The Scotsman and supporting cast report
DAVID FERGUSON
LEADING nations in world rugby have joined Scotland's move towards a radical revamp of rugby's laws in a clear sign that the experiment to be launched in Scottish rugby next month could pave the way for a more attractive game.

The 'experimental law variations' are the brainchild of an International Rugby Board's 'Laws Project Group' which featured a host of experienced rugby coaches, players and administrators from around the world. They were tried by student players at Stellenbosch University in South Africa over the summer, and undergo their first senior trial in the new 'Super Cup' being played by Scotland's Division One clubs over the next three months.

At the heart of the experiment is a desire to strip out a plethora of laws and baffling refereeing decisions and eradicate the turgid slowing-down of play responsible for an increasing number of dull, defence-dominated affairs.

Key facets of the game, scrums and lineouts, remain, but even they are affected by the changes ranging from allowing players to handle the ball in rucks and pull down players trying to maul, to a new five-metre space between scrums and back divisions, and quick throws backwards in the lineout. The new eagerness of Australia, England, France and Ireland to try out specific changes next year is a further indication that they are supported and widely acknowledged as being overdue.

Bill Nolan, a Scottish IRB member, chaired the laws group. In a Murrayfield briefing yesterday, he explained that the IRB's laws book had swollen to 147 pages through constant tinkering on interpretation, with a commercial guide trying to explain rugby's laws needing 197 pages.

"Clearly, we have a hell of a lot of problems," he said. "Most referees would tell you that it is becoming almost impossible to referee some parts of the game.

"Players are physically bigger now, you can't change the ground dimensions realistically and we did not want to devalue rugby union by taking out characteristics like the number of players, scrums, lineouts etc, but that still left us a lot to play with. We also felt we had to spend time experimenting on the field, at different levels - this is about improving the game for all standards and not just the elite end - rather than, as in the past, changing laws in London's East India club in the afternoon by discussion and debate.

"In an ideal world, we'd like to introduce the changes in the northern hemisphere in September, 2008, and in the southern hemisphere in January, 2009, but we have to wait and see how it goes."

Though 'flag judges' will replace touch judges to monitor more closely offside, officials will no longer be asked to constantly advise players, so ending shouts of 'ruck' or 'hands off!'.

With the 25-plus ruck infringements being reduced to just three - failure to enter through 'gate', offside when in front of last team-mate and playing or preventing playing of the ball when off feet - referees should have more opportunity to keep the game flowing.

However, Scotland's top four refs - David and Malcolm Changleng, Peter Allan and Andrew MacPherson - will not take part in the Super Cup to avoid them having to deal with different laws when also officiating in European and international tournaments.

Clubs will have to overcome the hurdle of starting the Super Cup, with its new laws, on 6 January, reverting to the final league championship weekend on 13 January and then stepping back to the Super Cup.

But Jock Millican of Heriot's insisted: "We're very excited about this opportunity and feel privileged to be able to have our small bit of influence on what these laws might do to improve rugby and make it more exciting for spectators, players and referees.

"The real positive thing is that [Laws Group] have tried to take away many of the 'cannots' and accentuate the 'cans', so, hopefully, coaches will look at it from a positive perspective rather than a negative one.

"The evidence from Stellenbosch was that the more adventurous coaches were the ones who came through well in the end; the ones that didn't try to embrace it and work out how to use them positively were the ones who didn't succeed in that league."

KEY LAW CHANGES
(1) Tackle/ruck

Over 25 penalty offences reduced to just three at breakdown

Players CAN handle the ball in the ruck, providing they are on their feet - kneeling on grounded body now counts as on feet

Tackler can also try to regain ball on immediately getting to his feet

(2) Lineout

Quick lineouts can be thrown backwards as well as straight

Minimum two players in lineout but no maximum, nor need to match opposition

(3) Scrum

Players not in scrum, except scrum-half, must now be five metres behind hindmost foot, creating more space

(4) Maul

Defenders CAN pull down maul by bringing down ball-carrier or others bound to him - not by chopping legs - so ending 'truck-and-trailer' offence

(5) Kicking from 22

If ball kicked straight out from inside 22, having been passed, kicked or carried back into 22, lineout awarded where kick was made not where it crossed touchline

(6) Flag judges

New name for touch judges reflects new focus on offside, which judges will 'flag' to offenders to give them chance to retreat before free-kick or penalty awarded

(7) Corner flags

Corner flags to be moved back two metres to allow players to score try in corner without being denied by touching flag

(8) Sanctions

Technical offences reduced from penalties to free-kicks, so all offences other than foul play, offside and not entering rucks through 'gate' will be free-kicks. All free-kicks also to carry option of scrum.

This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/rugby.cfm?id=1888472006

Last updated: 20-Dec-06 00:35 GMT

Comments Add your comment
1. Renard, The Scholarly High Ground / 5:47am 20 Dec 2006
It really grates when people – not just sports writers who never played the game but also some refs and coaches – confuse The Ruck and The Tackle. The terms aren’t used interchangeably anywhere in the Laws and they are separate concepts.

For Mr Ferguson’s benefit, and as all learned readers will know, The Ruck (Law 16) is where ALL players involved are on feet, bound together, with the ball on the ground being played with FEET. Admittedly this archaic practice rarely happens today, going the way of toe-punting for goal, dribbling the football, cigarettes at half-time and other Jurassic rugby concepts that my Grandad used to regale me with. Indeed, cursory research suggests that the last proper Ruck occurred in a 1923 touring match when Walkerburn hosted that great Old Haberdashians side of the inter-war years and most of the players wore bunnets.

In contrast, The Maul (Law 17) is where ALL players involved are again on their feet, bound together and the ball is held in HAND (or more commonly up an English jersey).

Law 15 (ex Law 18), The Tackle, is neither of these. It governs “the breakdown”, that ground-based stramash involving ball-carrier, tackler(s) and assorted hingers-oan which dominates modern rugby. As the game moved more towards collision and away from running into space, the IRB had to make new laws to govern this development. Hence… “The Tackle” was born. And this is where trouble arises: the Tackle Law and the way it is contested by players are at such great variance as to make referees’ tasks impossible. Bill Nolan is correct, although some refs don’t help their cause by repeatedly exclaiming “Ruck, Ruck” at the breakdown when really they mean “Tackle”. This confusion is at the root of the problem: handling in the Law 17 Ruck is illegal, while handling when on your feet at the Law 15 Tackle, assuming you’re through the gate, is positively encouraged under Laws 15.6 (a) and (b). At almost every single Tackle a ref could blow up either side for any one of a myriad of offences: so removing them won’t change the Tackle, it just makes it easier to justify what goes on currently. A change would be if refs were stricter about players going to ground around the Tackle and preventing a contest – one of the three offences supposedly being retained.

So when Mr Ferguson advises us that hands in the ruck is to be made legal, and indeed when he makes constant reference to “ruck offences”, I would suggest he is confusing it with handling at the Tackle and other Tackle offences. Playing the ball with hands at the Tackle when on your feet is currently legal. Handling in the Ruck, as properly understood under Law 17, hasn't changed and will still be illegal.

And before anyone has a go, one man’s pedant is another man's purist!

Report as unsuitable
2. Saltire, Thailand / 6:40am 20 Dec 2006
I wish football was as forward thinking as the rugby world.
How good it would be to see the introduction of sin bin penalties instead of yellow cards since these cards give advantages to a team's future opponents and not the ones who were "sinned" against.
The same applies to red cards but the solution is leass easy to find. Anyone with any ideas? Is the sending off sufficient penalty in this case?
Also the correct interpretation of obstruction (the blocking of an opponent from playing a ball while making no attempt to play it yourself) and stopping the practice of letting a ball run out of play by obstructing your opponent from playing it.
These are just a few changes that football needs. But please NO TV replays or technology to decide if a ball has crossed the line. This is part of the game and the human errors made by refs are also part of the game. Without them what would we have to complain about?
How about a discussion on foorball's rules and the changes needed to speed up the game and make it more exciting?

Report as unsuitable
3. Hoop, Dundee / 6:52am 20 Dec 2006
Point of Order - the famous tourists you refer to, Renard, were of course the 'Old Haberdashers' and not the 'Old Haberdashians'.

However, the infamous 'last ruck' you mentioned actually happened in the tour match against the 'Old Rottinghamians.'

I know this because the game was refereed by my great-great-uncle Cholmondely ('Chumley') Farley-Farley-Bundock. Indeed, he always said that he would have penalised the players involved in that aberration - if only he had been able to see it! His vision was impaired, partly because of the fact that (very much in the way of a cricket umpire) he was carrying the players' bunnets which slowed him down to such an extent that he was unable to keep up with play; but also due to the fact with hands full of bunnets, he was unable to carry his white stick, an item sadly underused by most modern referees - but no less necessary for all that!

Chumley passed away in, I think it was, 1973 - due to the shock of England naming Alan Old at fly half, a man known for his ability and indeed propensity to pass rather than kick the ball. This went against nature, according to old Chummers, and so he breathed his last.

Report as unsuitable
4. Renard, Down off the High Ground, back in San Fran / 7:28am 20 Dec 2006
My Grandad always spoke fondly of "Chummers", a fair referee famed for his world-beating handlebar moustache, white bootlaces, chronic shellshock and breath that smelt faintly of embrocation. He told me Chummers stood firm in the belief that the game was doomed as soon as it was reduced from 38-a-side to 32, and, frankly, who are we to disagree?

Report as unsuitable
5. Mini Mitch / 7:38am 20 Dec 2006
Some of these rule changes seem to be verging on the dangerous in an effort to make the game better to watch. Being allowed to pull down a maul is a very dangerous thing and if we are de-powering scrums to stop neck injuries why is this being allowed to happen. A lot of these rules also seem to be far more complicated for the players and will cause great confusion. Other rules are just stupid like the rule about not strait throw in at the line out. How can a squint lineout lead to a free kick? The game needed some changes but not these ones

This article was posted on 20-Dec-2006, 07:50 by Hugh Barrow.