Another evaluation of experimental laws
The laboratory for experimenting with law changes is now the Scottish Super Cup. Richard White did some early evaluating and now does so again.
The first experiment at Stellenbosch with top men, Paddy O’Brien Rod Macqueen, Ian McIntosh, Pierre Villepreux and Richie Dixon trying to formulate and experiment with changes to the laws of the game to be proposed to the International Rugby Board for possible inclusion in the laws after the 2007 Rugby World Cup. These are at present Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) for limited use and for experimental purposes only.
The suggestions are seen as radical – the use of the hands at the tackle/ruck, allowing the maul to be pulled down, removing the corner post, adding to the restriction on kicking into touch by allowing no gain in ground if the ball is passed back into the 22, changing the throw for some line-outs fro penalties and reducing the number of penalties to off-side and foul play.
Richard White reported, positively, after the first round of matches. Now he reports following Saturday’s matches.
Last week I had a chance to see another one of the games under the ELVs, this time featuring sides that are perhaps less adventurous in outlook than Glasgow Hawks and Boroughmuir. And I would say the difference showed, though there may be good reasons for that. I’ve tried to add to my previous comments, not repeat them, they may or may not be useful to you. My sense is that coaches and journalists/commentators in Scotland remain quite wary of the ELVs, without giving any good reason, while I am already a fan!
Watsonians beat Melrose by 50 odd points to nil, half of the points coming in the last 15 minutes, though Melrose never really threatened and probably just tired towards the end. This was Watson’s third game and Melrose’s second under the ELVs, and again the better rugby team won (which is important to my way of thinking)
So, comments on the application of ELVs:
Neither side really seemed to embrace the new philosophy. At the tackle we saw lots of what can only be described as “pile-ups” with both sides reverting to type in trying to feed the ball back in traditional style. In fairness to the players they haven’t really had a chance to consolidate their thinking, as they switch from ELV to league, to cup (under old rules), to ELV, to cup back to ELVs – the Scottish Rugby Union haven’t done anybody any favour here!
Malcolm Changleng (referee) was pretty consistent at the pile-up, whistling frequently to award a free kick (not scrum) to the side who didn’t initiate the pile-up. This speeded up play tremendously, and also meant that players lying around on or about the ball were effectively out of the game, a strong incentive to stay on your feet.
I assume that as experience grows teams will become much “cuter” around the ruck/maul, but that contact area is going to become much more dynamic. The time available to “set yourself” before driving forward will be much reduced, simply because the defending team doesn’t have to wait but can be active in defence, pulling down the maul or competing for the ball. And managing off-side will be a vital skill. One fear expressed was that there will be a much higher incidence of arm injuries as folks overextend in competing for the ball at the tackle. No evidence either way from the games I’ve seen, but worth keeping an eye on it.
In fact throughout the game I was struck by a number of beneficial side-effects which may or may not have been part of the law-makers thinking, but certainly helped in making the game “better” (as a spectacle, in understanding it, in perhaps reducing injuries): if you can use your hands in the ruck/maul there can be no excuse at all for stamping/raking at the breakdown; there was a total of about five minutes’ “injury time” in the whole match – with fewer stoppages there is much less opportunity for time-wasting (there probably needs to be a formal dispensation for physios to attend to injured players during play, though in practice this seems to happen now anyway); the ref’s decision’s were hardly contested.
And while Malcolm Changleng is a fine chap I’m quite happy not to hear his voice very often! though I do think the authorities missed a trick in not miking up the ref and broadcasting his comments – it would have helped all us spectators understand what was going on better and made us feel more participants in this new adventure. He did send one player to the sin-bin, for being “negative”, which was splendid! Long may that attitude continue.
The one area where both sides took advantage of the new variations was in the opportunity to take a quick line-out and pass backwards – it is actually very hard to defend if the throwing-in team have a couple of players back even if the chase is good and a couple of folks are in position. Which again speeds the game up and adds to the attacking variations. Neither side showed much wit in their kicking games, but again I would expect this area to improve as the great rugby minds apply themselves!
One query from me – if a free kick is awarded at a pile-up does the attacking side have the option of a scrum?
As a counterpoint I watched my son play in an Under-15s game in the morning and was (again) struck by how actively the referee had to manage the game – defining when a ruck/maul had started, warning players not to handle in the ruck, etc., and how frequently his instructions had to be ignored for the game to flow – very often he would call “ruck, no hands”, but without any hand intervention the ball would never have come out at all! Supports my assertion that the ELVs make rugby a much more instinctive, understandable game, hopefully meaning that the laws can be more easily taught leaving more time to concentrate on skills development for youngsters.
