THE LAWS AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING

At the ARFU Sevens in Hong Kong Korea had field position 5metres from the Philippines goal line. The tackled Korean player was on the ground, as you would expect a tackled player to be along with the tackler. Two Korean players were bound to each other and on their feet over the players on the ground and one Philippine player had his hand on a Korean player. Korea won the ball and the passer passed it to a retiring Philippine player who was slow retiring. He took off for an instance only to slow down expecting to be penalized for offside. The ref then indicated that it came from a tackle situation, no ruck, and that the Philippine player should race off to score a try at the other end.

Thus re-emerged an issue in the Laws and refereeing of a game in which Law has been eroded to such an extent that, by definition, many of the “rucks” that are formed are “notional” rucks in order to create offside lines for the ball winning team to be rewarded with linear space to attack.

Since this time I have heard of rucks being ruled on based on their strict definition in Hong Kong club rugby.

“Tackle; No Ruck” is the call the implications of which are that it is general play with no offside.

Rucks have been eroded to the extent that they may be composed of the following varieties:

1. Composed entirely of players on the ground.
2. Composed of so many players on the ground that it is physically impossible for players to be bound over the ball.
3. Composed of players of one team only.
4. Composed of players bound only with the hand.

And there may be more.

This is an issue in the game if only to remove the confusion of not just the average enthusiast who seeks understanding.

The consequences of it a great in the fifteens game in which, currently, players are unlikely to “infringe” because of the consequences of the penalty conceded and, maybe, the yellow card that may follow, better to ire on the side of caution.

But in the Olympic variation of the game the small number of players on the field create these situations with much more regularity and general play, in which there is no offside, occurs much more frequently.

I watched a Sevens game Russia vs Portugal on Eurosport and the unwillingness of Portugal, in particular, to create space by setting up a ruck or a maul resulted in the Russian defence being parked in their attack line. When they retreated to get space to move onto the ball, the Russian defence just went with them aggravating the problem.

This is not unlike many “notional” issues that arise in the game. Some eventually make it into Law as lifting in the lineout has with, believe, improved consequences.

But the real issue is that, in the phase play situation, mystery surrounds rulings that are never wrong, because there are so many to choose from. The mystery is in the consistency of there application.

I have found in Sevens, referees delaying their call at phase play for so long that an infringement will emerge. There seems to be hesitancy in declaring the ball unplayable as, an increase in scrums that will ensue, may affect the marketing of the game.

What happens when a sport moves from the letter of the Law, with the exception of the management tool of advantage, is that it loses credibility and the further it moves from the application of Law, the bigger the hurdle when something must be done.

THE WAY WE WERE PART 7 – THE IRB GOES TO DUBLIN

With rugby now being professional Irish tax laws made it lucrative for the IRB to move to Dublin on the back of the Celtic Tiger. Professional sport along with acting, music, art and other human pursuits were given this opportunity.

Over the next five years I proved myself as a coach with University Collidge Dublin, but not before being warned about being involved with a poor team whose results could affect my reputation as the IRB Director of Development. This warning came from the Irish representatives on the IRB. This wasn’t to prove the case as I am now a life member of the club because of the results I achieved at UCD.

The progress made at UCD was based on the establishment of an academy to which young talent just out of high school could be recruited. They were scouted by John McLean, the club’s director of rugby, ex-Irish Schools coach and 1^st XV coach at Terenure College for many years. The funding came from annual dinners in the O’Reilly Hall where a “who’s who” of Irish Rugby would return to the club having gone back to their Old Boys clubs after a couple of years of UCD rugby as an under graduate.

At the IRB, I quickly realised that the Celtic unions, with the support of France controlled the organisation. Their opposition to England, along with that union’s ever-changing membership prevented the English from gaining positions up the hierarchy. What is worse the ill informed in the Southern hemisphere too easily blame the English for changes that they have had little to do with.

The southern hemisphere unions busied themselves with IRB matters when they got together in Dublin and, upon returning home, chose not to allow IRB methods to distract them from their domestic and collective responsibilities.

Professionalism and the mode of play in the Super 14 especially disoriented the game from its traditional roots. The pattern of play that reduced the importance of the contest for possession resulted in rugby league without the tackle count, a game that was based on laws that had no conceptual framework, a game that was losing its identity. The marketers wanted simplicity and non-contested possession would did this.

The assumption was that simplicity would attract more revenue as more would come to more games based on rugby being an easily understood game. In doing this they needed to look at the bigger picture and professional sport elsewhere in the world.

Of great importance are discretionary incomes that do not permit families to go to many games. This coupled with relatively small total populations and rugby “populations” means that more games are not better. As things have progressed there is a reluctance on the part of the New Zealand population to go to games in the evening. Families would rather go in the afternoon. The off shore television audience may make up for it and there is a feeling amongst rugby people that these offshore audiences are more important than hometown support. I don’t think they are. I can’t see those in Europe getting up to watch games at 7:30 am on Saturday and Sunday morning. If they are that keen the game can be taped and watched at their leisure.

An even more cynical view questions whether consideration of the time difference does have an impact on viewing audiences or is it just filling a dead time slot on Saturday and Sunday morning in Western Europe.

And of course it is pay to view.

While the situation is not exactly the same there are lessons to be gained from the National Football League in the USA. The game is complex but this doesn’t seem to affect its appeal. At present, including Super Bowl, they play around 18 games, each one a full house. More is not necessarily better and a comparison with NFL, its short season, capacity houses and the complex nature of the game indicates that the simplistic approach is not a prerequisite for a game’s future,

As far as simplifying the game is concerned we often hear of the concentration span of the current generation being measured in microseconds. Who is this generation and is it the same group that patronises rugby? I don’t believe that we are all without persistence and only interested in biased, condensed sound bites.

What of variable standards applied to the game once I was working for the IRB?

Some years later, upon returning to New Zealand, I became aware of the erosion and dilution of the NZRU coaching programme that I had initiated. It was always going to be a work in progress and continues to be so.

Under David Moffat the partial disenfranchisement of the grassroots of the game in New Zealand took place with the jargon of mission statement, products, brands, best practices and sponsorship coming before the interests of the committed amateur.

Under David Rutherford this was accelerated under a policy of decentralisation in which each of the provincial unions were to assume responsibility for their own development programme. If only from a funding point of view the weak were going to get weaker and the strong would survive. But what he failed to recognize was that New Zealand’s strength is it’s essential unity and the universal sharing of these ideas at all levels for the benefit of all, especially in coaching and playing. This is demonstrated by the power of the coaching practicum as it has produced high quality coaches for the last 20 years providing them with the tools of the trade to be successful in the professional era.

This is often the case when Harvard Business School graduates and others of their ilk move in. They are ground zero. Prior to their arrival nothing worthwhile took place. They know what is best which they impose on those already there and,very soon, get rid of anyone with a commitment to the rugby core, and replace them with staff in there own likeness. They not only know what is best, those who question it are suspect and are the first cabs off the rank. The game takes a monumental swing away from what it stands for and the method, the jargon and the excessive documentation that emerges not only gets rid of the rugby people. It replaces them with a large number with the business philosophy and others with a sport generic administration background based on a single, dogmatic blueprint. The game generates more income but the echelons of additional staff spend that and more.

The importance of unity and a vision based on the playing of the game to which all else contributes, was reinforced by Evan Crawford at a prize giving for the practicum. He reflected how difficult it was to get this degree of unity when working for the RFU and the lack of success he had in setting up the practicum there. I worry when I see the NZRU create a community rugby section and a high performance section not looking on them as part of a continuum. This was the very problem Evan encountered at the RFU.

Upon returning to New Zealand prior to the loss of hosting rights for the 2003 Rugby World Cup I was approached by a large number of coaches and other technical people. They were concerned about the state of affairs exemplified by the practicum, which had previously taken 10 days, and was now being completed from Friday night through to Sunday afternoon.

I was looked on as a neutral party, who had the expertise to write to the chairman and CEO, expressing the concerns of the technical fraternity. What worried me most was that they felt vulnerable as employees of the union and were not prepared to have their say. This is often the case in the rugby environment. The trouble is that the dissention is swept under the carpet until the pile gets too high and smells too much. One could say that the dissenters should have the courage to have their say while, one the other hand, the management group should be willing to listen to all opinions basing their judgement on the strength of the argument.

I wrote a letter to the Chairman as a concerned party. The return letter from Murray McCaw told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that, as a paid servant of the IRB, it was not my place to criticise a member union.

It was with considerable delight that I ticked off the concerns when they came to fruition resulting in the loss of co-hosting rights.

The feeling that the practitioners had was that those who know about the core of the game are dinosaurs. This was demonstrated by the appointment of the high performance manager, a university academic who rubbished all other candidates as a member of the interview panel, the panel then gave the job to him. It is thought that the salary was the real attraction. The new world of professional rugby creates many false starts. This alienation of rugby technicians from the national core of the game in New Zealand continues.

Concerning co-hosting rights, Vernon Pugh Q.C. was both tolerant and sympathetic, but was also a man of pride. The comments made on New Zealand television, that he was no more than a town planning lawyer, did little to endear New Zealand to Vernon who had a great deal of empathy for New Zealand rugby. I was told one of his client was Marks and Spencers.

The pity of it all was the loss of rights led to the loss of all councillors, good, bad and indifferent at the next council election. The warnings of Rob Fisher and Tim Gresson were not heeded and they went down with the ship.

The conference on the game that followed the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Auckland was stage-managed to avoid the flack. It was full of presentations by national team coaches of variable quality. The format stopped the IRB facilitators becoming Aunt Sally’s, the conference was so controlled. It lost its bite, but did expose the lack of rugby knowledge some national team coaches had. Laporte on scrumming was a mystery as was the confusion about obstruction.

The Aussie’s were using some league moves that depended on decoys creating an obstruction. I thought the solution was simple. To be a decoy a player had to be in a position to catch the pass while a player obstructing would have to be ahead of the passer. It seemed simple enough but other unions, while complaining, didn’t want the change.

As a result of the change in character of the conference of the game the game has lost its monitoring tool. The playing charter has also been violated by the marketers who have included references about integrity, passion, solidarity, discipline and respect. While I recognise these as the values the game promotes they are values for life not exclusively to the game. They are for mass consumption. For previous generations these were implicit. Does stating them show that they have been eroded by current practice and professionalism? There will never be a checklist for monitoring the mode of play under the current circumstances. The Charter as it currently stands is in the Law book for your reference.

The solution was thought to be meetings of esteemed persons at Stellenbosch to provide the rugby world with the experimental law variations. Reading these they would seem to place little value on the charter, even less on the opinions of member unions. To engage anyone in a process, you must engage them at the beginning to set universally accepted parameters. From that position you move towards a consensus. Bearing in mind that an expert is someone from out-of-town this can only lead to suspicion and indifference. “A prophet is not without honour except in his own land” was one of JJ’s favourite quotes.

Consequently, we had a situation in which the laws of the game remained unchanged until after the 2011 Rugby World Cup having created a contest for possession that, in Law, is no different from that for the last World Cup. This threatened to reduce rugby at the RWC to a bore. The game became one in which scrum and breakdown infringements played a major part in each game. The contest for possession was eroded. The team winning the ball, that the opposition made little commitment to, resulted in a stacked defence line and no space, laterally, to attack. The number of potential infringements justified all rulings but the public is increasingly being lost by the Laws inconsistent application, not outside the Law but because there is something new each time. I am sorry it is the old violin squeaking away again.

The teams who will contest the cup seriously have fallen into the same pattern of play. Win the ball, kick it to their most isolated player, kick either for distance so he returns the kick, or to be contested and chase like hell to put him under pressure with greater numbers and play off the mess. Complement this with reliable points off the boot and a defence that concedes possession but which is more numerous than the attack and seeks to use a rock solid defence to frustrate and gain turnovers. Games are won by the better defensive team especially at the top level.

Conferences were not without their lighter moments, one was Murray Mexted claiming that forwards are called forwards because they go forward and backs are called backs because they go back

“Oh hell – made a mistake there.”

Marcel Martin using his position as Lord Jim of Laws to prevent teams increasing the spacing at the lineout.

Jeremy Guscott attending the first session in Sydney, only to disappear into Sydney for the remainder — he came out to get out of England after a nightclub incident.

Sean Fitzpatrick, when asked to conduct a front row session panicking “What are the Laws anyway?” It was okay Andrew Blades had things under control and they worked well together.

Jean-Claude Skrela leading the charge on the zodiac in the Gulf of Juan de Fuca when we took time to go whale watching. The most threatening sight was a US nuclear submarine oozing its way from Puget Sound into the Pacific for six months of total immersion.

Rex Milne the Kiwi Japanese delegate being recruited to attack from left of centre at the next session by the Aussie delegation. You have to watch who was having a cup of tea on the other side of the pillar.

Being asked to dinner by the Kiwi CEO who ordered food and drink for everyone only to depart leaving me with the bill. Such are the rewards for making a stand against bridging.

It is amazing how, when a group of human beings get together, self-interest and division takeover from the common good. How working together and giving all a chance to express opinions whose values are recognized by the strength of the argument for the common good not by where they stand in the hierarchy. Bloodletting does have its value as a safety valve.

I believe that what is required is the acceptance of a common goal and the differences that emerge between the debaters is how to get there along with their ability to keep each other to the task. Thus the playing charter’s role in serving this purpose, has died.

One get-together that happens biennially and to which the great unwashed are invited, and turn up in force, is the general meeting of the IRB.

It is time for some conspicuous consumption, especially those that coincide with the Rugby World Cup.

Amounts spent on individual delegates are often in excess of their development grants. While it is obvious that union office bearers will be unlikely to forego the greatest perk of all we can only live in hope.

As it turned out with the conference, the general meeting is stage-managed to deny dissent. Keynote speakers are predictable, especially those on the ethos of the game speaking as if that is something new instead of a long term creed that has always been with us. But then again events do show we need a reminder every now and then.

It is with irony that we find the CEO promoting the ethos when the mantra of a couple of years earlier was – “It is all about money now.”

In my experience lobbying for your union makes the meeting worthwhile. The mice run around liaising with each other while the council reps provide a sense of authority at token workshops.

The rule surrounding open discussion seems to be the smaller the union, the more you say and the less notice is taken of you and rightly so especially if the opinion deteriorates into self-interest. The council unions are more interested in the greater game and don’t feel the need to say much.

It is here that we need to reflect on the Olympic voting rights of one country one vote. There is no electoral commission to make sure each electorate is of equivalent size. The major unions are self-interested but this self interest is for the good of the game. Equal representation would lead to disintegration as the minnows would have the majority vote, a vote not based on playing numbers or even population.

Hierarchies in politics, business or sport lead to a pecking order. The saving grace of the IRB is that it delivers funding on a pro rata basis already acknowledging the role of major unions as the goose that lays the golden egg.

I have been told recently that FIFA makes equal grants to all associations, surely not?

Regarding funding the problem that exists in Australia and especially New Zealand is both unions are vulnerable with rugby having to compete with football, Australian rules and rugby league in Australia and the New Zealand market affected by the small New Zealand population and a declining discretionary dollar.

Rugby in both unions is increasingly demonstrating all the characteristics of an underdeveloped economy with a minority of players and coaches from the professional game receiving 90% of the income and 90% of those involved in the game receiving 2% of the income. For most volunteers, this is a negative. They give their time and received no return. Increasing demands are being made on their time. All this in the guise of being a professional game. What does this mean?

While it is excellent that standards are increasing and accreditation is compulsory for coaches and referees, a missionary spirit is needed by the amateurs as the sacrifices are great.

Other unions may have the same problem and unions need to wake up to the real costs of amateur support before this support is lost.

Parents are drawn back into the sport by their children’s involvement. Many stay for the duration of the kids involvement but there are a number who develop an affinity with coaching. Added to this group are teachers whose involvement may contain elements of the above while at the same time seeing it as part of their vocation. Teaching, by its nature, equips the teacher well for coaching as I have previously stated.

But then a problem arises as, when the armies of support melt away, those remaining carry a burden that ends in them having “done their bit” and pulling out altogether.

I guess the one thing this does is create a continuing need for training but at what a loss. Aren’t we looking for a greater spread and a longer involvement? Let’s not waste this intellectual property we have developed and paid for.

 

 

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---