Readers speak on Laws
Reaction to last week's discussion
Last we discussed various aspects of the law and its application. Here Peter Shortell reacts to what was said.
To go to last week's discussion on ther maul, click here and for the discussion other reader suggestions, click here..
1. Response to last week
The maul.
I agree with reservations about players being ordered to leave the maul. It seems to me that if they got there legitimately, they can stay there as long as they remain bound – even if they are on the "wrong" side".
I think the phrase "moving towards a goal-line" simply allows a referee to declare that a maul going mainly sideways counts as stationary – referee's discretion. It's not that new: it was introduced in the 2000 re-write. Prior to that the phrase "When a maul remains stationary or stops moving forward"
was in use. The 2000 wording seems to be an advance, since it allows a maul to move backwards.
TMO
Where can one get the latest TMO protocol? Should it not be published in the law book?
Replacements
This badly need reviewing. Hopefully they will look at it again after the next Rugby World Cup.
Uncontested scrums
I quite like the suggestion that if binning a front row player would lead to uncontested scrums, the player should stay on, and his sentence should be served by another forward (captain's choice). Allied to my own proposal that after a successful penalty goal, play should restart with a scrum to the non-offending team at the mark for the penalty, that should dissuade players from deliberately seeking a yellow card.
Knock-on
Tom Voyce's interception try for Wasps started with a knock forward. I do not agree that it was deliberate – I saw it as a genuine interception attempt. If he had not caught it, the referee would have awarded a scrum IMHO.
Again the law is unsatisfactory. I don't like the requirement for the ball to hit the ground or another player. I would restrict it to going out of the player's reach. Thus Voyce would have knocked on, and been recalled, because his interception attempt failed to be a clean one. Tim Stimpson (v South Africa) would have knocked on, so there would have been no argument as to whether or not Vos was entitled to tackle him.
There is a case for allowing the Voyce situation. There was nobody anywhere near to make a tackle, so that might be the basis for an exception.
Law changes
(a) I was delighted to see a referee in the Under-19s award a free kick for foot-up! I have even seen the occasional free kick for a crooked feed in the Guinness Premiership. Long may it continue.
(b) If you want to allow knock-ons from a kick-off or restart kick, you have to define when that period of grace is over. is it just the first knock-on, or the first quick-fire series? I think the idea is an unnecessary nonsense.
(c) The goal-line drop-out would simply encourage teams to attack by putting the ball into the in-goal. If there is any real problem with teams delaying the touchdown, then borrow the concept of the kick-off law: the defender has to make up his mind immediately. If he doesn't, and cannot get the ball out of in-goal, attacking 5m scrum.
Peter Shortell
2. The three-point conversion
I have a concept that will certainly infuriate rugby purists (myself included) but may make for fascinating rugby viewing. It is based on the "2 Point" Conversion in American Gridiron.
Consider American Football:
A touchdown is worth 5 points. After you score, you can elect to attempt a kick at goal (1 point), or attempt to score another touchdown (from the 5-metre mark). That "second" touchdown is called a "2 point conversion" and is worth, of course, 2 points. That means, if a team is behind by 6 points, close to the end of the game, and they score a touchdown (5 points) , they can either try and draw the game (with a traditional kick at goal for 1 point) , or, they can attempt the 2-point conversion for a win. Or, if they are behind by 7, and they score a touchdown they would attempt to draw the game by going for the 2 point conversion.
Now, consider rugby:
A try is worth 5 points, a conversion is worth 2. Allow the team that scored the try to attempt a "three-point conversion" by giving them a free kick on their opponents 22. If they touch down in their opponents in goal they get 3 points. No drop goals allowed. So if a team was behind by 7, and scored a try they could go for a win (by electing to attempt the 3-point conversion). Similarly if they were behind by 8, they would try the 3 point conversion (after scoring a try), to draw the game.
It would be particularly useful in knock-out rounds, and may produces some fascinating strategic decisions being made on the pitch, particularly towards the end of the game. May also inspire some great cross field kicks for wings such as Bryan Habana, Joe Rokocoko, etc…
While not taking any skill away from kicking for goal, there may be more drama in attempting a 3-point conversion.
Worth a (hypothetical of course) discussion on planet-rugby?
Derrick Sturisky
