2007 Rugby World Cup casts shadow over experimental law variations
Since the Professional Era of rugby began in earnest in 1995, the laws of rugby have not changed much beyond technical clarification and small ‘tweaks’ to increase player safety. Two obvious exceptions are (i) lifting in the lineout and (ii) television match officials for confirming trys. However, these have not had much much long-term impact on how the game is played primarily since line-outs and touch-downs constitute only a minor component of any rugby match.
However, new rules currently called the ‘Stellenbosch’ Experimental Laws are set to change that by legalizing many common law infractions at the break-down where much of the match is spent.
Paddy O’Brien, the International Rugby Board’s referee manager and arguably the best referee in the history of the rugby, is the main architect of these experimental law variations (ELVs) and thus the evolution of the sport. The ELVs are designed to simplify the referee influence at the break-down and throughout the match, improve spectator understanding and increase scoring opportunities for the players (and fans and sponsors and advertisers of course).
The most striking changes in the current iteration of the ‘Stellenbosch’ experimental laws players legalize handling the ball in the ruck, legalizing collapsing the maul and moving the offside line back 5 meters during the scrummage. ‘Truck-and-trailer’ (a.k.a accidental offsides) following a maul collapse will also be decriminalized along with non-matching numbers in the lineouts. A more detailed description of the ELVs can be found here (PDF) and here.
These ELVs were first tested at the Stellenbosch boys school in South Africa and have also been tested to mixed reception at the at the Australian Rugby Championship.
As far as I am concerned, anything that simplifies refereeing (thus making it more consistent for players and spectators) and improves visibility of the sport (by simplifying the rules and increasing the scoring opportunities) are critical steps in North America and other regions where rugby union is overshadowed by other professional sports.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 6:48 am)
You call Paddy O’brien “arguably the best referee in the history of Rugby”.
Obviously you didn’t watch his shocker of a performance between Fiji and France in the 1999 RWC when he shut Fiji out of a quarter-final berth with a penalty try.
From the synopsis of his biography:
“One game about which he particularly wants to set the record straight is the France-Fiji World Cup encounter at Toulouse in 1999, for which he received a shellacking. It is the one black spot in an otherwise distinguished refereeing career - and one that Paddy will talk frankly about.” - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paddy-OBrien-Whistle-While-Work/dp/1869589866
Hmmm.. I need to get me that book!
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 9:01 am)
I don’t think th rule changes will affect rugby much in the U.S. because players already do alot of those things like handle the ball in the ruck and collapse mauls. But being 5 meters back from the scrummage I think is a great rule.
To me it seems as if the IRB is trying what the NHL did, which is change the rules to promote more scoring, hence making the game more exciting. I personally think there’s plenty of scoring so I wonder what the real motivation for this is. I don’t think it necessarily makes the ref’s job easier.
What did you mean about matching numbers in the lineout? I don’t recall a law saying a team has to match the lineout set by the team throwing in.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am)
@Mark: Well, I said it was arguable :), but your quotation supports my statement: “It is the one black spot in an otherwise distinguished refereeing career…”
@Josh: Currently, the team throwing in the ball sets the maximum number of players in the lineout. It looks like this is not the case under the ‘Stellenbosch’ Experimental Laws.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 10:32 am)
i think you’re forgetting one of the more important of the proposed laws (unless it’s already been killed), the concession of short arm penalties rather than full penalties. the proposal was to give free kicks for all penalties except for offsides and dangerous play. also, under the new laws, if a ball is passed or behind the 22, a kick must be taken to touch indirectly to place a lineout at the spot of the touch.
hands in the ruck definitely makes things easier for the ref, but i don’t think it will have the desired effect of speeding the game up. This will allow the defense to more effectively poach and/or slow down the ball.
as for allowance of maul collapsing, i’m sure i’m not the only one who thinks this is potentially very dangerous.
allowing truck and trailer is also a sticking point with me. although fewer and fewer refs seem to call it, i think we’re moving in dangerous territory. allowing truck and trailer is to slowly move towards blocking and obstruction. i’m all for more scoring and simpler/faster games, but what cannot be lost is what makes rugby unique.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 10:52 am)
@ vic, lol i guess you’re right. The pain of losing that match to a ref’s bad call is still fresh heh!.
Personally I reckon the game would be much improved if penalty goal kick points were reduced to 2. This would discourage kicking.
Too often games are won by goal kicking prodigies. Less kicks = more real rugby!
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am)
@ yue-houng: the change in the penalty rules will prevent a lot of penalties (free kicks instead) and thus keep the ball in play longer as there will be fewer line-outs following penalty kicks into touch. This is also true for the new 22m line rule. I didn’t forget them, but I think they are tweaks. Improving the break-down is the main concern at the moment.
As far as the opposition slowing the ball down, that is what is currently happening as some people/teams are better at getting away with this than others. Making it legal I suspect will improve ball retention in the ruck. At the professional level, this is not that much of an issue, but amateur leagues will benefit greatly I think. The desired result being more phases, more recycling the ball and more action.
As Josh noted, mauls are being collapsed pretty routinely at the moment. In addition, the IRB has studied the safety issue and sees no evidence of increased danger as yet. We’ll see I guess.
The allowed ‘truck and trailer’ rules might be a slippery slope. Blocking should never be allowed to enter the sport. What the IRB wants to prevent is the defense drawing a penalty by exiting or not defending the maul (and thus leaving the offense unintentionally off-side, which in reality is intentionally caused by the defense).
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am)
@ Mark: The one thing I like about the 3-point penalty is that it gives the players a reason to uphold the laws. The changes to the penalty/free kick rules that yue-hooung mentioned will reduce the overall impact of penalties to the final scoreline.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am)
ultimately, i’m undecided as to how i feel about the ELVs. i would really have to see them in action to get a better feel for how they would work or be exploited. however, the free kick/penalty, the collapsing maul, the kicking behind the 22, and the 5m (i thought it was 10) offside line on scrums will all increase the pace of the game, favoring the faster, more athletic team. i wonder if you’ll see a change in the types forwards you’ll see at all levels of the game. after all, one of the major advertising points of rugby is “a position for all body types” (i’m paraphrasing).
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pm)
I think that “a position for all body types” only applies ot the amateur level. Look at how thin professional props have become.
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 12:54 pm)
Heres another article:
Super 14 may not use new laws
(On Oct 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pm)
@Vic: That would be ridiculous to allow defenders to put more players in a lineout than the team throwing the ball in. It could be risky, but could also take away the advantage of the lineout. I can’t understand how allowing hands in the ruck would “speed” up the game. You could wind up having players slapping the ball around in the ruck and it never coming out.
I like the idea of fewer lineouts and limiting penalty kicks but I think penalty rules should stay intact indside the 22m though because killing the ball or slowing play inside the 22m where a try can potentially occur is wrong and should be penalised. I don’t agree with collapsing a maul though. What team is going to engage in a maul when they can just drag the attacking team to the ground and potentially bury the ball because a pile of players are laying on it?
Overall, leave the game alone. While I like some of the changes, I don’t like when administrators try and change a sport because THEY think it will improve it. I haven’t heard any teams or players complain so why change anything?
(On Oct 12th, 2007 at 5:54 pm)
Reducing full penalties for free kicks will have the unintended consequence of encouraging (relative to now) negative play.
Aside from the danger aspect of allowing collapsed mauls, this law would have the effect of removing the maul from the game. You can’t really use it as an attacking option if it can be nullified so easily. I know that some of the powers that be want this, but it radically alters the nature of the game.
Rugby Union is increasingly resembling rugby league. These laws are another big step in that direction. It is only a matter of time before the scrum is almost entirely depowered (partly due to safety concerns, but also because competitive scrums supposedly “bore” fans). I wonder how long it will be before our betters notice that the new laws have resulted in increasingly crowded midfields and reduce the number of players to 13 in order to promote a faster and higher-scoring game.
(On Oct 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm)
“Since the Professional Era of rugby began in earnest in 1995″
I have been watching professional rugby for 30 years, my father was watching for many years before that and his father for many years before that.
(On Oct 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pm)
@Steffy: Did you hit submit before you finished your comment?
(On Oct 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 am)
They look pretty positive to me. For a long time tight games have been decided by refs not players. The laws at the breakdown are complex and there will often be multiple offences being committed at any one time. The ref has to pick one or ignore them in the interests of keeping the game moving. In picking one over an other one team could get a shot at goal or a pressure releiving penalty depending where they are on the field. In either case the outcome of the game could have been materially affected. They are trying to get rid of this issue which has blighted the game for many years.
Changing the value of the penalty goal relative to the try makes no odds. Tries were once worth 3 points, then they went to 4 points, then to 5 points - still kicking won games. Creating space and reducing the number of penalty offences looks like a way forwards. The penalty will still exist for repeat offences.
On blocking - gents, blocking is a part of rugby and has been just about for ever. I am not talking about American Football (”Football”) style blocking, lead blocking etc. Whenever you can play a man who does not have the ball, you are blocking. Clearing at rucks, that’s blocking and is very little different to what goes on at the line of scrimmage - just add a few bodies on the floor. The maul is the same. Once you realise this, and the fact that there are far fewer restrictions on blocking in RU than in Football you will be onto something (probably the ‘phone to your nearest Football coach to help with blocking and block shedding techniques! That and some judo coaching and your forwards could be a serious rucking and mauling machine! A lot of the Australain RL teams are using wrestling coaches these days. You need to see www.ironrugby.com to get some ideas about what Football can bring to the game.
For those who fear union will look like league - well if the game gets faster and the ball is in play longer and kicked less - bring it on! Seriously, whilst the ball can be contested for at the tackle and there is no 6 tackle rule, RU is safe. Do though look carefully at league - this is where many of the recent advances and ideas in RU have come from, especially in defense. Their basic skills are generally much better than their union counterparts. Leaguies say union players cannot tackle, they are pretty much right! There are plenty of league coaches with top flight union teams to try to get defenses working. It’s a big area and league is showing the way.
Will the field get too crowded? It probably already is. In the 70’s ruck and maul laws were different - side going forward got the put in at the scrum. Teams therefore committed lots of bodies to them. This left space elsewhere. In an effort to speed the game up, these laws were changed. Teams committed much fewer players to the ruck, esp. in defense, as we see today. In RL, when they did away with rucks etc. overcrowding was a problem, so 2 players were ditched. Today, players are far fitter and faster than they were, space is at a premium. The new scrum laws look interesting in this regard. Tying up 8 defenders and having a 10m gap could make scrums a potent attacking platform, even for teams who do not scrummage like Argentina. Quick channel 1 ball will do the job just as well as a big old wrestle and a couple of meters advanced. In RL there are loads attacking moves worked from scrums because the field is depopulated. Also, Football fans, remember there is no law in rugby preventing a runner from being in motion prior to the scrum half pass. A dymanic “dive” type play followed by a quick offload or ruck could be effective, esp as the ball carrier should have got over the gain line so the defensive players will have had to retreat to join the ruck, unlike the attackers.
Ulitmately, whatever we say, I think these things are likely to go through. Apparently they were ratified by the IRB the other day (whatever that means). Time to start planning for their introduction!