Legalising current practice

By | July 25, 2011

Based on the Experimental Law Variations that have resulted from the Stellenbosch Workshop, and further to Matt Peter‘s article in the last Newsletter, should we have another view? Should we look at what is currently happening, at what is difficult to do and what is frequently unsafe to do and remove them, allowing players to choose their options and legislate for these within the bounds of safety? Should we take the outcome that we wish to achieve at the breakdown and legislate for this so it happens? What do we want the outcome to be?

Do we increase the options so the risk of penalties, especially those that result in points, is considerably reduced? And by doing this, reduce not just the penalties, but the confusion that surrounds decisions made? Do we see the contest following the tackle as a greater opportunity for the defence to regain possession, creating a greater commitment and space elsewhere?

What elements do we legitimise to clarify the situation?
Players are frequently on the ground. At present they are supposed to be out of play but their very presence prevents this. They are told to roll away but in which direction? Should we allow them to play the ball on the ground? After all, the support on the ground would provide stability and reduce the risk of injury. If the ball-carrier seeks contact and succumbs to the tackle, what rights should that player retain for his choice of a poor option, or an option that has been forced on him by poor support play from team-mates? When he goes to ground should he be able to make the ball, even for a split second, unavailable to opposition? After all, rights should be equitable, they should reflect the quality of the preceding play. At the very least, the ability to make the tackle is equivalent to the ability to accept the tackle. This means that in the play that follows, each team should have equal opportunity. Is tackling a superior skill to accepting the tackle and, on this basis, should the tackler have priority?

This being the case, should a ball carrier who managed to go forward over the gain line, be rewarded as, collectively, their team has demonstrated superior play?
Maybe the reward is increased time and space to continue to play. This may be created by there being an offside line across the field at the tackle giving the attacking support a shorter route to the breakdown than the defence. And, of course, if the attack is not able to go forward the defence reaps the reward, as its route is shorter.

What becomes confusing is that the defence begins its forward movement closer to the gain line than the attack because passes have to be made backwards and the speed at which the attack moves forward is less because of the requirements of passing and receiving the ball. If play on the ground is legal, we have a wrestling match for the ball if the ball-carrier has not decided on, and performed an escape route for the ball before the completion of the tackle. Maybe we need to legislate for the safety of players involved in the contest for the ball on the ground. Maybe we need to limit what can be done to an opponent if the actions (skills) that emerge are within the current law. Maybe we need to limit the duration of the ensuing play to such an extent that the last option is going there in the first place.
Will this succeed in creating a city with space in the countryside or will we end up playing a territory game? The impact on 7‘s will be great as the amount of general play in the game enables defenders who would be in an offside position from phase play, to limit attacking options in general play.

This debate is bound to continue and the consequences of the changes are so great that all and any contributions need to be accepted so that the consequences in the mode of play do not erode the game‘s basic tenets.

Comments are closed.