Zarn Sullivan of the Blues celebrates scoring a try during the Super Rugby Pacific Round 13 match between the Queensland Reds and the Auckland Blues at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Friday, May 19, 2023. (AAP Image/Darren England / www.photosport.nz)
Zarn Sullivan of the Blues celebrates scoring a try during the Super Rugby Pacific Round 13 match between the Queensland Reds and the Auckland Blues at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, Friday, May 19, 2023. (AAP Image/Darren England / www.photosport.nz)
OPINION
The rugby world needs a shining light competition, a bold, slick, consistent and credible product that makes sense to fans and rebrands the sport as a modern game that appeals to Gen Z and their Millennial chums.
This trial by TV nonsense that blighted the World Cup and turnedthe all-Southern hemisphere final into a ridiculously bad ‘whodunnit’ murder mystery, where only the TMO knew a crime had been committed and by whom, has to end.
The first two rounds of the Six Nations have left fans in the North equally bemused by the sport’s desire to turn big games into the rugby version of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, where teams spend 80 minutes unaware of what they are being accused of, and fans leave angry and frustrated that the one thing missing from the world’s longest book of laws, is common sense.
The latest travesty to beset the sport and leave everyone talking about officiating rather than the brilliance of the players, was the decision to deny Scotland what appeared to be a perfectly good try that would have seen them snatch a victory at the death against France.
Most, but not all, camera angles showed the ball over the line, so while every other sport in the world would have awarded it on the basis of probability, Scotland were denied because the TMO could not find the conclusive evidence that the laws demand.
And this is rugby’s problem – the officials were correct in how they applied the law, but everyone else saw the ball over the line and no try awarded, leaving them to wonder whether trudging around a shopping mall might be a better use of their time the next time a big game is on.
Fans and players have been left frustrated following the final TMO decision in the France v Scotland Six Nations match. Photo / Getty Images
Social media has fixated on this idea that the officials are the villains, where in fact its screamingly obvious that it’s the laws themselves which make no sense, and this is why Super Rugby Pacific could recast itself as the unlikeliest of heroes in 2024, by playing under modified regulations that eliminate much of the confusion and fan irritation.
The great hope is that Super Rugby Pacific can demonstrate the value of nimble administration, fan-centric policies and common sense all combining to create a consistent, easy-to-understand product.
What we know so far is that there is a unanimous desire among the 12 teams and administrative bodies with jurisdiction over the competition, to expediate the ball coming back into play.
That means referees will be empowered to hurry teams along to lineouts, to reset scrums quickly and to manage the faked business of players sitting glumly on the ground pretending to be injured to steal extended recovery time.
There’s also been agreement that the competition will benefit by empowering referees to make decisions and be the premier officiating authority.
At the World Cup, and throughout this year’s Six Nations, there has been an undeniable sense of referee’s either deferring to the TMO, or being actively managed by the TMO, making it unclear to the players and fans who ultimately has the authority to make decisions.
Super Rugby is effectively clarifying that the referee is the boss and that the TMO won’t have a licence to proactively interject, except other than to highlight acts of obvious foul play.
There are hopes the on-field referee in Super Rugby will retain the majority of control over the game. Photo / Photosport
In theory, having this sort of clarity should reduce the time spent reviewing incidents through various camera angles, while encouraging referees to make decisions which align with the objective of producing a faster, less disrupted product rather than strictly complying with an archaic lawbook.
Super Rugby is also going to make itself something of a petri dish, by experimenting with a number of trial innovations.
Most notably, the loophole that has been exposed in the Northern Hemisphere where players in front of a kicker are put back onside once a receiver has run five metres with the ball or passed it, is going to be closed.
What’s happened frequently in the North is that teams play prolonged bouts of kick tennis where most players simply stand still in the middle of the field.
Super Rugby is going to decree that those players in front of a kick, can only be played onside once either the kicker or onside kick-chasers have advanced beyond them.
This trial law is operating with the blessing of World Rugby, which in the past, would have led to concerns that Super Rugby was being used as a guinea pig to provide the North with empirical data that they would use to stop experimental variations being permanently adopted.
But now it seems that even the conservative-by-nature North, who have historically loved to be resistant to change, are ready to give fans a cleaner, slicker game that has less stoppages, more counter attacks and more space.
What Super Rugby is proposing is not necessarily revolutionary, but it’s giving the sport a fascinating experiment that may ultimately prove to be the blueprint that needs to be globally adopted, to rebuild its credibility with hard core fans and casual observers alike.
