English referees killing the game

OK, over the weekend I watched most of the H-cup matches as well as the ANZ Cup semi-finals. One thing was noticeable - I wish I'd taken stats in fact - that the English referees seemed to blow far more often than any other nation's referees. This new, stricter interpretation of Law 15 it appears: there were certainly more penalties for going to ground in those matches as I saw it - although there were penalties for it in many of the others too.

So, to find out more about Law 15 I went and looked it up. To save you the effort, here's a link to law 15. Subsection 7: forbidden practices is what you're looking for. You can't fall over on the tackled player, or on other players lying on the ground after the tackle. Not "you can under no circumstances go to ground" which seems to be the current interpretation.

Law 16.2a is really clearer about the situation: All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders higher than their feet. Failure to do so? That would be a free kick, not a penalty. Mind you, 16.2d says they must be all on their feet (but heads and shoulders could be lower) and that's a penalty.

But law 15 isn't the right place to blame unless they've renumbered with the ELVs, and you can argue that if they join the ruck on their feet and with their heads and shoulders up, and then go to ground and stop playing the ball, they haven't done anything wrong.

So on what grounds are the English referees blowing the crap out of the game? Why?

Why they're called All Blacks - in action

You, of course, already know that All Blacks is a typo don't you? The original quote, about the first New Zealand Rugby tour of England in 1906 contained the comment that with their level of skill they're All Backs. The fact they were already playing in black led to the extra L and the All Blacks were born.

But today, in the ANZ semi-final we had a lovely illustration of that original soubriquet in a match that was tense and frequently frustrating because of the tension causing odd silly mistakes although, in fairness, there was a really high level, committed defence which stifled a lot of the attacking moves, including Danny Lee knocking himself out whilst nudging Corey Flynn just enough that he dotted the ball on the touch-in-goal instead of down for a try (Lee tackled Flynn's shoulder with his head... scrum half's head v international hooker's shoulder... ouch) and in reply Colin Slade wrapping around the ball as Hawke's Bay tried to score, preventing a try being scored by lying underneath the rampaging lock with his head under the ball. Not quite as painful as Lee's effort, but still...

Anyway, the "All Backs" comment. Canterbury won the ball at turn over and passed the ball across the "back" line in normal red-and-black fashion. The person playing third receiver/centre ran flat-out on a line out towards touch, the person outside him (who I guess was really playing in the attacking full-back slot) ran across behind in a beautifully executed scissors move, burst through the hole that the scissors had created in the drift defence and ran over for a try. It really was a text book execution of the skill at top speed, and deserves to be in the coaching manual. What makes it really special though: the "centre" was wearing 3, the "full back" was wearing 4 - the tight-head prop and a lock were the players executing the perfect scissors at top speed and unlocking the defence with it.

One of the other things that contributed to the relatively poor game - and this is no reflection on the quality of the replacements who in most cases did a good job, and in at least one case did a better job - was the number of injuries. You really could call this attritional rugby. Canterbury lost a wing in the first few minutes, a scrum half in the first half and their centre in the second half to injury - in the first case at least a fairly severe looking one. Hawke's Bay lost their scrum half as described above, and a couple of other players too.

And sadly for Andy Ellis's international aspirations, he was the player who went off and his replacement did a lot better. Whilst Jimmy Cowan has gone from strength to strength this year, on the pitch at least, Andy Ellis has gone backwards - he tackled very poorly, his distribution was not the best, although his running game and support led to a try for him but that is an icing on the cake and his basic scrum half skills aren't solid and the All Blacks tend to go for that first.

I'm not sure who will get the places behind Cowan, particularly with Weepu playing at 10 for Wellington, but Ellis will be at home in November I'm pretty sure.

ELVs, relegation, mauls and Jimmy Cowan

It's a bit of a mixed bag this time I'm afraid.

Firstly the ELVs and relegation. I've already blogged about my dislike for some of the current rules interpretation in combination with the ELVs and I find myself continuing to feel that dislike. Last weekend I watched the BBC's coverage of the EDF cup and it was nice to see some rational comments about the interactions, and the fact that these interactions are what is crippling the attacking game.

But there was also a comment that relegation makes the game more meaningful - although it wasn't phrased that way. Our survey says "Uh-uh." The rugby held as the pinnacle of club competition, certainly in the Northern Hemisphere, is the Heineken Cup, which started this week end. What characterises the H-cup? Despite what the pundits will tell you it's not automatically the best teams in Europe - look at last season when Northampton were in the H-cup despite playing first division rugby at home. Look, with apologies, at the Italian sides, who are targeted as 10 points (2 bonus point victories) on legs by any serious team. What characterises it, (well did before the fucking English referees whistled it into a farce) was good, attacking rugby. Fluid, entertaining play. Why? One is incredibly tempted to point the finger at one thing: no relegation. You can only, really, get through to the later rounds of the H-cup if you win 5 out of 6 games. Occasionally teams with 4 bonus point wins get through as runners-up. The result? Teams take risks to win and rugby looks better.

Or consider Wasps last year in the Guinness Premiership. They had a terrible start, but then came back. They won the whole thing. But, for about 5 months of the competition if they lost any game there were out of contention, couldn't get through. I don't like Wasps in general, a certain Mr. Dalaglio always irritates me, but they had no choice but to play attacking rugby, to play to win. Come the end of the season, no change in their headset, they go out to win and stuff the opponents.

OK, relegation battles can make the last weekend's matches more meaningful with, potentially, all 6 matches on the final weekend of the GP having an impact on who goes into the final and/or who goes down. It doesn't always work out that way of course - twice in 11 years if memory serves. Can the English, should the English, look to the Magner's League, ANZ, Currie Cup etc. models? There isn't relegation (actually I think for the latter 2 there is, but not meaningful levels of it) and the teams play interesting rugby because they see benefits to winning and they're prepared to risk a loss here and there in order to get a bonus point win, or risk giving up a bonus point to get a losing bonus point instead. Rugby doesn't have to be made easier to watch - and the ELVs don't make it easier, they make it faster and more entertaining everywhere except in England - but rules that encourage entertaining play are a good thing if you're thinking that the game is meant to appeal to its fans and occasionally more fans.

You hear, as well, the commentators bemoaning the death of the maul. What utter CRAP. Granted mauls have more or less vanished in the GP, but then so has rational thought and the ability to counter-attack and more. Mauls weren't a regular part of the Super-14, but in both the ANZ Cup and the Currie Cup we're seeing rolling mauls. Why? Well someone realised that the new laws don't routinely stop the ball carrier, who is at the back. There's a different skill set than just "ugh, grunt, shove" which tends to lead to the whole maul collapsing if one player goes down, but teams have learnt how to do that. One of the great truisms of rugby is that you score points by making space on the field. That's why scrums to the attacking side on the 5m line are so potentially dangerous: you've got 18 players in about 3-4m width of the pitch, and so 6 v 6 in the remaining 40 m width or so. Rolling mauls, with their players taking out yours... ok, you lose an attacking player, but they lose a defending player into an offside position as your maul moves the ball forward and you make space for your attack... is this a bad thing? Surely not. It just takes some adjusting the skills to make use of it. Oh, and the willingness to try.

And before my final thought, I wonder how many times the English referees blew the whistle this weekend compared to everyone else? We hear these complaints that with the ELVs we're seeing the development of a North-South divide. However, it's worth noting that the difference in the interpretation of Law 15, which is insanely harsh in England compared to the rest of the world and NOT an ELV despite what the managers say is creating a divide between England and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere too.

And finally on to Jimmy Cowan. He played today for Southland against Bay of Plenty in the quarter finals of the ANZ Cup. He had a massive game, and whilst he might not have won man of the match, he was certainly a serious contender for it, and won it in my books. Returning All Blacks, into club rugby, are supposed to have a big influence. Jimmy Cowan did that today, in spades. It looks like this season, despite his off-pitch problems, has seen him really grow into an international quality scrum half. This is always a good thing to see: it's tempting to wonder how long before the people a bit further up North on the South Island try to tempt him away into the Red and Black machine - he's certainly doing a better job than their incumbent on the biggest stage. Good luck to the Cowan family though... it's nice to see the problems haven't messed with the rugby.