MODERN PENTATHLON is a contrived sport. As I understand it, it is derived from a Swedish military drill, designed to produce a useful officer class (if that isn't an oxymoron).
The basis is a tale, of an army scout, who is despatched back to headquarters with an urgent message. He sets off on horseback, but, his horse is shot from under him and he has to shoot his way out of trouble, before swimming across a raging river to make good his escape. He then has to fight a sword fight, before eventually running across country back to HQ to deliver his message.
I may have got the shooting and sword-fighting in the wrong order, but, basically, that's the story and the justification for the sport.
Over the years, the running order of the event has been messed about with, and, right now, the high heid yins of the sport are having another look at things. Their principal area of concern being the fact, the competitors are faced each time with an unfamiliar group of horses, which are drawn by lots and the animal rights lobby got a wee bit, not to say quite rightly, aerated when a disgusted competitor's coach took his anger out on a particularly un-co-operative horse during the Tokyo Olympics competition.
To my mind, the bother all stems from the decision, made when inventing Modern Pentathlon – that the messenger had to set-off on an unfamiliar horse. Let's be honest here, the chances are any military scout would have his own, carefully-selected horse, ready to do his bidding. So, allow each competitor to ride his own horse, make the horse element the first part, and, on the grounds of greater honesty, instead of show jumping, use a cross-country course, as in a three-day event.
Any way, it seems they are going to ditch the horse-riding element in favour of an obstacle race – so much to the original concept.
To my mind, the simplest changes are the easiest, when playing around with the rules of a sport. Which, after that intro, brings us to the gist of today's sermon.
Why are we even considering major changes, such as the 20-minute red card sanction – when simpler, less-contentious fixes to Rugby Union's problems are probably available?
Most of the perceived problems around the Laws of the Game seem to be stemming from the elite level of the game. So, why doesn't World Rugby conduct an in-depth survey of the elite game – the top leagues in each country, and over a season, compile a list of the most-penalised offences?
Once we know what these are, we could take steps to have these offences removed from the game, by making certain it's too-much trouble to the offending side to commit these offences, so, they had better mend their ways.
At the same time, crack down on the slippages which have been allowed to come into the game: squint feeds at scrums, hookers throwing into lines-out from inside the pitch, stealing metres when kicking to touch. Then there is the scrum!!!
Go back to zero tolerance for these offences, clean-up the game and we make it better. It's not rocket science.
If we discover that head-to-head collisions are a big problem, then lower the tackle height, from the current nipple line to the waist. (personally, I would do this regardless of the findings, it just makes sense). Prohibit double tackles. Sort out the maul laws. Go back to real rucking, whereby the ball has to be played out of the ruck by a foot – make it again a game of pace and evasion rather than an arm wrestle – rugby will be the winner.
RASSIE ERASMUS that South African voice of reason and good sense!! has been pontificating this week on the Laws. Well, they say it's Rassie, but, some of his suggestions ar maybe a tad too-sensible to have come from him.
He has, for instance, suggested the formation of a panel of specialist scrum referees, to officiate at that particular set piece. Sounds good in theory, however, when even the likes of Brian Moore and David Flatman, in television commentaries can admit they haven't a clue why a particular scrum penalty was given, it makes you wonder.
If guys with their length of experience are at a loss, can the problem be sorted-out at all?
I would certainly, however, look at making more and better use of those overhead cameras, either on a wire on a drone, which we see at the top level. Position that camera directly over the heads of the two hookers and the TMO would have a better notion of which prop is boring-in, which is taking the scrum down, etc, and a lot of the dark arts would come into the daylight.
Then, make the scrum-halves put the ball in, straight down the middle of the scrum, and get the hookers to hook – I reckon a lot of the bother would be ended.
Here's another one which might help. Football referees all carry that wee spray can, whereby they mark where a free kick is to be taken from, and, how far back the defensive wall has to stand. Why not introduce that to rugby?
The referee could then spray a line, which would be the centre of the scrum tunnel. He would immediately know which pack, if either, pushed too soon, and he could immediately tell if the feed was straight or not – if the ball didn't land on the scrum line.
The same spray, used to indicate the penalty mark, might mean Dan Biggar lost about 400 metres per game in stolen territory when kicking to touch.
Rassie also called for a basketball-style shot clock, to prevent abuses when taking a place kick. I like that idea, however, I feel if we are to increase ball-in-play time, we should maybe change the Laws.
Decide something like: “A Rugby Union match shall last 60/70/80 minutes 'ball-in-play' time.” Every time the ball goes out of play, or the referee blows his whistle, the game clock is stopped.
However, to prevent those seemingly endless huddles before lines-out, make it that, unless the referee decrees otherwise – for something like a serious injury, the side in possession, has to get the game going again within a set period – say 20 or 30 seconds.
With place kicks, as soon as the referee indicates a kick at goal, the game clock stops, but, the kick clock starts. I would also reduce the time allowed in which to get the kicking tee on, get it set-up and the kick taken to no more than 60 seconds.
Another suggestion of Rassie's is that we have two referees on the park. Well, this works in basketball, where there are only ten players on court. In that game, one referee is in front of play, the other behind.
Two on-field officials might work in Rugby Union, but, I think better use of the Assistant Referees might also work better – particularly in terms of policing the offside law.
Another thing I would consider is, at the breakdown, as soon as the third player in goes off his feet; (third player as in -ball carrier is player 1, tackler is player 2 – then third man in) if the ball isn't out, the referee blows for a scrum.
OK, we might have to endure a few weeks of marathon scrumathons, but, the players and coaches would adapt and the players would learn to stay on their feet, making for a better game.
All it needs to sort the game out is the will to be evident in the corridors of power in Dublin. Damn, I knew there was a problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment