Oct 7th, 2007 | Laws and Refereeing | 18 Comments | | print
International Rugby Board Referee Manager Paddy O’Brien explains the Stellenbosch experimental law variations and their status with the IRB. This is part 1 of the 20 minute video.
Watch Part 2 of this video.
Vic
posted this article under Laws and Refereeing on Sunday, October 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a comment or trackback from your own site.
View Technorati Linkbacks.
print
.
(On Oct 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm)
Stupid stupid stupid. Free kick for not straight is pretty harsh. 22 SHOULD be a safety area. Offside should not be moved; let the defence come up hard and fast if they’re smart enough to do so. Penalties should NOT be changed. Stupid stupid STUPID IRB. If they want to “fix” rugby, STOP the killing of the ball by allowing rucking of the players on the ground- that’ll stop people from lying all over the ball. Do NOT allow poaching of the ball with hands- TERRIBLE idea!!! Bloody IRB old idiot farts. Stop messing with the game!
(On Oct 14th, 2007 at 11:53 pm)
after digesting the quarterfinals and semifinals of the rwc, the motivation for the stellenbosch laws is pretty clear. it’s becoming increasingly rare for constructive rugby teams to win.
since the pool stages have ended, we’ve seen very few well worked tries. we’ve seen quarterfinal matches decided solely on penalty kicks (aus v eng), we’ve seen both semifinals decided on fortunate tries, intercept tries and again, goal kicking. we’ve seen a ridiculous number of up-and-unders.
it’s becoming clear that as the stakes increase, teams are more hesitant to be aggressive and try to win games and are more content to not lose them, attempting only to take advantage of opposition mistakes. this is fair and fine, but it does not create the spectacle that any world sporting event should be.
i hope i’m wrong, but we’ve been set up with, on paper, the least entertaining match-up in the tournament. you have team a, who basically plays 10 man rugby, works for position and waits until the defense concedes a penalty within a kickable range. you have team b, who lives off of turnover ball, and long intercept tries. forgive me if i find this none-too-exciting.
i love watching rugby and probably spend way too much of my time doing it. but i’m finding that as we go deeper into the tournament, the matches are becoming harder to watch. ultimately, we’re seeing teams strangle the creativity out of their play (i.e. france) because, evidently, this is the way to win.
i’ve seen matches from before i started playing (which is relatively recently) both way way back and more recently. from what i can tell, the game was much more open, and more creative. perhaps professionalism has led to closer analysis and ultimately exploitation of the game and its laws. i’m beginning to think the stellenbosch laws are an attempt to reintroduce the creativity that professional, structured rugby seems to have squeezed out.
it’s entirely possible that i’m just disappointed because we’ll be seeing the, in my opinion, two dullest top international teams play in the rugby world cup finals. but hey, here’s hoping for an entertaining match.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 7:41 am)
But the broze match will rock!
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am)
I totally agree with you Yue, but I just have trouble with altering the game because we don’t like how some teams win. I think it is going to be a boring final as well, but I don’t think France Argentina would have been anymore exciting. Afterall that match wound up 17-12.
Another question is are teams playing more conservative and just looking to kick? Or are defenses getting better?
Changing and altering the laws may just facilitate more blow outs, which I usually don’t watch. While the last few matches were a little dull on the scoring end of things, they were still exciting because of how close they were.
The complaint a few years ago about the NHL was that there wasn’t enough scoring and it was too hard to follow. Changes were made and you have much more scoring now, but still low ratings and a lack of American intrest.
People complain too that there’s not enough scoring in soccer and that it’s just a bunch of people kicking a ball back and forth. It’s still immensely popular in the world though and I think most of the complaints come from Americans.
I think in terms of rugby and the World Cup, because it’s the most coveted trophy in the sport of rugby, teams play a little more conservative than usual to win. Even watching the baseball playoffs now, you see teams using 5 pitchers in a game and teams bunting just to advance the runner to scoring position. I think the play between the World Cup and say the Six Nations is different in that the Six Nations is less conservative and hence a little more pleasing to watch.
I would like to see the IRB give the Stellenbosch laws a try, just to see the differences if any. But I don’t think it will draw more fans in and I don’t think keeping the laws the same will necessarily push fans away.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm)
now, yeah, i’m disappointed in the results, but i think my point would have been the same had either or both semifinals gone the other way. my problem is that none of the semifinal teams have played constructive rugby, and that’s the problem. even the french, who at some point where known for their creativity and flair, have just about abandoned that in favor of conservatism. my fear is that it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is the way to win. i can’t say for sure that the trends will definitely lead in that direction, but that’s what i’ve personally been seeing.
it’s sad to me that none of the final four have been able to create tries out of much beyond intercepts. professionalism probably has made defenses much more organized and much more difficult to breach. it is, after all, easier to teach great defense than it is to cultivate creativity, which is much more of a talent. but that’s my point: professionalism has sucked the creativity out of the game in favor of more conservative game planning. i believe it was nallet (the french lock) who said (i could be wrong) that it’s more important to play winning rugby than it is to play beautiful rugby. perhaps, for the game’s sake, it’s most important to do both. if we don’t prove that it’s possible to win with creative rugby, we’ll lose the regional character that is partially what makes it so interesting to watch. that’s why it might be necessary to revise some of the laws in favor of open play.
the teams that have been most willing to be constructive all bowed out early: the australians, the new zealanders, the welsh, the irish, the fijians, the tongans. what we’re risking by punishing creative teams is a homogenization of the sport. we’ll see more high bombs, up-and-unders, and drop goals and we’ll see fewer sublime moments of brilliance. losing this would be absolutely fatal.
on the NHL changing their rules to increase scoring, i would argue that their lack of viewership also might be attributed to their recent labor strike (this almost crippled baseball before the yearly home run chase) and to their lack of a network television deal.
i would also argue that the NFL, especially in recent years, has changed their rules to accommodate passing offenses. limitation of CB to receiver contact to 5-yard bumping, more strict adherence to pass interference, QB protection rules, etc. have all been implemented without hurting the popularity of the sport. on the contrary, NFL football has never been more popular.
i’m not by any means saying the stellenbosch laws are the answer. my point is that at least the IRB has promptly acknowledged a possible problem and is already taking steps to remedy it and judging by this year’s world cup, i would say that the problem is a reality. So long as rugby is stays rugby (and i don’t think the laws would drastically change the game), i think i could support them.
i guess i’m not the only one to notice the french’s lack of creativity of late:
http://www.scrum.com/39_48672.php
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am)
I do agree with everything you’re saying, I guess I just stuggle to condemn a team for winning conservativly. I’m not saying you’re condemning them, but I think the article you reference above does.
It’s like saying, “Well ok you won, but it was pretty boring for the viewers, so we’ll change things up a bit so you can’t be so boring.” I think the only Stellenbosch Laws that will actually facilitate more scoring is the less penalty kicks law and 5 meters from the back foot of a scrum or ruck. The other laws actually seem like they may slow things up.
One particular trend of the World Cup that I personally had a problem with was when the stronger teams were playing the minnows, they seemed to play possum in the first half of these matches.I think maybe Vic would agree with me (or not because he usually likes to knocok me down) that in the RSA v. Somoa match and the Argentina v. Georgia match, RSA and Argentina played a very slow and extra conservative game in the first half (RSA 12-Somoa 9 and Argentina 6- Georga 3). At the half you’re left thinking this could be an upset in the making. But all it really amounted to was these two teams slowing things down only to run the score up in the second half. It may just be strategy, but I think it kind of sucks how teams now seem to have a ‘game plan’ now. Maybe they always did, but I think teams have seemed to abandon playing rugby and have more focused on a game plan.
I might be way off base here, which is how I tend to think, but I always thought there were very basic things a team had to do in a rugby match to win. More than anything, I would like to see the rule changes implemented just fulfill my own curiousity of what kind of effect they may have.
On a side note, many of the recent rule changes in the NFL have had more to do with player safety than anything else. There have been a few like the 5 yard bump zone and stricter enforcment of illegal contact between receivers and the secondary that have been aimed at opening up more scoring. Protecting the quarterback, the Roy Williams horse collar rule, hitting a defensless receiver, etc. have all been created in lieu of the rising danger of career ending injuries and the future health concerns of retired players in the NFL. Espsecially now that you have veteran players who in their mid-40’s are offing themselves because manic depression which despite what the NFL doctors say, does have a link to excessive concussions.
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 10:48 am)
I think you can have free-flowing rugby AND a game plan. I just like to watch a match that is exciting for more than the fact that the score is close.
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pm)
I think you can too, I wasn’t suggesting you can’t, I was suggesting there isn’t anymore. I as well like a little excitement but I don’t necessarily believe the media, fans, etc. should have an influence on the game or how a team should play it. These teams play to win not to entertain. If you want entertainment, watch wrestling.
We should start a Harlem Globetrotters type rugby league where it’s all flair and whimsey. Michalak could be the commisioner.
(On Oct 19th, 2007 at 8:43 pm)
Its insane to even think of these rules! Who are these bored and confused viewers we are supposed to be so worried about? And ref’s that dont understand the breakdown? It’s madness, and rungby should be left alone, to be the great game it ALREADY is, we do not want changes, we do not want fads and fashions and a dilution of what makes it a real challenge… a game for everyone, and everyone involved…. And consider this: in the northern hemisphere viewing figures are huge, the game popular, the grounds full, the tv audience high, the player base massive and growing… England alone has 200,000 MORE players accross all ages than ALL the other rugby nations combined! Their clubs are privately owned, the players privately contracted. They play a forward game and ALWAYS will, I’ve played there, most of teh year, most ages and abilities play in mud, they have to play a forward game! You try running in ankle deep mud… so the super 14 and the southern hemipshere go for the new rules, and teh IRB says to everyone next year, the new rules are in, and England says no… and Britain says no, and France say no, and Ireland say no, which they will, and the IRB wrangles for another year… all our big forwards go north, as THEY ARE DOING, and our players spend 2 or 3 years playing a different game… then the IRB backs down, which it will, or suffer a breakaway from the only people in the game with money(!!!), and then the old rules are reapplied and the whole super 14 thing not only looks stupid, but NZ lose 2 or 3 year preparation for the next world cup!!! This is a big and very blind mistake. The new rules must be kicked out. Most viewers are former or current players, and if we need to educate the public more, so be it… but leave the game alone.
(On Oct 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am)
After paying $20 to get into a bar showing the live match, only to watch seven penalty kicks be the only scoring in the RSA V. England final, I’m increasingly more in favor of the law changes. I at least want to give them a shot and see how they’ll work.
All I know is all this penalty kicking has to stop (I’m partially biased because I look like Charlie Brown when I try and place kick)
(On Oct 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm)
many of the rule changes seem to me to make sense. I am certainly in favour of allowing the collapsing of a maul, as it has become a boring bane of the game, practically unstoppable by a smaller pack. i would like to see a differential value for penalties inside or outside the 22 - less for outside the 22.
Altho i have never played in the pack, I can see that the ruck has become too onesided; the tackled team has far too much advantage.
Let’s see how it goes; the idea that the northern and southern hemisphere has been rather destroyed at this World Cup with almost all sides playing the negative practice of the long kick upfield hoping to keep the ball in the opposition half. At least some of the Pacific Island sides were more inventive.
Meanwhile, the IRB MUST do something about Argentina’s place in world rugby after their success. It is a disgrace that they are treated as second class.
(On Oct 24th, 2007 at 9:08 am)
http://scrum.com/39_48859.php
The pressure is mounting for at least SOME sort of rule change to liven things up.
(On Oct 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am)
Why werent any of these chanes made when Australia were winning their world cups? Or New Zealand theirs?
O’Brien was a loutish England slagger before this world cup, and a whinging loser after Australia were knocked out.
This smacks of arrogance and self interest.
If the game is in such a poor state why did record numbers watch this world cup?
The laws should stay as they are and not be changed to accomodate poor losers.
(On Oct 26th, 2007 at 11:30 am)
My understanding is that these laws have been in the works for some time. We have a new article to address this issue almost ready for publication which shows the game has been in steady decline since 1995.
(On Oct 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am)
[…] has been made of the Stellenbosch experimental law variations (ELVs) which last week were given preliminary approval by the IRB to be more widely circulated and […]
(On Nov 4th, 2007 at 2:20 am)
I actually like some of these ‘rules’ I like seeing people get hit, pass a ball, run through a defender and maybe…maybe if they really have to, drop the ball and grubber it past a defender. WE PLAY RUGBY! This isnt football, we hit each other, we shouldnt be booting the ball back and forth at each other(well, only if were really winning and want to just be mean on an up and under) i think alot of the rules about the kickin gmake sense screw percy montgomery and his 105 kicked points at the RWC 2007!
(On Dec 7th, 2007 at 5:58 am)
The really crazy thing in here is not being allowed to pass the ball back into the 22. We will see an orgy of kicks aimed to land between the 10 metre and 22 metre lines. Every kick off will land just outside the 22, leaving the defending side with no option but either to run from inside their own 22 - foolish most of the time with a rush defence coming at them - OR to put a long bomb into the same place in the opponents half - more, not less, aerial pingpong.
The thing that has spoiled rug by over recent years is forwards clogging up back divisions because they are not doing their primary job, competing for possession.
All they need do is scrap the laws at ruck and maul and say the team going forward gets the put in. Hey presto, all the forwards back where they belong and if anyone lies on the ball, they get removed. I’ve had it happen to me thousands of time and it’s not dangerous in the least unless someone is out to hurt you deliberately and they’ll do that anyway.
More big lumps who can’t run fast is what the game needs.
(On May 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm)
Some of the rules make sense, some don’t. The 22-line rule doesn’t make sense really, but the one about less penalty kicks does. I’ve played rugby for five years, and playing against a team that just scores on penalties is….frustrating. This also introduces rugby players into ‘taking the penalty’. You know, when soccer players fall down and cry after the ball hits their shins? I don’t like the 5m back from the scrum bull, or the elimination of corner posts, but whatever. Personally, I like starting mauls, so anybody who thinks they are boring is either a spectator who knows nothing, or a back.