help avoid some of the negative tactics that were prevalent at the recent World Cup, writes GERRY THORNLEY

WORLD CUPS are landmarks. They are supposed to showcase the sport. By rights, they should constitute a four-yearly peak, showing off all that’s best about the game. And while the great global gathering just gone undoubtedly showcased New Zealand in all its glory, it cannot be said to have glorified rugby.

The All Blacks and Wales were good to watch in the 2011 World Cup, and if you were absorbed by their progress, or indeed Ireland’s, there was plenty to enjoy. As noted previously, there were no classics a la the France-All Blacks knock-out clashes of 1999 and 2007, nor even the thrills and spills which the likes of Wales and Fiji provided four years ago when seeking space, offloading and running from everywhere, notably in their 38-34 nine-try feast.

Instead, everybody appears to have mutated into something similar, with an overt emphasis on crash-test dummy rugby as players collide, with little space for the speedsters or the tricksters with dancing feet.

Try scoring averages can be a misleading barometer, not least because the tier two countries improved so significantly at the recent World Cup. Even so, the average of 5.5 tries per game at the 2011 World Cup was the second lowest of the seven competitions to date, only eclipsing the 4.6 tries per game of 1991.

Following on from the all-time high average of seven tries per game at the inaugural 1987 World Cup, the average had steadily increased from that 4.6 in 1991 to 5.8 in 1995, 5.9 in 1999 and then 6.9 in 2003 in Australia.

The first of three World Cups under the existing 48-game format, alas the overall total of 332 tries in 2003 has steadily decreased to 296 in 2007 and 262 in 2011. Nor can this be attributed purely to improved showings from the tier two countries, for the tallies have again fallen sharply in the knock-out stages, from 30 to 28 to just 20 in the eight games in New Zealand.

Never mind that individual referees have too much influence on games, most obviously Craig Joubert’s performance in the final (when, as an aside, the IRB’s idea of the world’s best referee again allowed the law of the jungle at the breakdown, as he had for Ireland’s opener against the USA). Once again the IRB have some more badly-needed tinkering to do.

For starters, we could begin where the World Cup ended, as it were, and the way so many games end nowadays as winning teams gain possession and deliberately run down the clock with pedantic pick-and-go tactics. At one point Richie McCaw looked at a stationary ball for fully 16 seconds.

Munster were pilloried for the way they did this in the 2008 Heineken Cup final against Toulouse in Cardiff, and the game responded by becoming harsher on players going to ground. But rugby is back at square one, and it is a form of legalised cheating, for it denies the opposition any chance of competing for the ball or the crowd from enjoying a fair end-of-game spectacle.

It is a blight on the game. Soon rugby’s endgames will become like some endgames in American football, with the losing team – knowing they cannot regain possession – don’t contest the line of scrimmage and the opposing team take the snap and the quarterback sinks down on one knee as the final seconds are counted down and celebrations begin.

Ironically, rugby could take a leaf out of American Football and emulate its four “downs” for every 10 yards, with failure to gain 10 yards from four attempts resulting in possession being turned over. Say, for example, five metres for every five pick-and-go, with failure to do so resulting in a scrum for the defending team. Okay, so the pitch might have to be gridded with further lines to assist officials.

Also, referees are empowered to employ a “use it or lose it” law at maul time, so why not at ruck time?

By contrast, indeed, the maul has been neutered too much and as a result has also lost its power to suck in opposition defenders and therefore create more space out wide.

While the return of the scrum is to be welcomed, in the game’s craze to avoid re-sets with swiftly decreed full or tap penalties, it has arguably assumed too much power.

There’s something wrong with the game when a relatively minor technicality such as a player briefly slipping his bind or letting his hand slip onto the ground can result in a score which is only two points inferior to a brilliantly worked try.

This is all the more so due to the frequently heard complaints from frontrowers that the new skin-tight jerseys offer reduced chance to properly grip an opponent. They are essentially trying to grip flesh, and not even all frontrows are shaped like, say, Steve Thompson.

There isn’t enough space on the pitch but let’s not consider that hoary old chestnut of reducing the teams to 13-a-side. Mind you, union could take a leaf out of the league manual when you consider how defending players are obliged to retreat five metres behind the tackle area. The hindmost foot/offside line is constantly infringed. Failing that, why isn’t more use made of the touch judges in this regard?

In another way too, union needs to take a leaf out of league’s manual, and other sports, by empowering television match officials to adjudicate on more than they do. It’s faintly ridiculous that say, Tommy Bowe could be impeded short of the line against Italy but because it wasn’t in the in-goal area the TMO could not decree a penalty try.

Reflect too, on the legitimate “try” he scored in the first half against Italy from Seán O’Brien’s offload. League referees and TMOs can go back to the origins of a scoring move and also adjudicate on forward passes. To help in this, perhaps union could also adopt limited use of a “challenger” system, a la cricket and tennis (and leave Sepp Blatter and his Fifa Luddites further behind). As those sports have shown, it adds to both the drama and the number of correct decisions.

Ideas, ideas, ideas. But the IRB need to get radical (if that isn’t an oxymoron), because something needs to be done. And quickly.

I think he makes some valid points such as strict enforcement of offside at ruck time, and the use it or lose it at ruck time (maybe the latter is a little too reactionary).

On the otherhand.....use of American Football 'downs'? :pac:

I can understand though, he' just brain storming.

I personally enjoyed this WC, and pick and drives at the end don't annoy me. However, (and not to turn this into a Joubert bashing thread), the IRB needs to look at it's officials, and the powers they have. While pick and drives don't annoy me, improper officating of them does. I think slight shifts in the laws are the answer to avoid the referee grabbing more headlines than the sport itself.

Opinions?

danthefan

Downs are seriously the worst idea I've ever heard.

CatFromHue

I'd see "downs" leading to more kicking i.e. after every third play.

I think what Thornleys expectations were and the competing teams goals were are differnent. Competing teams aren't worried about playing in 9 try thrillers, they're just concerned with winning the game. No more.

It looks like from below that TMO's will be possibly getting more power but the fluidity of the game has to also be taken into consideration. A game can't be stopped repeatedly or stopped and brought back to an infringement from a few mins previously.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_7284601,00.html

I don't see how you can rule on teams picking and going at rucks towards the end of the game. It's just smart play. Limiting the time a ball can be at a ruck could severly effect some scrum halves in normal play!

Fireball07

I think something has to be done about the rucks, I'd agree with a "use it or lose it" policy being introduced. At the moment, there's too much freedom for blatant time-wasting.

JustinDee

danthefan wrote: »

Downs are seriously the worst idea I've ever heard.

Already in use though and in improved form through rugby league. Maybe Gezzer should try that?
Game is fine. Just needs consistency in officiating and less cynical coaching.

durkadurka

You cant persuade coaches to be less cynical though.

JustinDee

durkadurka wrote: »

You cant persuade coaches to be less cynical though.

Just saying that the state of the game is down to much more than a simple set of laws.

totallegend

Thornley's suggestions might be a bit impractical, but the way in which NZ were allowed to run out the clock in the final was ridiculous, even if it was within the laws of the game.

It seems to me that a minor tweak to the definition of the ball being "out" would help, i.e. if the ball is on the ground and playable by the team in possession, then the defending side should be allowed to come in and compete. As it is, the team in possession is allowed to take as much time as they need, especially now that 'sealing off' rucks seems to have crept back in.

Unfortunately, it seems in the last few years that only the Southern Hemisphere unions can initiate any sort of changes to the way the game is played and they know they can rely on Paddy O'Brien to instruct the referees accordingly. Since New Zealand have mastered the current interpretation of rucks, they won't be in any hurry to drive changes through.

On the video ref issue, I'd be against allowing referees to go upstairs more often; we see too many of them shirking calls as it is, if they can now refer anything contentious in the lead up to tries as well, the game will be slowed down far too much.

CatFromHue

totallegend wrote: »

Thornley's suggestions might be a bit impractical, but the way in which NZ were allowed to run out the clock in the final was ridiculous, even if it was within the laws of the game.

It seems to me that a minor tweak to the definition of the ball being "out" would help, i.e. if the ball is on the ground and playable by the team in possession, then the defending side should be allowed to come in and compete. As it is, the team in possession is allowed to take as much time as they need, especially now that 'sealing off' rucks seems to have crept back in.

Remember any rules brought in to stop a team running down the clock will also apply through out the whole game. So in your idea if an attacker is tackled, the ruck forms, and he places it back. Immediatley as he has placed it back the ball is playable. So if the scrum half is either slow to get to the ruck or indecisive as to what to do with the ball he can be tackled or the ball robbed. Your rule would change the game a huge amount.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

Thornley's suggestions might be a bit impractical, but the way in which NZ were allowed to run out the clock in the final was ridiculous, even if it was within the laws of the game

Its only ever ridiculous if another team is doing it.
If its your own, its nerve-wracking.

Thud

The downs idea would have deprived us of the tense finish in the Wales France game where Wales we trying to get into a drop goal position (similarly in final) how many phases were there without yardage gained even though the effort was being made.

chris85

Better referreeing at the breakdown and its all good as far as I am concerned.

WeeBushy

The three things that need to be looked at imo:

1. Consistent refereeing of the breakdown. There is too much disparity in the interpretation of the breakdown by the different refs.

2. Very strict on players being offside. Empower the touch judge in this area.

3. Reduce some of the indiscretions in the scrum to free kicks. I think he makes a good point about a prop slipping his bind being potentially worth only 2 points less than a try.

CatFromHue

WeeBushy wrote: »

2. Very strict on players being offside. Empower the touch judge in this area.

This is a pretty good point.

If you changed it that the offside line was to be solely reffed by the touch judge it would free up the ref to pay more attention in rucks and would also be better ruled as the TJ has a far better line of sight than the ref.

Another thing that could be stopped is a defensive line arcing i.e. the 13 is ahead of the rest of the line (This happened a few times in the Connacht Cardiff game were the 13 was so far offside that if the outhalf threw a pass a meter or more behind him it would have gone straight to the opposing 13 who was stationary almost in the attacking line!). This stops an attacking team spinning it wide as it could be intercepted.

profitius

I think the main reason for less tries these days is because the players are much fitter and able to cover more ground. Therefore theres less space available for attacking teams.

The best solution IMO would be a radical one. Reduce the number of players to 14. It would mean theres a little bit more space to attack on the pitch so make it a little harder to defend and reward skillful play.

They really have to tidy up the scrums. Binding is a big issue alright. Maybe give a free instead of a penalty for binding offences.

I'm a firm believer in simplifying things so I wouldn't like to see a hole load of new laws come in. Most people find rugby hard to follow as it is and loads of new laws means the referees play a greater role in the outcome of matches.

tolosenc

Have the TMO ref the blindside front rowers and the ref the openside and give a free against whoever loses his bind first.

TJs reffing the offside is another good one.

TBH, the TMO could be used like an extra pair of eyes.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

Just saying that the state of the game is down to much more than a simple set of laws.

Agreed. I read a blog by Nigel Owens a while back who said at lower levels the scrum engagements work fine because for the most part the teams just want to get on with it. At professional level though there's far more cynical play to force the infringement that ends up making more of a mess of things than anything.

Thud wrote: »

The downs idea would have deprived us of the tense finish in the Wales France game where Wales we trying to get into a drop goal position (similarly in final) how many phases were there without yardage gained even though the effort was being made.

Or Leinster-Saracens from Wembley last year. I wouldn't take those from the game for anything.

WeeBushy wrote: »

The three things that need to be looked at imo:

1. Consistent refereeing of the breakdown. There is too much disparity in the interpretation of the breakdown by the different refs.

2. Very strict on players being offside. Empower the touch judge in this area.

3. Reduce some of the indiscretions in the scrum to free kicks. I think he makes a good point about a prop slipping his bind being potentially worth only 2 points less than a try.

+1 on all 3.

tolosenc wrote: »

Have the TMO ref the blindside front rowers and the ref the openside and give a free against whoever loses his bind first.

TJs reffing the offside is another good one.

TBH, the TMO could be used like an extra pair of eyes.

I'd be a bit wary of the TMO usage. A lot of refs could end up using that as a crutch. I believe they are expanding the TMO to cover incidents like the Bowe try against Italy (possibly both of Bowes tries!) so that's a step in the right direction. But I wouldn't want the TMO involved in general play. Maybe give a team the option to refer 1 decision upstairs per game or something, but otherwise keep the TMO out of general play.

Stev_o

There needs to be a major conference on the core rules of rugby soon else we are going to see the popularity of the sport sink quite low. The "spectacle" of rugby was the biggest pile of dross id ever seen in my life, hell I would of preferred to watch darts over it.

Rucks need to be addressed and im in of the mind set that they should remove the ability for defenders to use their hands in any area of the tackle to ruck process. It's killing the game and drawing so much flack for referees unsure of how to enforce it. Remove the rights of the tackle to the ball, ensure that defenders must drive over the ball now to create a turn over. Just ****ing do something.

Rugby is already leaning towards Team A vs Team B vs Referee which makes for a horrible spectacle.

irishbucsfan

I really don't understand what all the fuss about time wasting at rucks is. New Zealand could only do that by preventing France from turning over the ball, and as soon as France copped what they were doing (which was far too late, their own fault) they managed to put quite a bit of pressure on them, although they could have done more if they were smarter about it. I really really hope they don't bring in some pointless law to prevent teams playing smart rugby.

Stev_o

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really don't understand what all the fuss about time wasting at rucks is. New Zealand could only do that by preventing France from turning over the ball, and as soon as France copped what they were doing (which was far too late, their own fault) they managed to put quite a bit of pressure on them, although they could have done more if they were smarter about it. I really really hope they don't bring in some pointless law to prevent teams playing smart rugby.

The IRB did, they went to their refs that they should enforce sealing off at the breakdown. At the same time they went and said don't be so harsh going off your feet at the breakdown. Complete and utter mess ensues. Rucks need to be addressed.

irishbucsfan

Stev_o wrote: »

The IRB did, they went to their refs that they should enforce sealing off at the breakdown. At the same time they went and said don't be so harsh going off your feet at the breakdown. Complete and utter mess ensues. Rucks need to be addressed.

Well sealing off and going off your feet are not necessarilly the same thing, and the refs are perfectly capable of understanding that.

I really don't think the problem is with the rules at the breakdown, I think it's with the referees themselves. Anyone can see, on the field or in the stand, that the kiwis were sealing off at times, but Joubert just chickened out repeatedly.

I really think that when the rules are applied correctly they make the game what it is. And removing (or at least diluting) the contest at the breakdown is just another step towards rugby league*... It would most difficult and impressive (IMO) skills from the game.

Whether or not this world cup was exciting or good to watch is entirely subjective. I think it was, I can understand people who think it wasn't.

*(And I have no problem with league, but if I want to watch it I'll watch it)

profitius

WRT the rucks, theres a few things I'd like to see tried.

1. Once the ruck has formed no player can go off their feet. The tackler and tackled player obviously will hit the ground but after that no player should be allowed go off their feet. If they do end up going off their feet, free against them or penalty and yellow card for more serious offences.

2. No player off their feet beyond where the ball is once the ruck has formed. Its kind of like the first point. The tackler has to roll away if he is on the wrong side so no other player should be flopping over the ruck past the ball, getting in the attacking teams way. There should be an offside line where the ball is.

3. Zero tolerance shown. We all see the way NZ players fall over, at a 90 degree angle, over the ball at each ruck. To the observer this looks like an accident because they're obviously falling after making a tackle and bumping off their own players etc. In reality its preplanned tactics designed to spoil opposition ball. Its very effective. Reward the attacking team with penalties will sort out this.

There will be times when genuine accidents happen and teams will be unlucky to be penalised but overall it will clean up rucks and speed up the game. It'll make it a better sport to watch and reward the more skillful players.

What referees need to do is to watch the defending team and use less of their "common sense" and stick to the letter of the law more strictly. Forget about the reasons why McCaw is over on the wrong side of the ruck, focus on the effect he is having on the opposition ball.

4. Automatic yellows for players who are on the ground in rucks and try to slap the ball out of the scrumhalfs hands.

pajunior

profitius wrote: »

WRT the rucks, theres a few things I'd like to see tried.

1. Once the ruck has formed no player can go off their feet. The tackler and tackled player obviously will hit the ground but after that no player should be allowed go off their feet. If they do end up going off their feet, free against them or penalty and yellow card for more serious offences.

Agree with everything else but I'm not sure about this.

If a player on the defending team goes in after a tackle to challenge for the ball and is pulled to the ground by an opposition player, are you suggesting that a penalty is given against him due to the fact that he would now be off his feet in a ruck?
Or am I mis reading completely and you are going by todays law whereby if you're off your feet and challenging for the ball it's a penalty?

profitius

pajunior wrote: »

Agree with everything else but I'm not sure about this.

If a player on the defending team goes in after a tackle to challenge for the ball and is pulled to the ground by an opposition player, are you suggesting that a penalty is given against him due to the fact that he would now be off his feet in a ruck?
Or am I mis reading completely and you are going by todays law whereby if you're off your feet and challenging for the ball it's a penalty?

Thats a good point. Any pulling should be penalised too. Its easy to spot players being pulled so I doubt it would be a problem to stamp it out.

Guy:Incognito

What about a sort of shot clock to force the use of the ball at the ruck? Once its presented back you have , say, 10 seconds to get it gone.

It can be next to impossible to turn ball over if the attacking team drop 2 or 3 people on top of each other and make a wall. Then they just sit behind it with the ball takign as long as they need to run the clock down (assumign they are winning obviously :-) (