KEY POINTS:
The following experimental law variations [ELVS] were trialled in New Zealand's inter-provincial B competition this season and are now being considered for next year's Super 14. Auckland B coach Anthony Ruakere gave the Herald his verdict on the proposed changes.
Corner posts
The change: Now positioned two metres back from touch, in line with the goal line and dead ball line.
The verdict: Positive.
How it worked: The only negative impact was on kicking for the corner, said Ruakere. After a lifetime of using the flags as a point of reference, kickers struggled to adjust.
But the change did allow a lot of tries to be scored that would otherwise have been ruled out for the scorer contacting the corner flag, so on balance the change was positive.
Inside the 22
The change: If a team passes or takes the ball back into the 22m area and then kicks the ball out on the full, the lineout is where the ball was kicked, unless a tackle has been made or a ruck or maul has formed.
The verdict: Positive.
How it worked: The change had the desired effect, with less kicking out of defence, meaning the ball stayed in play longer.
Lineout and throw
The change: A quick throw-in can be thrown backwards in the direction of the defender's goal line. No maximum number of players in the lineout. Teams do not have to match numbers. The receiver (halfback) must stand 2 metres back from the lineout.
The verdict: Jury still out.
How it worked: The idea was that defensive teams could stack their lineouts and have three or four people in the air contesting a throw. That didn't really happen. Most teams went in with a set defensive lineout and it wasn't really dictated by how many players the opposition put in. There is scope for coaches to use the rule better but the B competition was too short to see how that might evolve.
Although not completely sold on the change, Ruakere saw no real reason not to introduce it.
Tackle and ruck
The change: Players must enter through the gate. There are now offside lines at the tackle. If the ball is unplayable a free kick goes to the team not in possession of the ball when the tackle took place. Most offences at the tackle are now sanctioned with a free kick. The halfback may not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball. Players are permitted to use their hands in the ruck.
The verdict: Negative
How it worked: "We've ended up with a wrestle-fest, basically," said Ruakere.
"You get three or four players all competing for the ball on the ground because they know they can use their hands as long as they are on their feet. In our experience, what ensued was a bit of a tug of war that lasted for a number of seconds. That detracted from the intent of the law.
"On balance, we didn't see any difference in terms of the speed of the ruck ball."
Instead of players looking to clean out opponents at rucks and allowing their nominated fetcher to get the ball, multiple players from each team zeroed in on the ball.
Referees also had trouble policing the area, leaving the contest for the ball to develop for too long.
"You'd get three or four guys wrestling for the ball for five seconds. If we wanted to see that then we'd go and watch sumo wrestling.
"My argument is that [under the current law] if you are effectively winning the collisions and the contact, taking the threats out to your ball, then the change of law doesn't mean anything. If you are looking after the ball at contact and placing it as close as possible to your halfback, and your support players are taking out anybody who is a threat to that ball, then they can't get their hands on it so the [change] is academic."
The other tweaks, such as offside lines occurring immediately, had no practical effect.
Maul
The change: A maul can now be pulled down. This must be done by grasping a player between the shoulder and hips and bringing the maul to ground. Players joining the maul must do so through the gate. If a maul becomes unplayable a free kick is awarded to the team not in possession at the start of the maul. Truck and trailer is permitted when breaking away from a maul; not permitted in general play.
The verdict: Positive
How it worked: "It's a good law, probably something they could go with," Ruakere said. "But I don't think the effect is as marked as they thought it would be."
It was still possible to develop an effective maul, although the number of mauls did decrease.
Scrum
The change: The offside line for backs (except the halfback) is now 5 metres behind the hindmost foot.
The verdict: Positive.
How it worked: "It was great," said Ruakere. "You've got real scope for creativity. There was no need to go four or five phases to create scoring opportunities. There were more tries scored from scrums and that is positive. Well-constructed strike moves from scrums are a good spectacle."
Kickoffs and restarts
The change: For all kickoff and restart kicks, any infringement by the kicking team (e.g. player in front, ball kicked into touch on the full) will result in a free kick to the non-offending team at the centre of the halfway line/22 metre line.
The verdict: Positive
How it worked: As intended. Increased the pace of the game.
Free kicks instead of penalties
The change: Most offences previously punishable by penalties are now punished by a free kick. There are exceptions, including foul play. Players who deliberately or repeatedly offend any law are liable to penalty kick, yellow card, etc.
The verdict: Positive.
How it worked: "On balance, it did have the effect of speeding up the game," Ruakere said. "It stopped teams receiving a penalty and kicking the ball out and then plodding to the lineout and then taking 30 seconds to call the lineout and get the ball in."
Fears the change would create a cheats charter didn't materialise as referees had the discretion to penalise for repeated infringements.
Referees tended to err on the side of caution in applying the law.
"They would allow something to happen once or twice and then they would start penalising or even going to the cards.
"But if the referees were assertive enough without being overbearing, they did control the potential for continued negative play."
Overall verdict: positive
"I have my doubts as to whether [Super 14] is the appropriate competition in which to continue trialling these laws," said Ruakere.
"But the rugby calendar doesn't provide any easy solutions.
"If they do come in, it will take a bit of getting used to but the product in 18 months time will be a good product."
