When I first went to the IRB it was at the time when Super Rugby started and rugby became professional. The Super game was effected by commercially biased CEO’s in the SANZAR unions and their new-ish entourages of marketers, sports lawyers, advertisers, PR people, media liaison people, personnel trouble smoothers and hospitality people. Over the years they have become so numerous that the rugby side of the operation has diminished in importance. Often money spent on playing, coaching and officiating is regarded as a cost and not an investment in the future

This resulted in us taking our eyes off the ball.

The effect was to have the referees being instructed to favour the attacking team, as tries were what the fans wanted to see. Because of this the game began to lose its identity and move towards Rugby League which JJ Stewart called “tackle – touch.”

 

Score lines of 65-34 and 44-35 were common as the defensive forwards were slow to adjust to wasting their time going to post tackle after post tackle chasing the ball. They still formed a ruck of reasonable numbers and there was space laterally across the fields to penetrate and, eventually, score. There was such a bias by the refs that one test at the Telstra Dome in Melbourne started with a Wallaby kick off at which John Eales knocked on. A scrum was formed and the All Blacks kept possession for the next 13 minutes.

 

It didn’t take long, however, for the teams to adjust and use the players differently.

Why go to the breakdown if you were unable to contest the ball? Go in only if you can grab the ball, if not, become part of the defence line. This meant that, while the defence was not in a position to regain the ball they were more numerous than the attack and penetration was unlikely. Suddenly defence became 33% of the game in equal partners with attack and contesting possession.

This continues today. We have the situation in which the more difficult it is to win the ball the ball the greater the space to attack. Easily won ball usually has to attack against a stacked defence pattern.

 

Since this time rugby’s ability to use the voluntary contest for possession at ruck and maul to create space has been eroded and lateral space does not exist to reward the attack with penetration opportunities. Only scrums and lineouts now provide heavily populated cities leaving the remaining width and length of the field to be sparsely populated countryside providing attacking options.

 

So the game is losing its identity and while counter rucking has emerged as an option the most common approach to the game has been to the standard rugby league blueprint but without the six-tackle limit.

 

But the issue was more than this. It became clear that nowhere in the game was enshrined the game’s principles. If the game was changing direction we had no criteria to judge this by so that the game could retain its unique character.

All we had was a statement at the start of the Law Book as to the object of the Laws which is as follows:

 

“ The object of the game is that two teams of fifteen or sevens players each, observing fair play according to the Laws and sporting spirit, should by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball, score as many points as possible, the team scoring the greater number of points being the winner of the match.”

This would appear to be equally applicable to rugby league.

I became aware that American Football had put in place a Charter that encapsulated the principles of the game against which the game of two teams could be judged to ensure it retained its character.

I’d heard that during the 1930s, a foundation document was prepared by some old sages of the NFL to establish the principles upon which the game was based.  The document has since been used to review the game each year, out of which the laws are changed to make sure the game is true to its principles.

The laws of the game rugby are complex and it is the role of coaches to challenge these laws to obtain the greatest advantage for their team. By so doing, they create a situation in which the game grows dynamically.  It is not a game in which the laws can be taken as read. There are always going to be challenges at the contest the possession, the set pieces and the breakdowns.  It is in this way that rugby makes forward progress.

Rugby men don’t like to be pinned down.  They don’t like things in writing, as this can create accountability.  Politically this is a bad thing, as rugby politicians, like all politicians want to be able to change as political opportunism suits them.

In my first year at the NZRU, things would change monthly based on the whims of the coaching chairman during his monthly visits to Wellington.  I was applying for jobs back in teaching, as it is impossible to work with the foundations continually moving under your feet. My problem was solved by the union chairman changing the coaching committee chairman.

At the IRB, I embarked on producing the Playing Charter in order to provide a Bill of Rights, against which the game could be judged the same way it had been done in the NFL.  This document was based on the overriding principle of equitability. What this means is that the degree to which a player or a team receives rewards or benefits from its current action are determined by how well they have performed the skills of the game and made decisions in the preceding play.

For example if your team is not good enough to attack with the ball and kicks it into touch you concede the throw at the lineout to the opposition.  You suffer for your inferior attacking skill, and they benefit for their superior defence.

Five principles were generated from this.

They are:

• Grouping at contests for possession to win the ball and to create space for the team winning the ball to attack,
• Attack by retaining possession and going forward,
• Defence leading to re-gaining possession and attacking.
• All this resulting in a multifaceted game in which there are positions for a range of shapes, sizes and abilities and finally
•  A game that rewards positive play and good skill and penalises negative play and inferior skill.

This last principle is epitomised in the term equitability.

This document was circulated to unions for feedback a number of times. A couple of times would have been enough if my playing credibility were greater.

In the end the Charter became the template for analysis at the conferences on the game.  The function was to keep the game on track.

The conferences resulted in an annual bloodletting by the technical people of the executive council unions – national team coach, top refs, director of refereeing, director of coaching, and sometimes a player, and sometimes the CEO.

By both subjectively and objectively analysing the mode of play, based on the playing charter, changes could be made to the game that would retain its identity.

The modus operandi was to sift through the game and decide if change was needed in law, coaching or refereeing.

Invariably current law was found to be okay.

Coaching was a no-brainer as national team coaches kept “mum”, not wanting to show their hand unless change struck at the foundation of their game plan. They were all not like this to be fair. Ian McGeechan was a particularly helpful rugby statesman. He was most helpful in establishing the concept of the “gate” at the post tackle.

Another important change was to allow a player to call “mark” while in the air when catching the ball inside his 22m line. Imagine if this was still the case today.

And another was lifting in the lineout. I remember Syd Millar having misgivings about this because the non-throwing team just didn’t compete. I am glad we stuck to it, as there are methods of contesting the ball that have proven to be successful.

Then as now, the problem was found to be with refereeing and the management of the range of infringements at each of the contests for possession. Now more than then the range of infringements is such that even the best refs can be accused of inconsistency but seldom are they wrong because the choice is great. I guess it is a matter of prioritisation but few of us could sustain this in the heat of battle. This has led to a degree of mistrust that exists between refs and coaches.  Measures have been put in place to breach the chasm, but mistrust still exists. Maybe it is inevitable, as you would find it very difficult to get two groups more unalike in the same business.

On one occasion we had a top referee in to speak to the game-planning                                                    course prior to a Super 14 game we were using as a case study. He circulated his game plan saying that he has made it available to the coaches before the game.

All very transparent?

On the morning after the game we met with the coaches and mentioned that they would have seen the ref’s game plan and we asked how much of help this would be.

No they hadn’t.

As a bloodletting exercise, the conferences were long enough to recommend actions based on a consensus and, as such, the conference had an important role.  The vast majority of law changes were approved, because the process involved the unions who were executive council members while the IRB staffers facilitated.

Sometimes it became quite funny when a well known international number 8 tried to clarify the confusion by saying:

“ It is quite simple, the forwards are called forwards because they go forward and the backs are called backs because they…. Oh hell I got that wrong”

The show became politicised.  It is my view that this was inevitable and the robust discussion, even if much came from self-interest, resulted in sufficient checks and balances for self-interest to be eroded resulting by an equitable result.

The attendances of the NZRU CEO’s David Moffatt and David Rutherford were responsible for the politicisation of the conference, as they wanted to use the conference to grandstand and win brownie points back home. They wanted to shove it up the IRB as an ego trip exercise, nothing more constructive.  Equally, the Australian delegation led by Rod McQueen also aimed to politicise. The Aussie’s private aim was to drive the game closer to the mode of play of rugby league. Some would say that they have succeeded.

Both unions missed the point of consensus and brought to the conference personal self-interest.

The involvement of both Australia and New Zealand at the conference resulted in wasted time.

Comments by Ewan McKenzie that striking for the ball at the scrum was likely to create a safety problem when we were trying to make the scrum more contestable belied the man’s size and status as an international prop.

David Moffatt headed a six-hour filibuster in support of bridging at the post tackle only to claim that we had been wasting time when it didn’t go through the next morning.

On one occasion, the New Zealand delegation met after the conference to go on live television back in New Zealand, claiming that they had won the conference.  The lack of statesmanship and the rise of self-interest don’t do much to create an opportunity for the game to be looked at in a dispassionate way.

At the last of these I attended the IRB staff had made a stand on obstruction and the orchestrated assault by Australia who wanted to have the league method of decoys (read “blocks”) legitimised resulted in the staff shafting the conference method and replacing it with the ELV’s.

The experimental law variations were produced by an appointed group of rugby experts. Closeted at Stellenbosch they came out with some worthwhile ideas to make the game comply with the Charter, although I am unsure if they paid any attention to it at the time.

Where they missed the point was in the assumption that they knew best. If the conference did nothing else it gave all their “day in court”. The ELV’s didn’t and when the politicians involved realised that they may affect their status at council the ELV’s were ditched. All that was required was that the ELV’s should be the subject of conference scrutiny as well as any other Law changes. OK there was bound to be hostility but with this you get commitment.

It is ironic that top down decision-making is made regarding help to lesser unions but when the top unions have a similar condescension imposed on them courage is absent.

 

The document I developed went back and forth to the main unions a number of times. Finally we arrived at five principles that were:

 

1. The Contest for Possession.
2. Attack / Continuity of Play.
3. Defence/ Regaining Possession.
4. A Multi-Faceted.
5. A game of rewards and penalties based on equitability in the immediately preceding play.

What follows is my script for The Charter DVD that explains the modus operandi of rugby.

“Over 100 years ago a schoolboy named William Webb Ellis, at Rugby School in England, picked up the ball during a soccer game and ran with it. Since this time our game, named after this school, has become a game that caters for a variety of players.

 

Rugby is a unique game because the range of skills is great. This caters for a range of players who are able to find a position that suits them. Many other games do not have this range of skills and opportunities making the game of rugby unique. No matter what your size, shape, speed, catching skills, strength and co-ordination there is a position for you in Rugby.

This means the game is one of great variety. There are few sports that have this variety. Both in attack and defence the range of skills is great. This means that the key skill of the game is choosing the skill that players have from a “menu” of skills that best fit the situation. It is not often that a player repeats a skill time and time again. The player is more likely to perform a whole range of skills one after the other.

 

In order to make sure that this remains part of the game we must make sure that the game is one in which players compete for the ball within the bounds of safety. And secondly, once the ball has been won, to keep play going for as long as possible hopefully until the team with the ball scores points.

 

This is not easy because few of us are athletic enough to be skilled at all the skills of the game. To overcome this players may be skilled at some skills but not all. Because some positions may be better suited to some abilities and not others players can specialize in a position that best suits them. So we have skills that all players should be able to do and others that players in the various positions have to be good at.

 

This specialization extends to groups of players who work together. What is unusual is that the players in these groups can change during the course of a game, they are dynamic. So not only is there individual ability to select and perform the best skill for the situation but also an ability to work together, to support each other to get the job done.

What we have to be careful about is to make sure the game is not all about competing for the ball. If a team is good enough to win the ball they should be given the opportunity to play with it as a reward for being skilled enough to win it.

But, and here we need a balance, they should not be given so much time and space to play with the ball that their opponents lose interest in playing, in trying to get the ball off the team in possession so that they can play with it.

Because the game needs players with the skills to win the ball, to play with the ball, to stop the opposition from playing with the ball and to get the ball off them and play with it themselves there is plenty of variety for everyone.

What makes it difficult, unlike some sports, is that we don’t have “Teams” for each of these purposes. We don’t have a ball winning team who then leave the field and we bring in a team to play with the ball and so on. This means that players must be skilled at a wide range of these skills as they must be part of each of these teams and be able to change their skills and jobs depending on what team is operating at the time.

It sure sounds complicated, and it is, but the complexity leads to variety so there is something for everyone.

Because no one can be good at everything there will be strengths and weaknesses that alert players learn to recognize to score points in an effort to win the game.

 

In order to make sure the game retains this unique character we need to identify the principles that the game of 2 rugby teams is based on. If we have these principles then we can look at the game and alter the Laws that govern the game to make sure it is true to its unique character.

 

As you would expect, the first of these principles is the contest for possession.

 

The Contest for Possession

 

There are 30 players, 15 in each team, and just one ball. The only way to win is to have possession of the ball and to by carrying it or kicking it to score points.

The contest for possession takes place at set pieces and when an opponent in dynamic play contacts a ball carrier.

The initial set piece is when the ball is kicked off to start the game and to re-start after points have been scored. The skills required to win possession of the ball are kicking, running and jumping to catch the ball, gathering ball that has gone to the ground and supporting a team mate who now has the ball.

Of course this doesn’t apply to a kick off that is too long to be contestable. What the kicking team is looking for here is a chase line that limits the receiving team’s time and space to run the ball back limiting them to a kick option from which the team kicking off regains possession.

 

The other 2 set pieces that are used to re-start play are scrums and lineouts and to understand them you need to understand a system of rewards and penalties.

 

If a skill is performed well then the team is rewarded in the play that follows and if a skill is performed poorly then the team is penalized in the following play.

 

Let’s take the scrum as our first example.

If a team has the ball and, when it is passed the receiver knocks the ball forward. Now here is a peculiarity of Rugby. To make the game more difficult the Laws provide for just 2 ways of “transporting” the ball down the field, these are by kicking and by carrying the ball as the player runs down the field. You cannot throw the ball forward to a teammate.

 

So in our example when the catcher knocks the ball forward poor skill has been shown.

 

The opposition can benefit from this if, as play continues they are able to gain an advantage over our “knock on “ team or, if this doesn’t occur, the game will be stopped and a scrum will be formed with the opposition having the advantage of putting the ball into the scrum which usually leads to them winning the ball.

 

Having shown the skill that enables them to win the ball they are further rewarded by having time and space to go forward with the ball. All players in the scrum having to stay bound to the scrum until the ball is out provide space across the field. Space down the field is provided by the opposition having to stay behind a line across the field about 10-15meters from the attack. This is called the offside line and, should the defence infringe by crossing it early they will be penalized conceding a penalty kick.

 

Lineouts are much the same. Lineouts occur because a player causes the ball to leave the field of play. As the aim is to keep things going, while they have performed a skill, they have been so limited in what they are able to do with the ball that there action has resulted in the ball being out of play.

 

In both of these cases the attack has been pressured by the defence to infringe or to kick the ball away. Their defensive skills are superior eroding the attack’s passing skills and taking away the attack range of options so the attack has to use a poor skill, one that stops the game.

 

At lineout as a reward the opposing team throws the ball in. Because they have the initiative, they can do so to give them a better chance of winning the ball. Just as with the scrum the reward is also in giving the attacking team time and space to use the ball.

 

The contest need not just take place at set pieces that re-start the game. Once play gets under way it is highly unlikely that one attacker carrying the ball will be able to defeat fifteen defenders and carry the ball down the field and score. Working together the attack will attempt to manoeuvre the defence to create a scoring opportunity. This they will do by attempting to penetrate through the defence but the defence will stop them by tackling.

 

Taking the ball into contact to form a ruck or maul shows that the attack has been unable to create space and penetrate however, should teammates be skilled at supporting the ball carrier, they will be able to re-cycle the ball to continue play.

There is the added reward in the maul, as the ball can be taken down the field forcing the defence to converge on the ball to stop the attack going forward. The defence has had to come from somewhere else to do this. This creates space and, because the Laws about time and space from ruck and maul are similar to those for scrum and lineout the time and space created leads to an opportunity to go forward.

 

The basic structure of the game at scrum and line-out and, to a lesser degree rucks and mauls is to create a congested area that puts up to two thirds of the players on the field in that area with the remainder in the less populated space across the field. Conceptually these can be called the City and the Countryside. The ball is won after a dogfight in the city and moved to the country where there is space so that the ball can be moved forward.

The current erosion of the contest for possession at the ruck means that something less than a city is constructed with the resulting lack of space elsewhere. All the players are living on the urban fringe.

 

 

A team in defence may not decide to try to win the ball immediately.  They may just defend by tackling and setting a defensive pattern but they must be given opportunities to regain possession of the ball and play with it.  They will only take part in the contest if they are given the possibility of turning over the possession.

 

The contest for possession at scrums and lineouts is achieved by having the ball thrown in down the centre.  This gives both teams an opportunity to win the ball, so that they will contest for it.

 

Once play gets underway this contest must continue.  The reason is clear.

 

Without a contest, the defending team will not be drawn into trying to recover the ball.   Without a contest, after a tackle, or at ruck or maul, the opposition will simply spread out to defend.  There will be few gaps through which to penetrate and this will substantially reduce the options available for the attacking team to go forward.

 

How then can we ensure that possession is contested so that the attacking team has space to operate?

 

The most obvious way is to make sure that players are on their feet when they try to get the ball off the ground after a tackle.  A player’s team- mates may be quicker than their opponents in support.  If so, they will be able to bind together and push their opponents off the ball.

 

If players are lying on the ground and still involved in play, it is very difficult to push them off.  They are not allowed to do this, as the Laws do not permit these actions.

 

Of course, if a player is very quick the ball can be picked up and if the ball carrier is held but remains standing, the opposing team is able to try and pull the ball away.

 

Each of these actions offers the defending team the opportunity to regain possession of the ball and if they do they can set up a counter attack and achieve continuing play.

 

If the contest for possession does not result in a turnover for the defending team, they’ve still been drawn in by the possibility and this has created space across the field.  Entering the contest for possession reduces the number of players available for the defensive screen.

 

Depending on how many players are committed to the contest from either team at any moment in the game, opportunities are created for attackers to use their attacking skills and for defenders to react in defence, while contesting for possession.

 

The result of contesting possession is the creation of space, and space is necessary for continuing play.

 

 

So, the game is one in which the contest creates space for the game to continue.

 

For the game of Rugby Union to retain its unique character, the balance between contesting for possession and continuing play must be achieved.

 

For the player the variety in the many aspects of play generated creates greater satisfaction.  There are many individual and collective contests during a game.  Success in these mini-contests may not be reflected in the score at the end of the game, but they allow players to gain satisfaction as they test themselves against players with similar missions to themselves.

 

If a team is good enough to win the ball, they have the opportunity to keep the game going but, if their continuity skills are not as good as the defensive skills of the other team, they may lose possession.  The opposing team will now attack with it.”

 

 

This describes the principles that govern the game, and it is against these that the mode of play must be judged and analysed.  Should the game move away from these principles, it will lose its unique character so we are obliged to alter coaching practice, refereeing management and the laws of rugby to prevent this from happening.  These principles provide the context within which the game can be played.

 

The game now had the equivalent of a Bill of Rights that was locked in concrete as the criteria by which performance could be judged. They come before the Law as it is by the application of the Law that these principles are to be achieved. If the Law is not achieving the Charter the Laws need to be changed.

These still remain although they have been diluted by the marketers as shown on pages 4-9 in the Law book.

 

Implicitly these principles have been part of the game and it is within this framework that the game has evolved.

 

While it is the role of the refs to apply the Law it is the role of the coaches and players to gain an advantage for them within the framework of the Law. It is in this way that the game has evolved and changed. In most respects it has improved although the variable width of the “gate” that players arriving at the tackle have to pass through leads to inconsistent refereeing.

A further problem is the right of a tackled ball carrier, who has gone into contact with no thought of an escape route for the ball, now being given priority to play the ball.

It is this aspect of play with all its potential infringements that confuses the situation. What happens at play after the tackle is a messy contest that we have to live with. To tidy the contest potentially involves a number of players. The team winning the ball is rewarded with time and space to use it.

 

Law change has occurred to ensure that the principles are kept to.

Just think back.

We are better off with the 15m line limiting the length of the lineout that could extend across the width of the field.

We are better off now that the ball is no longer the offside line, which gave the team the dubious advantage of possession behind the gain line and the defence in line with the ball. The dominating option became getting over the gain line by kicking.

Halfbacks are no longer fast or dead at the scrum as the flankers can no longer follow the ball through the opposition scrum.

But this has ushered in power scrumming, as coaches want all 8 forwards pushing if they are no longer able to follow the ball around.

In conclusion the game is at a crossroads.

Both the law as it applies to the scrum and the management guidelines that the referees implement have put the front rows in a vice with the slightest movement resulting in a penalty. This has resulted in some teams “milking” penalties at scrums close to the goal posts to score points. The frequency with which this is occurring is both alarming and boring at the same time.

Throughout this article I have made reference to a team being rewarded with time and space should they win possession. The evidence is that the risk of being penalised is so great that teams are not contesting unless it is one of the numerous “crash” balls close to the defending team’s goal line.

What the attack is faced with is a defence line with more defenders than there are attackers.

I feel the way the ball has to be recovered at the post tackle is unsafe.

What is happening is the greater use of the maul to draw the defenders in and the defenders counter rucking especially after a dominant tackle.

Maybe it is best left to the coaches and players in this instance but I fear scrums are still a problem.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---