THE SCOTSMAN REPORTS


Rugby missed a chance to wow the masses
DAVID FERGUSON CHIEF RUGBY WRITER ([email protected])
THE PASSION, colour and palpable joie de vivre of rugby in France is how we would like to remember the 2007 World Cup, but the numbing quality of on-field fare will instead, for too many, be the sharp memory left etched in the mind.

One hopes that the stirring efforts of Fiji, Tonga and Argentina, in particular, will have some lasting effect in those nations, and push the top ones to integrate them more in the Test arena. But, as for the game itself, did we witness an enterprising new dawn for rugby? Not a bit.

There were only fleeting moments of exciting, ambitious play over the past seven weeks; too few examples of the Test class coaches would want to show up-and-coming youngsters. And that should throw real concern around the IRB's drive to stem disillusionment in some countries and attract newcomers in them all.

If it does, and this tournament is not simply cast into another drawer alongside dusty old programmes from the past, the 2007 jamboree could, in fact, become a real positive; it could, at last, be the spark to ignite change and a serious move towards a more attractive and innovative sport. After three tournaments with ever more dull 'big games', something has to give.

Had England beaten such a strong South Africa team they would have deservedly become the first nation to retain the trophy, but their slow grinding, limited style rugby has done nothing for the game as a whole over the past four years, so, thankfully, the Springboks took the spoils as the best team in the tournament; that is, after New Zealand went out.

Their loss to France, as justified as it was baffling, was the biggest disappointment as it robbed the World Cup of the one side that insists on playing rugby with ball in hand, with forwards who have adapted quicker than anyone to the demands for more ball skills across a XV.

It is in-bred in New Zealand to find new ways of playing exciting rugby and yet they have led the way simply by showing how effective sides can be with the basic tenets of passing accurately, running straight, tackling hard and competing for the ball, with increased pace and conviction. Their lesson from 2007 is simply that teams can still over-achieve with incredible passion and desire in one-off World Cup clashes.

Frank Hadden, the Scotland coach, is committed to improving the handling skills of players across Scotland, to enable our sides to better emulate those styles, yet, disappointingly, he and his players felt Scotland did not have the skills to take on Argentina with ball in hand until the game was beyond them. That lack of ambition, summed up the tournament as a whole.

This kind of World Cup merely hastens the departure of some long-time rugby fans never mind persuade supporters of rugby league, American football, Aussie rules, basketball, football and other sports which dominate countries where rugby is struggling for a foothold.

And if you feel 'who cares?' bear in mind that rugby's future as a professional sport is almost wholly reliant on Rupert Murdoch and his Sky TV billions, particularly in the southern hemisphere, as well as the likes of BBC, Canal Plus and Setanta in the north. Without supporters, sponsors and paying subscribers, rugby would disappear from world sport's top table, and instead of breaching new territories watch, then, as the sport recedes quicker than the melting ice caps.

The future lies in the hands of three main protagonists: the lawmakers, the coaches and the players. The IRB are ahead of the game as talk of law changes fill the air, having spent the past 18 months experimenting with new ways to make rugby more open and less reliant on refereeing decisions.

The IRB Council last week approved the 'experimental law variations' (ELVs) be circulated to all unions and returned with comments by January/February. The council will then vote on 1 May whether or not to bring them into worldwide rugby for a year's trial. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have also been asked to trial them in the Super 14.

Provided unions embrace change, the first serious law changes of the professional era would be enshrined by July, 2009, allowing two years of development before the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Talk of trials in South Africa, Scotland and England of creating more space for players to attack, reducing kicks to touch, simplifying the laws for players and spectators, and increasing try-scoring opportunities could become reality.

That requires an unprecedented level of co-operation across the sport, starting with the increasingly influential coaches. The very week after the 2005 British and Irish Lions tour, the All Blacks' brains trust of Graham Henry, Steve Hansen and Wayne Smith attended a coaching conference, where they gave seminars on specialist themes, but also sat alongside NPC and Super 14 coaches in receiving advice on other aspects of the game.

We need that approach at all levels. For example, in Scotland, the national and professional team coaches need to increase their contact with club coaches in seminars and conferences, while, similarly, coaches from across the hemispheres should be encouraged to attend not just one-off meetings, but annual or bi-annual conferences to continue rugby's development.

Players, too, must play their part. Tactics are necessary, but in many cases they become suffocating and onerous because skills are too poor to adapt to different challenges or players relinquish responsibility. There is an onus on paid players to step up their skills development, as only some currently do, and to take greater interest in how the game is played.

We have now witnessed several ugly World Cup finals and that is no longer acceptable for the shop window of the game. There is much in rugby union to enjoy, excite and savour, but it continues to be strangled at international level by a lack of ambition when it matters most.

PROPOSED LAW CHANGES
1) Mauls can be legally pulled down.

2) Hands can be used to free ball in rucks.

3) Backs must stand five metres behind last foot in a scrum.

4) Players cannot pass back into 22 for team-mates to kick long for touch. If a ball is passed into 22 and kicked straight out, the lineout occurs in line with where the ball was kicked. Balls collected in 22 and kicked straight out still produce lineouts where they crossed the touchline.

5) Penalties only awarded for foul play and offside - not scrum binding and minor infringements, which are downgraded to free-kicks.

This article was posted on 23-Oct-2007, 07:59 by Hugh Barrow.