/ 29 February 2008

Thumbs-down to new rugby rules

Football gets by on 11 rules: a simple game for simple folk. Rugby has 22 laws, each one of which has myriad sub-clauses. On top of that there are the variations, laws adapted for under 19-rugby, different ones for seven-a-side and, in this country at least, even kaalvoet (barefoot or junior rugby) rugby has a set of variations. Now the big boys have their own discrepancies.

The opening rounds of the Super 14 have been the first chance for most rugby people to see the effect on the game of the new International Rugby Board (IRB)-approved Experimental Law Variations, the so-called ”ELVs”. And for most people it was a resounding thumbs-down.

The game between the Sharks and the Force in week one was about as far away from the intended consequences of the ELVs as it is possible to get. With scrums kept to a minimum and possession an apparent curse rather than blessing, it looked more like Aussie Rules than rugby union.

In the former game catching a high ball is the ultimate ”thrill” and kicking the ball through an enormous untended goal is the somewhat pointless aim. Proponents of Aussie Rules point to the athleticism of its participants and the almost religious fervour with which it is followed in certain states. But the fervour has not migrated beyond Australia.

Rugby Union, on the other hand, has conquered the world, with more than 120 nations affiliated to the IRB. It is fair to ask this question then: Why do the game’s administrators have such an inferiority complex? Every change in the laws since World War II has been with the aim of improving the popularity of the sport by making it a ”better game”.

Regarding the ELVs, here’s what the IRB website has to say: ”The primary aim of the ELVs is to make the game simpler to understand for players and supporters alike, and that the players dictate the outcome of matches, not referee subjectivity. At the same time the basic fabric of the game has to remain the same in terms of maintaining its identifiable characteristics — the scrum, maul, ruck, line-out and tackle.”

Few would argue about the need to minimise ”referee subjectivity”, but a straw poll at any one of the grounds hosting the first two rounds would have poured scorn on the phrase, ”simpler to understand”. And, if the scrum is rugby’s most ”identifiable characteristic”, why were there so few on opening weekend? The answer lies in that awful short-armed sop, the free kick.

The ELVs seek to negate ”referee subjectivity” by reducing the number of offences for which a penalty can be awarded. This works directly against the ethos of Bulls rugby, which generally seeks to dominate the tight exchanges and force penalties for ”Liefling” Hougaard to kick and build a points cushion.

Unquestionably the use of free kicks to restart the game has resulted in the ball being in play longer. The question is whether this is necessarily a good thing? Rugby union is a relatively pedestrian game interrupted by periods of frenetic activity. Speed it up too much and it disappears.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The IRB again: ”Importantly, everything that is being trialled relates to the Game’s Playing Charter that recognises rugby as a game for all shapes and sizes and that the contest for possession is of paramount importance.”

If every game is played like the one between the Cheetahs and Lions in Bloemfontein, the short and the round and the tall might as well pack it in. There will be no place for tight forwards and outside backs and everyone will be built like Francois Steyn. Soon those troublesome flanks will disappear and we’ll have rugby league. Even the IRB knows we don’t want that.

There are two roads to salvation. The first is the easiest. The IRB meets in November to ponder the effect of the ELVs. It might decide to abandon some, or indeed all, of them. The second is tougher. Teams and coaches will have to come up with some bright ideas.

Remember that the better mousetrap invariably produces the brighter mouse. The ELVs are intended to speed up the game, allow for a fair contest at the breakdown and keep the ball in play longer. Clever teams will slow the game down and keep the ball away from the possibility of breakdown. Here’s how.

The idea of the free kick is for a player, normally the scrumhalf, to pick up the ball, tap it with his foot and get the game going again. But there is an alternative option: instead of tapping the ball you can call for a scrum. Now the tight forwards come back into the game, which is forcibly decelerated as a result and that nifty new law demanding a 5m gap between forwards and backs at the scrum comes into play.

The ultimate consequence of the ELVs might be more scrums, not less, and the game might get slower rather than faster. And it would serve the IRB damn well right for assuming that rugby fans like their game simple.