SUNDAY HERALD REPORTS

A whole new ball game




Alasdair Reid examines the new laws of rugby and how they will change the game as we know it



On the basis that he once wrote a treatise denouncing the Pope as a heretic, the 14th century philosopher William of Occam would probably feel more at home at a Uefa tribunal than in the gin-scented committee rooms of the International Rugby Board’s Dublin headquarters. Even so, years of weary experience have taught us that rugby’s rulers would almost certainly have benefited more than their round-ball equivalents from Occam’s most cel ebrated principle: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necces itate.”
Perish the thought that any readers of the Sunday Herald might struggle with the maxim now known as Occam’s Razor in its original Latin, but as copies do occasionally fall into the wrong hands, then an English translation may be helpful: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” Or, to put it more plainly still: “Keep It Simple, Stupid.”

That imperative is apparently the guiding idea behind the work of the IRB’s Laws Project Group. Just as someone once suggested that the labyrinthine complexity of the Rules of Golf could be reduced to two principles – where possible, play the ball as it lies; in all other circumstances, exercise common sense – rugby’s governors are on a mission to simplify their game.

But at what cost? Could part of rugby’s essence be lost in what is, arguably, a dumbing-down process? The current moratorium on law changes expires after next year’s World Cup, and the IRB group are already test-bedding experimental changes among student teams at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.

Here, we look at what those changes are, why some in rugby think they are needed and how they might radically affect the game in future. For better or for worse.




PITCH LAYOUT

Change proposed: Posts and flags marking the try and dead-ball lines to be moved back two metres from the pitch.

Why: To create consistency with the rest of the playing area (where touch does not extend upwards from the touch-line, as it does in football).

Potential benefits: Marginal, although tries disallowed due to players touching the corner flag in the act of grounding the ball will become a thing of the past.

Potential drawbacks: Almost non-existent, beyond the odd injury to short-sighted ball-boys.




22-METRE AREA

Change proposed: If the ball is kicked directly into touch from inside the 22 after being passed into that area by the defending side, the lineout will take place in line with where the ball was kicked.

Why: To bring the law into line with what already happens when a player carries the ball into the 22 before kicking.

Potential benefits: Could result in more adventurous play from deep positions. The change may also encourage more judicious kicking in attack.

Potential drawbacks: The consequences of the change could be messy when the pass into the 22 is from a scrum or lineout. In those circumstances, the ball-carrier would have to wait to be tackled and then pass to a colleague before a clearing kick could be made.




LINEOUT

Change proposed: A number of minor technical alterations are on the table, but the most significant would allow the ball to be thrown backwards (ie towards the defending side’s goal-line) on a quick lineout, and there would no longer be a requirement for sides to put equal numbers of players into the set-piece.

Why: To encourage more quick throws, more lineout variation and to create space by discouraging forwards from fanning across the pitch.

Potential benefits: The cumulative effect of the changes could bring more creativity to the lineout, enhancing the value of the quick throw as an attacking option. In defence, the removal of the need to match numbers could virtually eliminate short lineouts and lead to less crowded midfields.

Potential drawbacks: Crowding the touchlines with full lineouts could see the return of the “anything goes” culture to that area of the game. Most recent law changes have attempted to tidy rugby up and encourage cleaner possession, but this may have the opposite effect.




TACKLE/POST TACKLE

Change proposed: Again, there are a number of technical adjustments, but the most significant are: 1 Rigorous enforcement of the existing law requiring players entering the tackle area to do so “through the gate”, ie from behind the breakdown point. 2 Handling to be allowed in rucks. 3 If the ball becomes unplayable, the side that did not take the ball into contact will be awarded a free kick.

Why: There is a widespread impression that the tackle/post tackle area has become too complex for players and spectators to understand or for referees to police fairly. Concerns about teams slowing down possession tend to centre on this aspect of the game.

Potential benefits: If the “through the gate” stricture is enforced, the confusion created by players flying into the breakdown area from all sides may be reduced. Depending on referees’ interpretations, handling could produce a more equal contest for the ball between attacking and defending sides. The use-it-or-lose-it implication of taking the ball into contact may encourage faster offloads and a pacier game.

Potential drawbacks: This is easily the most contentious change, bearing uncomfortable similarities to the disastrous law changes of the early 1990s. While the “through the gate” element is simply a reminder to referees to apply a law they have been ignoring for years, the combination of allowing handling with the threat of losing possession that is not recycled, is a recipe for possible disaster. For a start, the “anything goes” attitude to the ruck and post-tackle situations is liable to produce an unholy mess when the ball is on the ground, while the reward of a free kick will be taken as encouragement by defending sides to prevent attackers from capitalising on their momentum by any means possible.




THE MAUL

Change proposed: Another raft of changes, the most significant of which is that the defending side will be allowed to collapse the maul. As with the post-tackle situation, players will be obliged to join the maul “through the gate”, and there will be no more limitations on how often a maul can be stopped and started.

Why: As things stand, there are no legal means by which a defending side can arrest a well-executed driving maul. This change would tilt the balance back in their favour.

Potential benefits: A less predictable game. In recent seasons, the penalty-lineout-driving maul sequence has become the most reliable – and, say many, the most tedious – source of points in rugby. The side in possession will have to think up new ways of exploiting that advantage.

Potential drawbacks: There are some concerns over player safety if mauls can be collapsed, but these have not been proven. More worrying, particularly in light of the probable de-powering of the scrum in future seasons, is the loss of rugby’s core element of confrontation. The game might become easier on the eye for television audiences, but purists will bemoan the removal of their sport’s essential grunt.




THE GAME

Change proposed: Penalty kicks will be awarded only for offside and foul play. Also, touch judges will assume added responsibility for policing the offside line, particularly at ruck and maul situations.

Why: Fundamentally, the change is geared to reducing the influence of penalties in settling the results of matches. Widening the role of the touch judge reflects both the difficulty of policing the offside lines and the fact more games now have neutral officials.

Potential benefits: Overall, the simplification of a game that has seen a proliferation of technical offences in recent years will aid spectators’ understanding. It will also reduce the impact of refereeing decisions – eg, the deliberate knock-on – that typically require tight judgment calls.

Potential drawbacks: Again, this is a dangerous area for the game. Admirable as it might be to try to lessen the effect of the penalty on the scoreboard, reducing the punishment for deliberate cheating is likely only to increase incidents of cheating overall. Many of rugby’s problems can be traced to the negative attitudes of those playing the game, but more negativity seems the most probable consequence of this change.

16 April 2006

This article was posted on 16-Apr-2006, 08:06 by Hugh Barrow.