World Rugby’s decision to change the scoring
law to exclude grounding the ball against the goal post or its surrounding padding
was a welcome development.
Not only did it remove an obviously unfair situation
– how were the defending side, who were required to remain behind their goal
line supposed to defend against an opponent grounding the ball against a cushion
that extends half a metre infield – it also shows that the lawmakers are
concerned with making rugby a fair contest all the time after all.
That it took so long for them to do so is a
different issue of course. Coaches and players have been complaining about it
for years and the wily ones have come up with a plan – lift the post protector
up off the ground, so a try can’t be scored. It was only after initially saying
doing that could result in a penalty try that they decided to stop the madness
and change the law.
I’m wondering if this time of hiatus isn’t
an opportunity to look at some other situations that are just unfair, and to do
something about them.
I’ve got some suggestions to start with.
Holding
An inordinate number of penalties being
awarded involve a tackled player with an opponent standing over him. The man on
the ground is penalised for not releasing the ball when everyone in the world
can see he has absolutely no chance of doing so.
The interpretation is that as long as the man
on his feet is supporting his own body weight (which he almost never actually is)
and as long as he visibly releases the tackled player for an instant, he can
latch onto the ball and unless he is “cleaned” away (more of that later) he is virtually
guaranteed a penalty.
The call is “holding” or “not releasing”
made against the guy on the ground when the holder is actually the guy on his
feet. And boy does he ever not release! The commentators are particularly effusive
in their praise for those players who get their hands in there and cannot be budged.
The wrong player is being penalised, World
Rugby! And you don’t even have to change the law, the current one tells us what
should happen.
Law 14: Tackle, under Player
Responsibilities says quite clearly:
Tacklers must:
5. Immediately
release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground.
c. Allow the
tackled player to release or play the ball.
d. Allow the
tackled player to move away from the ball
Those breakdown heroes are actually villains
and they are getting rewarded for it.
Cleaning
This is a quaint way of describing the way
in which opponents are forcibly removed when they are attempting to go for the
ball, usually at a ruck.
One of the timeless principles of the game, surely, is
that you cannot play a man who does not have the ball. The term “playing the
man not the ball” has become an English idiom describing the worst sort of
conduct in competition, yet it’s allowed in rugby these days, and called cleaning – for goodness
sake!
I’ve been scouring the Law Book trying to
find out how it’s justified and I can’t.
It’s clear in Law 9: Foul Play that it’s
illegal. Under Dangerous play it says:
14 A player must
not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.
The next point does say:
15. Except in a
scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold,
push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball
But go to the laws covering scrums, ruck
and mauls and you’ll see that binding plays a big role. You have to bind on an
opponent in all those phases. Then you can remove him, I guess. Nowhere does it
say that you can charge in and dive opponents out the way.
The referees do penalise certain types of
dangerous cleaning out, and it has to be done in close proximity to the ball. That
tells me they know it’s wrong. Why not write a new law clarifying all of this
and get back to the old-fashioned traditions and virtues that the Playing Charter
in the law book refers to.
The Driving Maul
This one I’m sure they are going to change soon.
It’s so patently wrong that they don’t have a choice.
Look at Law 9: Foul Play’s first section:
Obstruction and you’ll see that there is nothing about a maul off a lineout that
is actually legal.
Here’s what the Law Book says about
obstruction:
3. A player must
not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the
ball-carrier.
4 A player must
not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the
ball, other than by competing for possession.
Go to Law 17: Maul, and you’ll see it says:
The purpose of a
maul is to allow players to compete for the ball, which is held off the ground.
It was a clever coach somewhere that turned
the maul into a try-scoring technique and it’s become acceptable. Put a stop to it, World Rugby. The
defenders are the ones getting penalised, trying to defend the indefensible,
how is that fair?
Besides, it’s boring!
You can download the latest Law Book at:
