I am getting so sick and tired of rugby experts bitching about the laws of the game in the mainstream press.
If it is not victim number 1, Graham Henry then it is his NZ counterpart columnist Mark Hinton or just about every single team who has lost against a team who employs a more conservative approach.
Here is the thing, the Springboks beat New Zealand this year with their conservative, or ‘booooring’ kick-chase approach under the current laws – but then New Zealand absolutely smacked France under EXACTLY the same laws!!!
And please let’s not forget that the boooring Boks were the only team to actually score a 4-try bonus win during the competition – so much for that fallacy…
How is it then that the problem according to some is with the laws?
From where I sit, the problem is actually with the coaches and teams who fail in executing whatever approach they want to adopt.
This was proven to some extent at the end of the year tours where South Africa could not buy a win on their 5-match tour (only beating a lowly Italy) with the same approach that saw them win 5 out of 6 matches against the top 2 teams in world rugby in the Tri-Nations.
The reasons for the losses of course range from poor selections to fatigue to someone’s dog who ate the actual game-plan but the fact remains, South Africa simply failed in executing their game-plan on the day and to my mind, got beaten at their own game most of the time (a conservative territorial based approach with a strong physical defense).
Just the same as New Zealand and Australia failed in executing their preferred approach against the very same team – forget the losses of player personnel, lack of depth or whatever excuse these guys come up with – at the end of the day you simply did not execute what you planned to do and the other team did.
Now we have calls for radical changes to laws from all corners? Why?
It is not up to the laws or referees to make the game more entertaining (if that is what you want), that is up to highly paid professional players and coaches. And just for the record, I never find winning boring and fully packed stadiums in South Africa seems to prove my view.
If it is entertainment you want, adopt your approach and execution to provide that, or go and watch league, but wanting to change the laws to make the game more ‘exciting’ is simply daft.
Etzakkerly!
Remove the pass back to the 22 law. That’s what is screwing up rugby.
2@ Straatie – Why is that your opinion? Kindly explain, maybe there is something we miss that you see… maybe a good point to debate on.
3@ grootblousmile – Now I’m struggling to find my words… Okay… The pass back to the 22 rule was brought in with the idea that the kicker would rather keep the ball in the field of play, rather than kick for touch from the 22. You would generally see in a pre-ELVs game that a kick-off would be catched by say the lock, scrumhalf would pass back into the 22 and the fly-half would kick for touch (This would be a kick for territory). Now with that rule usually the kicker (scrumhalf or fly-half) just kicks the ball aimlessly downfield… When that ball is gathered by the any of the back three (Usually between their 10 meter line and 22) they have the option to run it back or kick it back, usually they follow the latter option (They could go for touch bit overcooking and losing a lot of field is a risk). Now the back-three from the side who kicked first have the same options.
Nowadays can see several rallies like this a game. Players just aren’t fit enough for the extra time the ball is in play, so they are going to kick the ball. The stats backs this up. The extra time the ball is now in play, the majority of that time the ball is in the air. That’s not conducive to entertaining rugby.
If you want to admit it or not, rugby’s not doing well overseas. The Crusaders are winning tournament but not attracting the crowds that they should be pulling. Morne’s article is from a South African perspective he needs to take into consideration that rugby needs to compete against other sports, and that’s why the IRB wants rugby to be more entertaining to pull bigger crowds all around the world, not just for the winning teams.
Cricket adopted a 20/20 version to attract more (albeit more cricket illiterate) crowds.
Sevens does the same thing and is now an Olympic Sport.
One of the faster growing sports is MMA, Mixed Martial Arts which is based on the no-holds barred cage fighting type of sports – full contact stuff.
Audiences today wants compact action packed products, well in most cases they do since one of the most drawn out and longest sports is American Football which carries on for hours (baseball the same) yet because the ‘product’ is marketed and invested in correctly, it continues not only to attract crowds, but invites new generations of fans to join following the sport too.
The rules of those codes have not changes in many years, the formats still basically the same.
The problem with rugby becoming ‘more popular’ has very little to do with the game or the code or the laws of the game, it is simply administered piss-poorly and amateurishly worldwide of which the IRB are the main culprits.
How in the hell they want to ‘clean the game up’ by making sissy laws (as removing rucking) when evidence suggests viewers love the hard, voilent edge to the game more than a sanitized version.
Not saying rugby should become barbaric, simply saying that rugby has been around for well over 100 years now with subtle changes to the structures of the game (length of games, basic laws etc.).
Rugby started failing against other sports when it became professional, where it competes against other professional sports where money is the main driving force, yet the people administering the game of rugby are amateurish rugby people, not business driven corporate moguls who has a knack for marketing a product which is, let’s be honest, worth billions of Rands as it stand right now.
It is one of the 5 biggest sports occassions worldwide when it hosts or presents a World Cup!!!
There is nothing wrong with the game or its laws, there is something wrong how it is marketed and run.
Other big sports like soccer have revisions to their rules (Things like offside rulings changed, etc.)
every now and then. The main rules remains the same, but lets be honest when taken into consideration the rules of those sports are much simpler than that of rugby. I’m not all for consistent rule changes, but I’m for more entertaining rugby. If you like drab affairs you can always watch test cricket. Ruck, and scrumming rules needs to be a simple as possible and no simpler. With the rules as it is, the ref gets blamed after every game.
4@ Straatie – You definately have a point that the return kick from a ball passed back into the 22m area is often an aimless up-and-under down field because of the risk of kicking directly into touch and has certainly contributed to more “aimless” kicking in a match…
In addition, thinking about it, it has reduced line-out’s though, a strong point of most SA sides…. or has it reduced lineouts…. not sure… because the result of the ping pong kicking battle following the initial aimless kick is most often a line-out anyway… it just takes longer to get to that point.
So yes, you have a valid point, might be time to REVERT to the original rule that any kick taken by a kicker from his 22 may be kicked out directly.
5@ Morné – I agree that the gladiatorial nature of rugby must somehow be cherished and aspects like rucking players who lie on the wrong side would serve that purpose but it will also serve other very important purposes, who would dare lie on the wrong side, the breakdown battle will certainly become easier to handle due to rucking being allowed again.
I for one love test cricket and hate (do not bother to watch) 20/20 rubbish.
I reckon I am not the only one either.
Laws are tweaked of course and sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse (ELV’s)…
Some of the radical law changes I read about recently is completely daft though (Zelim Nel for the Argus published an article on this).
As I mentioned, winning is never boring, so rather than messing with the laws, get administration to make the competitiveness of the sport more appealing (strength v. strength matches is a good start), but that is administrative issues not law issues.
Secondly, any union will tell you star players are a major reason for making the game popular, just think back to the superstar status Victor enjoyed (face on billboards) when he had his stint in France.
Sponsors will tell you the same thing, star players ensure the game remains popular and well followed – which is why they do not want to rest superstars in CC and S14 matches or tournaments.
All this again, are administrative issues, not law issues.
Wanted to mention on the superstar player issues it is a major reason NZ and Aus are struggling.
Morne I heard this week that a good buddy of mine whom was involved in the trials of the original Elvis laws at Maties will be joining a newly rugby referees training centre in Stellenbosch.
He’s a lawyer and will close his practice to be full time involved ion coaching ref’s.
I also fereed hostel rugby at Maties, the 2 ref system with him while the Elvis laws was on trial.
i’ll try and find out more bout it and write a garing bout it. Should be interesting. Do you know bout this?
Isi,
Not heard about the referees institute but that is a great thing.
I am also a fan of the two-ref system if done correctly.
Morne
Test cricket makes me want to do bad things myself with sticky tape & paper cuts 🙁 But if we are going to amend laws I have a couple of suggestions …
1) Bring back rucking – it will stop anybody’s players slowing down the ball
2) Permit pulling down a maul – truck & trailer the length of the field is boring
3) Penalise players who throw away the ball to prevent a quick tap & go
4) Require Coaches & Captains to formally grade all aspects of a refs performance after every game
I have a mate that is from NZ, and honestly, he is very good okes. Never when we’v talked about rugby has he outright gone and said we will smack you. He will also be the first to congratulate me if the Boks win. Like I say, an honest and real good guy.
But the one thing he does complain about though is the amount of drop kicks and penalties by which the Boks does win.
My point is this. NZ loves running rugby, and anything that is not hard forward running is seen as pancy rugby.
The Aussies have to compete with other codes like Aussie rules and Rugby League which are known to be full of running. The Oz really don’t care about the game, it is ALL about the money and supporters.
That leaves us with a BAD situation.
But I agree full-heartedly with the Morne, to hell with them. They just have to be or get better coaches.
Cheers!
13@ Greenpoint-Gunner – You have a mate… really….. fark, I underestimated you…. hehehe
Only joking fella…. only joking!
GBS
That was mean !
@12 – I actually liked it when they permitted the pulling down of a maul. I felt that was a more “fair” contest.
vanStraaten
My point exactly – else, technically, you really are just walking it in 🙂
Howdy all. I would personally prefer to watch an open running game and also think it has become a bit boring with the kick and chase tactics. Agree with GG regarding the drop kick and just kicking for kicking sake. The unfortunate thing is the win at all stakes which bring in the spectators. Noone wants to watch loosers and ask me – I know. I believe that Rugby will have to change to ensure that it continues. There are many versions of the game out there and if something is not done to attract future players the game will die a slow death. Tries is what i want to see! But that doesn’t mean my views are the correct ones. I love watching the AB’s smashing teams up front and running into space. Just my views.
When the Boks starting running with ball in hand against us, they were so dangerous, but left it too late. The kicking game just didn’t work. Just an observation. I was very worried for those last four minutes. Loved it when they just kicked the ball onto Kearney who took the opportunity to look like a superstar. Don’t know if anyone observed the same.
Irish, I haven’t had the chance to congratulate you on the victory against the Boks. Well done.
Thanks Loosehead! I got so excited I finished three ales in the last four minutes. I was just swallowing. It was so close at the end and truly believed the Irish gods were going against us. It was nailbiting stuff mate. The Boks are a super team and we are privaleged to have beaten them mate.
I must say I don’t watch much cricket – but I would rather watch 20/20! Music – DANCERS – and over in a couple of hours. Why I said that I don’t know.
The laws are fine, maybe a tweak here and there to encourage running, like devaluing the penalty to 2 points, leaving the drop kick at 3, as it is part of the play. Making the penalty only 2 points will encourage attcking teams to seriously consider the line out option, and plays from the line out.
I agree on the rucking bit, but am to sure about pulling the maul down, though.
I personally enjoy watching a game where the forwards have a good go at each other and eventually opening the game. Some of these battles have been tense, tight affairs but also highly entertaining, abd are not necessarily full of running. I have watched a few league games and think this format is really boring, so imo just running is not the answer, as rugby is about fighting for and winning the possession.And winning the game.
Its also time that a Lomu or Campese grace the world rugby stage again. A player that will revolutionise the game again.
Please dont fiddle with the laws again, its very confuseing dureing game when the laws keep chopping and changeing and that is all i have to say on the subject cause i no very little about it cept bring back rucking
Morne your comments are spot on the money.
These fools who run the show will always take the easy option to them, which is bugger around with the laws, rather then enter the real world of professional sport where there is little sentiment and the paying customers cannot be treated like idiots.
Agree leave the laws as they are. We won plenty with it this year why change it?
Gravy and Wallabie, you have registered and been APPROVED!
Kindly complete your Profile by inserting REAL NAME & SURNAME and start blogging!
PS! Sorry it took so long for me to approve you, was busy working and did not notice the Registrations.
With the culmination of the 2009 season, South Africa hold every major trophy available to them: the World Cup, the British & Irish Lions trophy, the Tri-Nations trophy, the Mandela Shield and the Freedom Cup. The above-mentioned silverware as well as Paul Treu’s Sevens’ Boks IRB Sevens World Series trophy and the Bulls’ Super 14 and Currie Cup trophies will be on display on a 15m-long purpose built travelling trophy cabinet that will criss-cross the country in the Champion Tour early next year. The tour will start in Cape Town on February 5 and work its way through all 14 provinces before concluding in Durban on March 21.
Rob Andrew has warned the International Rugby Board that spectators are being driven away by laws that are killing the game as a spectacle.
The IRB confirmed on Tuesday there would be no rule changes before the 2011 World Cup, despite widespread alarm at regulations governing the ruck and tackle areas.
The Rugby Football Union pressed for an overhaul at the IRB’s council interim meeting, blaming the current interpretation for the recent injury crisis and the negative, safety-first tactics that are prevalent.
On average only 2.2 tries were scored per match this autumn, any ambition thwarted by the reality that current laws make it easier to defend than attack.
Andrew, the RFU’s Director of Elite Rugby, is worried that the lack of entertainment is already having an impact on supporters.
“I’m very concerned that attendances will start to decline unless changes are made. I think we’re seeing it already,” he said.
“You just have to talk to people in the game, including some of the coaches who have said they’re turning the TV off themselves when they’re watching matches.
“There is a concern within the game. Now you’re better off without the ball than with it, which isn’t what rugby should strive for.
“The risk in keeping the ball in hand is too large. There are some fascinating stats from this year’s Tri-Nations, showing how little time South Africa had the ball yet they won the tournament.
“In one match against New Zealand they made the lowest number of team passes in any Tri-Nations match ever, yet still won.
“The New Zealand scrum-half made more than that on his own.”
Agree with the article. And also don’t like the 20/20 stuff.
Users Online
Total 256 users including 0 member, 256 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,450,254 Page Impressions
_