Proposal not to penalize throws through the crease if they are 'uncontested' will have serious consequences. Photo: Getty Images/Ian Cook
A recent World Rugby press release announced measures they grandly described as “a package of improvements designed to improve the playing experience on and off the field.” Even if one considers the usual marketing mumbo-jumbo that accompanies such messages, this grand entreaty is difficult to reconcile with the specific changes being dictated.
Some of the biggest issues facing rugby are either not mentioned or mentioned. postponed to another date to be reported by working groups of specialists. While World Rugby must be given credit for the steps it actually took, saying «We acted quickly» in a show of «special unity and commitment» is a bit too credulous.
The recently announced closed trials to increase the use of stopwatches for scrums, lineouts and reduce kicking times are welcome but hardly bold. I and others wrote recommendations about this four years ago. This was obvious, and yet we are only now approaching a recommendation to try it. It could be another four years before it is passed.
We need to consider points coming from broadcasters, whose rights fees are the most important source of rugby income, all of which have been outlined in my previous columns . The laws of rugby are confusing to many who watch, there is too much kicking and too much delay.
I could, but I don't have space, comment on most of the proposals, but you have to wonder. the logic of sentences prefaced by “judges throughout the world will be expected to strictly apply existing laws” and sentences requiring judges not to apply existing laws. It is intellectually inconsistent and confusing to those not familiar with rugby.
As one example of such incoherent thinking, take the following two directives. Referees are now instructed to strictly enforce the «use it» command, which instructs the player at the end of the break to play the ball. They are now instructed to make that call early and begin a five-second countdown during which the ball must be played. It's already on the statute book, but I can't remember it being used regularly in TV games before this crackdown. Why do judges need to be told this now?
The answer is important because it shows how much government officials favor some laws over others. Judges hide behind “materiality” clauses in the guiding principles of the law. People ask whether it really matters, but it too often leads to bad habits that are not adopted and that disproportionately irritate viewers, and for good reason.
What should prevent officials from abandoning this direction again in the name of continuing the game? Moreover, the directive does not address the problem of «crawler» players, which artificially lengthen rucks and further slow down the game. At some point they banned it only to allow it to reappear.
Contrast this strict requirement with the proposal to allow “lineout play not straight unless the throw-in is contested.” The proposed trial has all the hallmarks of a disastrous decision, made by judges without any authority, to collectively ignore the express rule laid down in the bout on the basis of materiality. It didn't matter because the team that didn't put the ball in play wasn't in the running for the ball. This inevitably led to many of the current problems in the encounter. Anyone who has played in the front row knows this, but no one in power will achieve it.
Let's start with the general principle of the competition. If you have a two-on-one overlap and the defender is not attempting to tackle either the ball carrier or the intended receiver, the pass is not contested. So if it's only a few inches forward, why does it matter? Are we all okay with this?
Then there are more specific points. What is indisputable? You can't, and teams don't, put defenders at every lineout position. If they mistakenly guess that the ball will be thrown to the player who jumped forward, does that mean that they did not challenge the ball thrown back? How far is not straight? A few inches — how do you measure that? Why not allow it to be thrown straight into the scrum half — after all, it wasn't contested, so what does it matter?
The reason teams sometimes don't contest lineouts is because it's one of the there are few ways to stop the resulting crowd. If you make it more difficult, you will make the lineouts next to the line even more valuable attacking platforms. Any penalty awarded in your own half may be sent to the corner, and to avoid this the most obvious tactic is not to play with the ball in your hand, but to kick into the area. Almost everyone watching agrees that rugby needs more kicking.
Свежие комментарии