A Game Based on Object and Principles

Is it fair to expect a team to use its strength to “milk” penalties to win games?

Is it within the ethos of the game to have such a wide range of infringements available that the game can be won by infringement penalties?

Is it within the object of the game to have such a range of infringements that there is inconsistency in their application to such a degree that a penalty is awarded and when it is committed the next time it goes unpunished? Not only does it go unpunished but another infringement results in a penalty?

We have in the game two aspects of play, the scrum and the post tackle, in which penalties can be awarded totally within the Law resulting in the referee being seldom wrong but the game becomes one of discontinuity of play and puts the referee in a position where decisions made determine the outcome of the game.

Do we want a team’s domination at the scrum to lead to a penalty or do we want that domination to lead to an attacking advantage that leads to momentum, penetration, support and a try being scored?

Do we want the proliferation of infringements at the tackle and post-tackle to be such that for one of the teams the risk of contesting the ball doesn’t warrant their involvement? Under these circumstances conceding possession rewards the defending team with greater defensive numbers reducing the attack’s lateral space. The attack becomes one of hit ups to try and get some momentum. Each hit up is the same as the many that preceded it.

Do we want the referee to be brought into disrepute, not because the ruling is wrong, the range of infringements is so great that this can seldom be the case, but because of inconsistency? Realise that inconsistency can be equally effective in leading to a referee’s loss of face as it is a short step from favouring one team over the other be it the attacking team in possession or just one of the teams playing on the day.

When we have problems in the game we tend to build on what we have already got. We take the current situation and add something onto it. As time goes by we move further and further from the object and principles of the game and the intent of the Law. Realise that the Laws are just a vehicle that enables the principles of the game to be fulfilled and it is against these principles that the Law and its application needs to be judged. If this doesn’t happen the game will move further and further from its identity, from its unique character.

What needs to be done is for the principles to be used as criteria against which each Law should be judged and, ultimately judged against the object of the game. This doesn’t mean that, over time, the object and principles will not be altered to encompass the contemporary situation. But equally if these do encapsulate the identity of the game then they do provide a tried and true sounding board and they should be altered with caution. They are the foundation of all the game stands for.

The process mentioned above should lead to the deconstruction of the Laws and their re-assembly based on the extent to which they do meet the principles or the degree to which change needs to be made to make sure they do so.

By deconstructing we will avoid add ons. In fact this may lead to a reduction in the detail of the Law Book and a simplification of the range of infringements especially in the contact areas.

The net effect of this would be to lead to fewer refereeing options, fewer infringements to rule on and greater accuracy and consistency in the rulings. It should make refereeing a less onerous job but, more importantly, it may make it a more enjoyable job as the referee will not find refuge in the bank of infringements available but will enter into a dialogue on incidents that encompasses coaches and players.

In the past I have expressed views on the tackle and post tackle so I will not repeat them here.

What is of current concern, that relates to this situation, is the involvement of the assistant referees and TMO because the ability to go back and review is bound to result in infringements being spotted.

The frustration and delay could effect the public’s view of the game greatly. The concern that does arise is the protocol for the review. I am not privy to the protocol so the point I want to raise is does the review only apply to infringements by the try scoring team? If the attack commits an infringement(s) and this is matched by infringements by the defence where do we go? Is there a balance of evidence that needs to be taken into account? What complications may emerge from this?

If what I have said is not the case I am open to correction. I am sure that if I have got the review process wrong someone will put me right.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »