It’s all very well criticising referees for their obvious shortcomings on the pitch. But without offering a solution its little more than a ranty bitch session.
The law makers saw fit back in the 90s to stop penalising players that went off their feet at a breakdown. It became a sort of, ‘if you have the ball you get to keep it until you fuck it up’. It was an attempt to speed the game up and promote a better product for the viewing public. Cynically, it was designed to earn more money from TV rights. Not that I begrudge anyone making money, but this came at the expense of the game.
Players and coaches figured out a way to bend the rules so the powers-that-be further complicated matters. Flash forward 25 years and here we have a game with 12 -15 defenders spread across the paddock because they don’t have to commit to a breakdown because it’s no longer a contest.
Rucks, mauls, scrums, lineouts and tackle ball are all contests. At least that’s my understanding. If you don’t roll away in a millisecond you’re penalised. The first players from the attacking team can seal off the ball and the defenders can just spread out. What if the arriving players bound on to one another on their feet and fought for the ball? Both teams would have to commit players. What would that create? Space…space for backs to do whatever it is they do. The by-product of course is that front on defense becomes rarer and head injuries/red cards/yellow cards/offside penalties in general play become less likely. Can you imagine the game if some of the big fast backs we have now were able to use their considerable skill and pace without having to try and bust through man mountains to make a break?
The maul is another area of interest. The ball carrier is somehow allowed to hold the ball, unbind from the maul as the team mates join ahead of him/her. and keep going. If the maul is a contest, how is the defending team supposed to compete without pulling the bloody thing down? If a player from each team and the ball carrier are on their feet and bound then a maul ensues. The ball carrier can pass the ball back through the maul to bound players. The ball carrier shouldn’t use the maul as a blocking unit for a run to the line. The other point with mauls are the collapsed maul. When a maul collapses both teams hang on for grim death as the ref blows up for the use-it or lose-it bollocks. Aren’t the players on the ground out of the game and therefore interfering with the ball? Perhaps if those players released the ball there would be less penalties and scrums with the ball in play longer.
When was the last time you saw a team under pressure in a scrum not penalised? I bet pounds to a knob of goatshit that a team under pressure isn’t doing the dirty deeds to make a scrum wheel or collapse.
If we kept players on their feet and made contests genuine contests again, we would alleviate all manner of sins. Spread defense and box kicking, head on tackles and head injury (not that it would solve all head injuries – after all it is a contact sport), endless penalties, and a game that has lost its way. Those of us for whom rugby is more than just a game despair of the current model, despite what the Steve Tews of the world may profess. I can’t hope to change the sport on my own. But hopefully someone is reading and will take on board some of what people like me are saying. The sport would be an attractive game with big, fast players using skill as well as strength to outplay an opposition rather than the strangle-fest we se now.
mysportingvoice.com 