DUBLIN – you have a problem; and if you don't take off the blindfold, remove your finger from up your arse and do something about it, pretty soon you will not have a game which you can sell to TV to maintain your jet-setting life around five-star hotels.
The reality is, in spite of the best efforts of a bunch of mainly English millionaires, the only level of professional rugby which looks sustainable is the international one. That is the area in which the game will make the money to sustain it and help it grow.
That growth has to come from television and from full-houses at the cathedrals of the game. Full houses require an exciting, fluid game, of movement and drama. That is possible. Look at the weekend action. The Scotland v Japan game certainly had that, as, particularly when the All Blacks came roaring back in the third quarter, did France v New Zealand.
Wales v Australia had passages which inspired, but, overall was ruined by that early red card, but, I don't know about the other game – England v South Africa - since I fell asleep and missed most of it.
Rugby Union's main problem, as I see it, is that The Laws of The Game, or rather the manner in which they are being interpreted and enforced, is simply not good enough.
Like it or loathe it, we live in a world of social media and, after every international, social media is awash with argument. Some modern supporters of the game do not seem ready to admit or accept defeat, and, too-often, the fans of the losing side seek the convenient scapegoat – the referee, the poor guy who is, on one hand, being encouraged to allow the game to flow to provide a spectacle, and on the other hand is supposed to enforce Laws which often do not work, or are ignored by the players.
The keyboard warriors we can safely ignore, after all, opinions are like arse-holes, everybody has one. But, the current Law Book's lack of fitness for purpose, the longer World Rugby takes to address this, the worse the game's situation will become.
Would You Do This On The Golf Course?
Take a game with even-more money sloshing around it than rugby – Golf. The Rules of Golf are strictly observed and policed Bryson Dechambeau would not be allowed to take a putt to win The Open Championship from somewhere around where his marker was on the last green at St Andrew's. So how come, as he did on Saturday, Dan Biggar is allowed to take a penalty from a couple of yards closer to the opposition's goal than the mark indicated by the referee?
We all know and accept – every scrum half feeds every scrum to his own side. This is a blatant breach of the Laws, but, it is NEVER penalised – why not?
Another thing I would do at the elite level, which would immediately sort-out a lot of the bother with scrums – I would position the overhead camera immediately above the two hookers' heads at a scrum, and have a scrum expert such as Brian Moore sitting beside the TMO. That way, props not pushing straight would immediately be identified and we would have better scrummaging – and fewer penalties.
Of course, as I have been saying on here for a while, using the scrum, a means of re-starting play following a minor breakdown in play, as a penalty-winning weapon – that's totally against the ethos of the game. No scrum penalties for anything other than foul play, again, we've got a better game.
I was awake when young Nic Dolly came on to make his England debut on Saturday. I watched his first line out throw. He set himself up with his heels on the touchline, so when he actually launched the ball, his heels were off the ground and his feet clearly inside the field of play. He got away with it.
Now, I am not having a go at young Dolly here, because every hooker seems to do what he did, but, Law 18 (which governs the line out), paragraph 22, states:
THROWING INTO A LINEOUT The player throwing in the ball stands on the mark of touch with both feet outside the field of play. The thrower must not step into the field of play until the ball has been thrown. Sanction:Option of line out or scrum.
Couldn't be simpler, but neither the referee or the AR said: “Hello Dolly, you cannot do that.”
There you have it, I have highlighted just three areas where the Laws of the Game are never strictly applied – maybe if we went back to basics and DID apply the Laws, we would have a better game.
I could make a fourth point – that law which says a scrum has to form within 30 seconds of being awarded. This rarely, if ever, happens. Apply that, with a use it or lose it instruction – the game would speed-up. And, apply that same timing to lines out.
Playing For Time
I am also, more than ever convinced, in Elite Rugby – Internationals and the full-time professional and semi-professional leagues – we MUST go to 80 minutes Ball in Play time. This means, every time the referee blows his whistle – the clock stops and does not restart until he blows his whistle again. Every time the ball goes out of play – the clock stops and does not resume until the game is restarted.
Already I can hear the protests: “But, it would be like American Football; every game would last three hours.” And that would suit the money men just fine. Spectators in the ground for longer, buying more over-priced food and drink, what's not to like? (If you're one of the money men).
Sure, initially, there would probably be more stoppages, but, unlike at the moment, these breaks would not involve us seeing less rugby. In time, the players would adapt and we would see a better game.
The South Africans are often accused of slowing down the game, but, since most of their rugby is played at altitude, where the reduced oxygen definitely takes it out of the players – can you blame them? Go to 80 minutes ball-in-play time and the problem is solved.
Lower the tackle height to the waist, sure, at first there would be more stoppages, but, again the players would adapt.
So, to sum-up, why doesn't World Rugby apply a zero tolerances approach to the current Laws which are being abused, and while they are at it – take the Law Book apart and re-write it as fit for this century. Then, maybe we would have a our game back – well, provided they bring back real rucking.
I WOULD give Scotland at best 7/10 for our performances over the four Autumn Internationals; probably 6.5/10 for yesterday's win over Japan. Still, a win is a win – we didn't put what we perhaps consider our first team on the park, but we still won. I can think of many past years when, playing an under-strength team against anyone left Scotland extremely vulnerable.
I must say I was delighted to see Javan Sebastian winning his first cap yesterday. It's been quite a week for the Scotsman from Carmarthen, with a new baby arriving in midweek. We are a bit light at tight-head these days, he's got a chance of a lot more caps if he can get regular game time with The Scarlets.
Magnificent too for skipper Stuart Hogg, to beat Ian Smith's outright Scottish try-scoring record. That Smith's mark of 24 tries has stood for 88 years perhaps says a lot about how Scotland plays the game, as does the fact, Smith scored his double dozen in just 32 internationals, compared to Hoggy's 88 Tests. Of course, we play far-more internationals now than we did back then – and, Smith's period in navy blue was during our most-golden era. But, both players knew where the try line was and how to get over it.
FINALLY, I fear Mike Adamson after Dave Rennie drew attention to the glaring difference between the Kurtley Beale yellow card and the Josh Tomkins try.
Mike Adamson
My
view is, Mikey got the Tomkins decision wrong, but, maybe, from where
he was standing, it looked as if the Welshman knocked the ball down
and backwards – fine angles and all that.
What will be interesting is, the approach World Rugby takes. If Mike suddenly stops getting appointed to internationals, then, we Scots will know – there is bias in how officials are appointed. I can think of one or two officials from “bigger” rugby nations whose career was not harmed by similar controversial decisions. But, as we have seen in the PRO14, there seems to be higher expectations of Scottish officials.
No comments:
Post a Comment