Coming out of their constant desire to jigger the rules to their own benefit they launched a raft of rule changes in their National Rugby Championship. Now they seek to impose these on the rest of the world.
World Rugby announced the trial and the full package can be read here.
The laws broadly fall into three categories; scoring, scrum and touch. Easily the most controversial is the desire to fundamentally change the game by devaluing kicking at goal and simultaneously increasing the value of a try.
As they would have it:
9.a.1 - Following extensive union feedback, the LRG recommended to Rugby Committee that the following values attached to methods of scoring be trialled to promote the continuity of the match and reward scoring tries over penalties.I can't believe this has seriously been proposed and want to fight it tooth and nail.
- Try: 6 points
- Conversion: 2 points
- Penalty Goal: 2 points
- Dropped Goal: 2 points
1.) There are no other sports that I have ever heard of that change their scoring systems so regularly. Rugby try inflation is running only slightly behind real inflation in the UK! Something worth £3 in 1992 would now be worth £6, almost matching the 4-6 increase in try value. It makes the game look like a joke and divorces us from our history.
2.) There has been no proper evidence or research that shows how many tries have been scored across a season and how that value changes in different leagues. The Premiership, Pro12, Top 14, Super Rugby have a wealth of data available. How have try rates changed? What effect did moving from 4 point tries to 5 point tries have? We have data before and after in France, Italy and English leagues it should be incumbent on those seeking change to make the case properly not on airy fairy notions of what might happen. We have a very similar change 23 years ago, what DID happen after the last change?
They are trialling these scores in the Welsh Principality Premiership. What were the number of tries last season? The distribution? The number of penalties? Without these numbers we will have no idea if this has even been a success or not.
3.) Why the assumption that the game is all about tries? What is entertaining is a tight and compelling game where the lead is uncertain. The current odd scoring system encourages that as a game can see-saw: 3-0;3-5;10-5;10-12;13-12 etc. In new scoring that would be: 2-0; 2-6; 10-6; 10-14; 12-14. So one fewer change of lead and in case 1 a penalty changes the lead yet again whilst in case 2 it leads to a draw. Going to a 2-6-8 scoring system would also surely increase draws particularly in a deep European winter when a lack of tries is as much down to the weather as the players.
This is a fundamental change to the game that I don't want and don't see why we need it. Rugby is booming world wide particularly in France and the UK with both signing record contracts for the TV rights of their leagues. Given this has emerged from Australia this has the stink of throwing good money after bad and trying to turn around a failing market at the risk of souring bigger and growing markets.
Changing the risk-reward ratio makes a fundamental change to tactics at every stage of the game and is taking huge risk when rugby is under going massive and sustained growth.
Other changes are:
3.5(H) - To discourage teams from going to uncontested scrums, if, because of a sending off or injury, a team cannot provide enough suitably trained front row players, the match continues with uncontested scrums, the scrums have to be played with eight players per side.
Comment: A positive move. Key part is that teams are forced to keep 8 men in so removing a possible advantage a team has from going to uncontested scrums. Should open the wider spaces without any obvious negative effects.
5.7(e) - In order to increase the penalty for infringing in the dying moments of the game, if time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue. If time expires and a player then kicks to touch from a penalty kick anywhere in the playing area, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken, and play continues until the next time that the ball becomes dead.
Comment: Not sure on this one. Gives referees significantly more room to impact the end of a match as 2 penalties after 80 minutes can now march you down the field from your own goal line and into a scoring zone. Previously you would have had to make a line break to gain such territory. Giving referees more room to controversially affect a result is not something I want to see.
I also have a question about a side leading after the 80 who get a penalty. Can they kick to touch to end the game? Do you have to tell the referee before you kick it? Adds a layer of confusion for little reward.
8.1 (a) - "For multiple penalised infringements, the referee has the discretion to allow the captain of the team for whom the penalty has been awarded, to choose from which of the points of penalty on the field, the penalty may be taken. 8.1 “(a)” Add sentence (italics): (a) The referee is the sole judge of when a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions. The referee may consult with the team captain in deciding which the greater advantage to his team is. The rationale can best be outlined by an example. Reds v Blacks. Red attack on Black 22, 5 metres from touch. Referee plays advantage to Red. Play moves to mid-field/some forward progress. Black infringe again, no advantage possible, referee awards PK. Depending on the score/time, the most advantageous position for the PK may be at place of first infringement (kick to touch and line-out) OR at the place of the second infringement (kick at goal.) It seems reasonable and positive for the referee to consult with the captain in such instances."
Comment: Like this one. Effectively where you have two penalties the infringed against side may choose which one it wants. No obvious down sides I can see.
9.A.1 - "If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded. The conversion kick shall not be taken after a penalty try is awarded. Value = eight points as above."
Comment: Have no burning opinion on this one. You literally never see the conversion missed anyway so pointless change, on the other hand you never see them missed so has no effect on the game anyway. Leaning towards being against as feels like change for changes sake.
Kick off laws various: "To increase ball in play time, penalise poor kicks and reduce scrum time, the sevens variations for kick-off sanctions will apply: Free kick at the centre of the halfway line. There is not a scrum option from this free kick."
Comment: Don't like this but only mildly. The kick off is a contest. The restart should be a contest too, even if it has failed. Also part of the slow eroding of the scrum from the game. Will be interesting to see what effect it has. The biggest will be we no longer getting 10 point swings where a try is scored, a team kicks off into touch and then concedes a penalty at the scrum. Not sure that is really a positive or a negative.
17.6 (d) and (e) Unsuccessful end to a maul - "In order to avoid the ball being out of vision and to promote fair contest, a maul must start moving forward within five seconds it was started. If it does not do that and if the referee can see the ball, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge but the maul is ended. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered."
Comment: Seems to again look to de-power the maul/pack. I preferred the old ELV of being allowed to collapse mauls. Unfortunately a panic over injuries that was never really properly analysed and proved saw that shelved after only one year before we really got to see what teams would do with it.
19 Touch - Simplify the law relating to touch for officials, players, coaches and fans, promote consistency across the game and increase ball in play time. Who has taken the ball into touch is determined by who last had possession or played the ball before the ball went into touch.
a) Clarify the existing law definition at the front of the law book so that a player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball. This is existing practice and means that a player does not have to be in contact with the ball at the moment the player touches the touchline for the ball to be in touch. This clarification makes it easier for the match officials to judge whether or not the ball is in touch if the player is “juggling” with it in an attempt to bring it under control
b) Permit a player to jump from the playing area and return a ball to play that has reached the plane of touch provided the player does so before he or she lands in touch.
c) Permit a ball carrier whose momentum takes him or her over the touchline, to return the ball to play provided that neither the player nor the ball lands in touch before the ball is released.
d) Change the law so that a player who is in touch who catches or picks up a ball that has not reached the plane of touch is deemed to have taken the ball into touch.
Comment: This is basically what most people think the laws are already, especially b). 100% behind these ones.
Law 20.1(g) Forming a scrum - While the ‘crouch, bind, set’ engagement sequence has achieved its objective of reducing scrum injuries by reducing forces on engagement by 25 per cent and reducing front row injuries by 50 per cent the rate of completions remains low at the elite level of the game. The following law amendment trial is designed to promote stability and speed of ball availability, reducing the number of collapses and resets.
- The referee will call “crouch” and then “bind”
- In the “crouch” position the front rows will be shoulder to shoulder with their opponents, stable and supporting their own weight without pushing
- On the “bind” call the props will position their arms in the correct ‘bind’ position. [The correct ‘bind’ is as outlined in current Law 20.1 (g)]
- The front rows (+ back 5 players) will tighten binds and set themselves for the throw-in.
- The ball is then thrown-in without delay, Law 20.5
Comment: I just don't get what they think this will achieve?
A positive is "In the “crouch” position the front rows will be shoulder to shoulder with their opponents" seems to be formalising what size gap between the packs there should be.
A big negative is "The front rows (+ back 5 players) will tighten binds and set themselves for the throw-in." (my emphasis) So hands up who thinks front rows getting to call their own engage is a good idea? I genuinely can't think of one reason? This will only lead to the team with the ball trying to get in before the opposition, set and then push on for a penalty.
It seems to be in because they want another scrum change but don't have the nads to make all scrum offences the same level as pushing early e.g. free kick then penalty if persistent.
Law 20.5 Throwing the ball into the scrum - "The rationale is that the scrum-half (No.9) may receive a signal from his hooker (No.2) that the hooker is ready. This may encourage the No.2 to prepare to strike for the ball. The proposal is intended to give the advantage to the team throwing-in the ball. The scrum must be stable prior to feed, and the ball fed without delay in accordance with current Law."
Comment: Again can't see what this is trying to achieve other than more instances of foot up.
Law 20.6(d) How scrum-half throws the ball into scrum - "The scrum half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align his shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing him to stand a shoulder width towards his side of the middle line. This is designed to further promote scrum stability and enhance player welfare by reducing the pressure on the hooker striking the ball."
Comment: I've no real issue with this. I'd prefer to move away from hooking all together and making the scrum more into a shoving contest but this still leaves a team open to being shoved off it whilst giving a weaker scrum a chance to get it back.
Law 20.11 Wheeling the scrum - "In order to promote, quicker, completed scrums and enhance player safety, the law trial is aimed at discouraging the team not in possession from wheeling the scrum. 20.11 (b) will be applied as follows: The new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. If neither team win possession, the ball is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in."
Comment: At the moment if the scrum wheels deliberately it is a penalty but if it is accidental then possession switches. This puts the ref into a difficult situation and they are very very rarely turning over possession anyway. I like this one as it makes the rules more consistent and reduces a fairly perverse incentive currently in the rules.
Law 22.13 Attacking infringement with scrum sanction - "If an attacking player commits an infringement in the in-goal area which would have resulted in a scrum had it occurred within the field of play, and a defending player has made the ball dead or it has gone into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, play is restarted with either a five-metre scrum and the defending team throws the ball in OR a five-metre line drop out. The five-metre line drop out will be treated as per the 22m drop out. The 5 metre drop out can occur anywhere along the five-metre line."
Comment: As far as I'm aware currently this would result in a 22m? Why the change? What's the benefit? Seems really odd.
Law 22.16 Infringements in goal - "AMEND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TO READ: A knock-on or a throw forward by the defending team in the in-goal results in a five-metre scrum opposite the place of infringement and the attacking team throws the ball in. ADD A THIRD PARAGRAPH: A knock on or a throw forward by the attacking team in the in-goal results in either a five-metre scrum and the defending team throws the ball in or a five-metre line drop out taken anywhere along that line."
Comment: As above really. I don't get the need for it?