Gerry Thornley On Rugby:Rugby should never be a hostage to tradition. With changing physiques and vastly increased fitness levels, it is the International Rugby Board's duty to constantly seek ways of adapting to these changes and to make the game better. But in the immediate aftermath of a World Cup when, once again, defences and goalkicking ultimately won out over attack, the temptation is to over-react.
Most of the rule changes over the years have, admittedly, been for the betterment of the game, such as the increase in the valuation of the try from three to four and then five points. Most pertinently of all, watching a re-run of any old video prior to legitimate "lifting" makes you wonder how rugby was ever deemed a spectator sport in the first place.
There had already been a move toward a raft of rule changes prior to the World Cup which were outlined in these pages on Saturday, known as the Experimental Law Variations (ELV), or the Stellenbosch Laws, having been initially tested in the South African university.
They've since been given a further trial at club/amateur level in Scotland, England and Australia; are being employed in the second division of the New Zealand Provincial Cup, and will be used in the 2008 Super 14. Some make eminent sense, such as a ball cannot be passed back into the 22 and kicked directly to touch, moving the corner flags five metres off the pitch, or imposing a five-metre offside line off scrums. Amongst other things, curiously, there would be no maximum number of players in a lineout, with the minimum requirement only two. The Stellenbosch Laws would limit the number of full penalties to offside, foul play and entering a ruck from the side or preventing release.
This would seem to run the risk of denuding the scrum so that all offences are indirect. The Australians would be the most enthusiastic about this one, and given the scrum's uniqueness to rugby union, it was almost comforting to see them finally punished in full by England in the quarter-finals. Erasing the difference between rucks and mauls to the point where defending players can play ruck ball with their hands long after a ruck is formed might at least clarify the game's greatest source of confusion. But, most dangerously of all, a maul can be legally brought down.
The maul may not be the most aesthetically pleasing of attacking/try-scoring gambits, but nevertheless, it is one and its mere threat is also a means of sucking in would-be fringe defenders. One fails to see how allowing one, two or three defenders the scope to bring down a maul will free up space further out.
Similarly, the increasingly popular pick-and-go tactic close in does at least offer another route to the try line and also suck in defenders, even if it has become a tedious way for winning teams to run down the clock. It doesn't help that, increasingly, fringe tacklers frequently defend from the side or in front of the hindmost foot with impunity.
Viewed in this light, empowering the touch judges to indicate offside by raising their flag horizontally - which referees can ignore if they wish - is perhaps the most welcome initiative of all. Amidst the increasing sway of rugby league-influenced rush defences, referees don't have eyes in the backs of their heads and in the understandable desire not to dilute the power of referees too much the IRB, heretofore, have been relatively loath to make full use of touch judges. But there's not a whole lot wrong with the game's laws as they exist, and employing touch judges to enforce them - especially the offside line - would see them applied more efficiently.
Admittedly, it's difficult to comment or analyse fully a raft of rule changes without actually seeing them in operation, or even based on statistical evidence of the trials thus far. Even so, the game should be careful of making too many law changes in one fell swoop, for as Eddie Jones observed during the World Cup: "I think the game is pretty good at the moment. When we've had games that have been refereed diligently the games have been pretty good. I just think we've got to be careful about looking at isolated parts of the game and looking for solutions to those parts of the game. The great thing about rugby is that everything is inter-related. If you change the law in one area of the game, you affect another area of the game."
Also, variety is good. In the same way that football has a long-balling Liverpool and a passing Arsenal, a World Cup should have the vastly contrasting styles of England, South Africa, Argentina, Fiji, Wales and New Zealand. This, after all, was the World Cup which threw up a host of outstanding tries, and such classics as Fiji-Wales, Fiji-South Africa, France-New Zealand, and the best third place play-off yet, and more.
"If you've got two sides that want to be positive, and a referee that referees the laws, we get a great game of rugby," observed Jones. "If there's a side that wants to close down and another side plays positively and we get arm wrestling, there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with arm wrestles, and this is an Australian talking."
The 2007 Coupe du Monde may have had an anti-climactic finale as a rugby spectacle, but to a large degree impressions were formed by how one's country performed and it wasn't quite the watershed in which defences beat attacks it was made out to be.
Argentina may have taken the garryowen and drop-goal taking to new levels, but - utterly unlike Ireland for example - their brilliant individuals still flourished. It would have been interesting to see the All Blacks (against France) stay true to their high-tempo, running and offloading game instead of resorting to pick-and-go. Ditto France freeing themselves from the shackles imposed by Bernard Laporte against England. But neither did so, sadly, we'll never know. But it wasn't the laws that beat them. It was their own loss of courage and instinct.
