Law Discussion: tackling boredom

Variety is the spice of life; unpredictability is the spice of sport. Has the tackle knocked the stuffing out of variety, unpredictability?

There are two springs that gave rise to these flowing thoughts – the last quarter of an hour of the Heineken Cup Final and something Murray Mexted said in a Super 14 semifinal.

Tackling is one of rugby’s virtues. Miss a tackle and people wonder about all sorts of aspects of your moral fibre. Tackling is often exciting. Think of JP Pietersen’s tackle in the World Cup quarterfinal and Danie Rossouw’s tackle in the World Cup Final. We can all remember great tackles down the years, tackles that made an exciting difference, dashing the hopes of some, lifting the spirits of others.

In making a tackle the tackler achieves a victory of sorts. The ball-carrier tried to beat him and he tackled him. That is a victory.

Because he has won, he deserves a reward.

The ball-carrier also deserves a reward for being adventurous, for having the guts to pit himself against an opponent in pursuit of success for his team.

Because of that he deserves a reward.

Both players deserve plaudits and reward – the tackler and the tackled.

Their reward is to be able to compete for the ball to keep the game going. But is it happening.

Go and look at the last 15 minutes of the Heineken Cup Final as an excellent example of deadly predictability in rugby when the tackling team had no chance of competing for the ball. Munster had the ball and went on keeping it with pick-‘n-go after pick-‘n-go. After they went ahead with 16 minutes to go, Toulouse had the ball for less than a minute before the final whistle went.

What Munster did made sense in assuring victory but there was nothing adventurous or romantic about it. One man got the ball with a team-mate on either side and plunged to ground with team-mates hanging on and other coming in behind to make getting the ball impossible. They were called phases and the phases were added up though all that was happening was one phases over and over and over again.

Let’s listen to two other voices.

1. Murray Mexted during the Super 14 semifinal between the Crusaders and the Hurricanes, two creative teams: “One of the weaknesses of the game is how does the opposition get the ball back in such circumstances. Rugby has to remain a contest in all areas. When I see the stats of retaining the ball in those situations it’s 90% retained by the team taking it in. It shows it’s not much of a contest going on in that area.”

One wonders what Murray would have said if he had been at Millennium Stadium.

2. Peter Shortell of Cheltenham writes about it and so has the chance to be more measured and thoughtful: “A blight on the modern game is the way a team in the lead can play out time with a continuing sequence of tackles/rucks to retain the ball, even if losing ground. That is negative play and even the Munster fans found it boring.

“However virtually the same technique, when used to try and break down a goal-line defence, is exciting positive play.

“I understand the IRB has recently urged referees to be stricter on the laws surrounding rucks and tackles.  This ought to affect both types of play.  Can it be enforced? Will it work?  Is there a way to stop the negativity without stopping the goal-line attack?”

In a recent missive to referees the IRB said on the tackle: “Referees are requested to be more vigilant in this area of the Game and to ensure that both teams are treated equally at the breakdown.”

They are not being treated equally. Watch how the ball-carrier’s support players are allowed to come in at the side where the tackler’s side are happily pinged. Watch how they go to ground. Watch how they work the ball back with their hands even when not on their feet. Then watch what happens to the other side.

GK Chesterton said: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried. ” Maybe that’s the problem with the laws. All those laws are there about staying on your feet and equality for all. That is what the IRB seems to be saying – that they should be tried.

André Watson, the former Test referee and current manager of South African referees, in answering a reader’s question said that he saw no way of curbing the slowing down of the game in this way. The referee in the Heineken Cup Final tried to urge Munster to play the ball. He has a bit of law to back him.

Law 16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK

(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.

The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball.

If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward before the ruck began throws in the ball.

If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.

(b) Before the referee blows the whistle for a scrum, the referee allows a reasonable amount of time for the ball to emerge, especially if either team is moving forward. If the ruck stops moving, or if the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a reasonable time, the referee must order a scrum.

The problem is that the ball is not unplayable. It is just unplayed.

Solution?

There is a story about a rugby league match in Sydney many years ago when a team played with a powerful wind in the first half and led 2-0 at the break. The other team kicked off in the second half and the team playing into the wind caught the ball and forced a tackle. They played the ball. They did it for the whole half and won 2-0. The solution was to change the laws and now the “play the ball” is allowed six goes (six tackles, if you like) and then it becomes a turnover.

Rugby union has regarded the “play the ball” as a stoppage but the business of so-called rucks at so-called tackles is in danger of becoming far more of a stoppage as the scrumhalf stands there looking like a curious meerkat, even nudging the ball back among the forwards to prolong the boredom.

Peter Shortell again: “I suspect many people have been trying to think of a way of solving the problem, which particularly annoys me when I see the scrumhalf having time to comb his hair and brush his teeth before deciding what to do.

“The only idea that cameo suggests is a time limit, say five seconds as is currently applied to a static maul. However I do not want to have the referee continually being required to call “Use it”.  The scrumhalf would just wait for him to call before acting.  My thinking would be that for the first few phases the referee would call, but thereafter the scrumhalf would be expected to know the timing required and just get on with it, at risk of giving away a scrum.

‘This would tackle part of the problem, and it might be that a team having to play before they had re-organised would have to do something different or perhaps make a mistake.

‘The remaining problem is that the defence can do little to attack a pile of grounded bodies.  There is a lot to be said for requiring players on the ground to get to their feet, and that would certainly help. Being stricter on players going to ground is easier said than done. Tackled players and tacklers are by definition on the ground.  Forcing their way up and out might bring down a legitimate ruck.

“I definitely do NOT want to go down the road of limiting the number of phases.  Close to the goal-line this technique is genuine attacking play that gets spectators excited.”