THE RL1908 BLOG

News, Reviews & Opinion - Sean Fagan - RL1908.com

The NRL has announced it will be holding a "think-tank" on the game's playing laws. The perceived problems are that there are too many "grey-areas" where the referee can be criticised.

I've made some detailed comments on this issue below, but the major reason a review of the rules is required is that the original laws of rugby were premised upon footballers being gentlemen and amateurs.

Many rules don't work unless the players are "playing the game" instead of "playing the referee and playing to get penalties". Since the mid-1990s, when players truly did become professional, the trend has been increasingly for players/teams to play looking for penalties and forcing opponents into error - they are not playing the game anymore.

The game should be about gaining advantage by ball movement, and beating man-on-man. It should not be about wrestling for a quick/slow play-the-ball, getting inside the 10m, forcing the markers off-side, stealing the ball in a tackle etc.

Professionalism is causing rule-consternation in rugby union (ruck/mauls) and Australian rules (handball) as well. Perhaps we should follow, in this case, the lead of soccer and American football, who became professional sports decades ago, and completely simplified and overhauled their rules.

Professional players and coaches will do what it takes to win - asking referees to decide if an action is "intentional" or not is a throwback to the days when rugby was played in English Public schools by young gentlemen.

Rather than looking for consensus on changing rules - a bloody hard task - I think it would be easier/better to introduce different levels of penalties.

______________________________

The NRL has announced it will be holding a review into the laws of the game, brought about by the increased scrutiny of television cameras over recent years.

One has to ask though how does something outside the playing field have any effect on how the game is to be played and refereed?

The growing pressure being brought upon match officials and the NRL is not caused by the technology. The television cameras are merely revealing what is happening on the field, albeit in much greater detail and clarity.

The problems the ARL (State or Origin) and NRL are experiencing come from the evolvement of the laws of the game over the past decade, with the primary cause being the introduction of the 10m defence-line rule and the reduction (almost elimination) of opportunities for possession of the ball to be fought over (play-the-ball, scrums and ball-stripping).

The effect of these changes has turned rugby league into a game built around maintaining possession of the ball at all costs. Teams that get less than 45% possession of the ball during matches are invariably soundly beaten.

The consequence of this is that where decisions are made by match officials as to whether a player has knocked-on or not, or stripped the ball legally or not, are more often than not crucial to the final outcome of a match.

For once a team has possession they can gain the ascendancy in a match and their opponents, faced with doing more defence, may never recover.

How often do we now hear coaches and players referring to a dropped ball or referee's call or penalty being a "turning point" that led to a win or loss? When the referee's decision is pivotal to the end result of a game, understandably it comes under close scrutiny by all. The situation is magnified by the presence of television cameras and the involvement of a video referee.

The problem the game faces today, and to an increasing extent so does rugby union, is that opportunities to compete for the ball during play are steadily being removed. This brings increased pressure on referees to be 100% right, and for players not to risk dropping the ball.

Many astute rugby league players (principally when dummy-half runners) are adept at forcing their opponents into breaking the laws to bring about a penalty. Referees prefer to 'manage' law-breakers rather than give a penalty which will lead to a lengthy kick for touch followed by six tackles, and more often than not, result in a try.

But the problem is not unique to the rugby codes. Over a century ago the administrators of American football grappled with the same issues.

Americans began their code in the 1870s playing under the laws adopted by the Rugby Football Union. However, by 1900 they had sufficiently moved away from the original rules of rugby that they began to experience the issues now confronting rugby league.

The changes in American football resulted in play being re-started with an uncontested scrum (scrimmage) after every tackle. It is not then hard to see that the play-the-ball in modern rugby league is merely a stream-lined and faster version of what occurs at a 'down' in the NFL.

By the early 1900s American football was beset with rule changes that eliminated chances for the ball to be lost by the team in possession. Aided with this advantage, teams and coaches began to plan their attacks with structured plays, putting players into set places and using decoy runners to provide legal obstruction.

Again we now see in the NRL teams rapidly following the same path, with growing pressure on referees to determine if a defender has been legally or illegally obstructed.

In the end, the Americans completely yielded to the use of players running obstruction for their team mates. The result was to practically eliminate the rugby-style passing game from their code.

American football saved itself as a spectator sport by introducing the forward pass in 1906, and in the ensuing decades found popularity with the sporting public.

In rugby league today the great majority of plays are either a dummy-half run or a single pass 'hit-up'. Sweeping backline plays are a thing of the past, and teams rarely attack with a passing movement until in their opponents quarter. Increasingly though, these attacks are planned, and come with decoy runners, or are merely a short kick into the in-goal.

The real problems the rugby codes face with their playing laws are not things like worrying about whether a knock-on should be extended to include from the head and torso (which is a 'football' skill that should be applauded rather than outlawed). Nor is the role of the video referee the main concern.

While I am not by any stretch advocating we follow the path of American football, they were astute enough to re-examine the fundamental laws of the original rugby game - and bring innovative change.

For example, in rugby league, we should be asking ourselves why should a team get six more tackles merely because a defender momentarily touched the ball? Is it reasonable to impose a penalty that benefits one team with a bonus 50m touch kick and six extra tackles for all offences? Why not just award six more tackles for a penalty and keep playing on? What decoy running should be legalised or outlawed?

There are many other laws of course that could equally be examined for improvement. What the administrators of rugby league really need to consider is not what constitutes a knock-on, nor whether the work of the video referee should be made easier by whether one or both feet are behind a kicker. The criticalness of these decisions are merely symptoms of the cumulative effect of a decade under the 10 metre rule.

The ARL and NRL need to look beyond these issues and face up to what sort of game they are creating for the future.