Rule changes are getting more headlines than Christian Cullen. WYNNE GRAY explains how the game got into this tangle.
For five seasons the Sanzar countries - New Zealand, Australia and South Africa - tinkered with rugby laws as they oversaw their Super 12 competition.
They introduced ideas such as extra water breaks, judicial punishments, "talking flags" and television match officials. Variations on laws, particularly the difficult tackle ball law, appeared most seasons.
There were changes when referees were instructed in 1998 not to penalise players even if they were "bridging" to protect a team-mate in possession on the ground.
Bridging involved players staying on their feet, thus meeting the laws, but stapling themselves (illegally) over prone teammates. Sanzar ruled the play legal.
But in Perth last December, the years of fiddling with the laws ended. Sanzar accepted that its search for more free-wheeling continuity had eliminated contests for possession in too many areas of the game. Rather than making rugby more dynamic, the amendments had made the game more static.
In making that concession, it agreed with a recent International Rugby Board statement.
"There can be no excuse," the IRB declared, "and there should be no hiding place for referees who fail to apply the laws as they are written. But responsibility also rests with coaches and players to ensure that the game is played within the law."
It was a message Sanzar had tried to ignore as it sought a little more entertainment in the Rupert Murdoch-bankrolled series that began life in 1996 after a battle with the rebel World Rugby Corporation group.
But the years of messing with the laws had led to confusion. Sanzar realised it had manipulated its competition to excess.
Each year it had produced a "game management document" that told referees, coaches and players how the laws would be interpreted in the Super 12. In New Zealand each year, NZRFU referees boss Keith Lawrence addressed meetings to explain the variations.
With an overhead projector and whiteboard, he would highlight some IRB law and then overlay that with another sheet which showed how Sanzar was going to tweak the rules and actually referee the sport.
Everyone was prepared for further changes this season. The shock this time was that Sanzar reversed its usual routine.
Instead of applying its own interpretations to the rules, it insisted the Super 12 would be played according to the laws of rugby.
No ifs, no buts, kosher footie, straight down the middle, just how it wanted the halfbacks to deliver the ball into the scrum.
Last month, when Mr Lawrence came calling again, there were no separate Sanzar adjustments placed over the top of the IRB lawbook. No sir, the Super 12 would be played according to international law.
That decision had been made at the Vines Resort in Perth where referees, coaches and officials from all 12 franchises met last year for their annual conference.
They debated obstruction ideas and decoy runners, they worked through the breakdown areas and, against their previous independent approach, concluded that they would reshape their series the way the IRB wanted rugby played everywhere.
They accepted the need for a consistent global game that was a fair contest for possession rather than the modified game of grid league Super 12 rugby had become.
The Sanzar change of attitude followed unease in Zealand rugby circles.
For some time, the NZRFU had been concerned about the way the game was being played and how it looked.
It disliked the static lines of defence, the midfield clutter, the lack of forwards at the breakdown, the way the sport resembled rugby league.
The union gathered a Shape of the Game Taskforce, a group including Tim Gresson, Dennis Brown, Robbie Deans, Steve Lunn, Peter Thorburn, Maurice Trapp and Terry Wright.
From their recommendations the NZRFU board came up with a philosophy on how rugby should be played.
The principles were:
That rugby must remain a unique game which encourages continuity and creativity.
That a fair (not equal) contest for possession is fundamental.
That continuity of play and/or continuity of possession must not be as a result of an unfair contest for possession.
That an evolving game, both strategic and tactical, needs to be strived for.
That entertaining rugby can be measured by quality and variety of play, not solely by the time the ball is in play.
That the laws of the game must remain universal, clear and easily understood, and applied consistently across all domestic and international competitions.
New Zealand took those policies to Perth, where they reached general accord with Australia and South Africa.
Discussion on the controversial obstruction and tackle ball laws moved from debate in the boardroom to practical experiments in the hotel grounds where a group of local players simulated all sorts of law variations.
Eventually the Sanzar representatives agreed it would be best to use the laws as the IRB decreed.
The sixth season would be refereed according to the way the laws were administered at the 1995 World Cup in South Africa, the venue for the unveiling of the Super 12.
There has been only one alteration since to the tackled ball law. Last season the lawmakers fine-tuned the rule and decided all players moving into pileups had to have their backs facing their own goal line, otherwise they were offside. The rest of law 15 stayed the same.
When Mr Lawrence explained what had happened in Perth and what rules the Super 12 would now adhere to, there was no room left for creative refereeing. At the breakdown players had to be on their feet; bridging and sealing were illegal.
There was always going to be a fair amount of pain as coaches, players, administrators and referees unravelled rule interpretations that had taken continuity to excess.
After two rounds of Super 12 that widespread discomfort was being heard in loud complaints, especially over the contentious tackled ball issue.
Coaches and players say there has been no allowance for those who get knocked off their feet in such a high-velocity, physical game, and referees have been told to penalise according to the law or risk future appointments. While referees feel they are convenient scapegoats for players' inability to change their styles, there are exceptions, from the likes of Cats coach Laurie Mains and Crusaders coach Robbie Deans, who believe there will be long-term gains.
What is forgotten is that in Perth, the franchises agreed on the changes by which they would chop out the amendments they had been using in the Super 12. That was more than three months ago - a reasonable time to plan, school up the players and get used to the "real" laws in trial games.
After Perth, South Africa's referee manager, Freek Burger, made several potent points about the revision.
"In the past we concentrated more on game management, but this year we will referee strictly to the laws of the game," he said. "I must stress that the Super 12 referees of all countries will be watched closely and will be removed from the panels if they underperform."
The difficulty in adjusting perhaps shows how far Super 12's lenient singular approach had come from the IRB ideas, to which they are now returning.
In 1996, the debut season for Super 12, there was some relaxation of the stringent judgments seen the year before at the World Cup. At the breakdown, if the ball was being freed and some players left on their feet, referees allowed play to carry on. Greater leniency surfaced in the second year as Sanzar sensed the wider appeal of its competition.
It needed tries to get more spectators and encouraged referees to adopt a much more laissez-faire attitude. It allowed them far more discretion.
Bridging was condoned as a positive move to recycle possession, tackled players were allowed three seconds to either pass, place or release the ball.
A review of that scheme by Sanzar decided the three-second rule should be removed for the start of the 1998 series. Tackled players were told to play the ball immediately and flankers such as Josh Kronfeld took charge. He would often tackle someone, bounce to his feet and then filch the ball as he had all the rights.
Until a ruck was formed players were able to attack the breakdown from any angle. With the "use it or lose it" applying to mauls, teams felt their only option was to go to ground, where referees allowed bridging to promote continuity.
Kronfeld's skill under the law variations riled Waratahs coach Matt Williams so much in 1999 that he got into strife for showing the referee computer images of Kronfeld and asking for opinions before his team played the Highlanders.
In the millennium Super 12 season the IRB decreed players had to enter pileups from their own side or be judged offside - a change which reduced the impact of those such as Kronfeld.
But teams still managed to bridge and seal off possession, and Sanzar still felt it was a positive style as it delivered continuity in the game. Referees were caught between the demands of their Super 12 bosses and their Six Nations masters when they worked in the Northern Hemisphere.
The contrast in styles was too great and Sanzar conceded it had made too many changes. It had to revert to the old laws to achieve its target of a distinctive global game.
Sanzar's solution meant the ball had to be delivered straight into scrums and lineouts, and that players onside and on their feet had all the rights to the ball at the breakdown.
The theory, like all those of the preceding five Super 12 seasons, sounded encouraging, but the two rounds of the 2001 season have shown that continual changing interpretations are not an easy rugby remedy.
Rugby blows whistle on tweaking laws
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.