The IRB are a bunch of wimps. They experimented with the laws to make rugby more entertaining and decided they didn't like and so a side that plays really dull 10-man rugby comes to be the top team in the world.
I'm not protesting that South Africa deserve to be there, they're playing the same rules as everyone else and they're playing them exceptionally well at the moment so good luck to them.
But as a fan and watcher of the game, 10-man rugby is a nightmare. I'm not saying get rid of the lineout - there are times that, in both attack and defence - it's the right tactic. But the ELVs were apparently criticised for removing mauls and making the game too much a running sport - odd for a sport that is all about running with the ball - the current rules make it too much a kicking and jumping sport and remove other aspects of the game.
One thing that would help is to reduce the number of penalties. 10-man rugby suffers with fewer penalties because the sides become more in need of running the ball the score the points. There would be other impacts of course but that would be changed.
So the question becomes how do you do this?
I can think of a couple of ways.
One probably doesn't have much impact, but if a change of emphasis in the offside law would help. Offside "in front of the kicker" should be a scrum, not a penalty. Offside "not retiring when in 10m" can remain a penalty because that's a specific and different thing. I'm thinking of mistiming when the fly-half kicks across field and the winger has slightly mistimed the run for whatever reason (worth pointing out that it could be due to the scrum half passing not quite right, the fly half fumbling the catch a little as well as pure bad timing). It makes an aspect of the attacking game quite high risk, so reduce the risk so teams try it more often.
Another is a trickier one. The breakdown is a complete mess. There are those that suggest that the side that takes the ball in should have more of an advantage - but that just denies the work of the likes of McCaw, Smith, Brussow, Williams. But one thing that's bad is the fact that one second you're legal, the next, in particular thanks to a referee's call that you may or may not hear, you're giving away a penalty. The law should be changed to make that a scrum or perhaps a free kick - it's an accidental offense. It's pretty simple too, if the person you are penalising was performing a legal action that by dint of the actions of OTHERS becomes illegal in the moment, that is considered an accidental offense. If, for example, you're driven to your knees and release the ball that's no problem, if you're driven to your knees and over the ball, that's a scrum - you didn't dive, you were driven over. If you kneel and try to take the ball that remains a penalty because you're kneeling and you can't play the ball. If you're the tackler and the tackle becomes a ruck as you're picking the ball up, it's a scrum not a penalty - you didn't form the ruck and if you'd been a second earlier you'd be a hero (for your side anyway).
Some will doubtless winge this is a "cheats' charter" but it's not. It's a change to the laws so that those that attempt to play well and turn the ball over legally are not pinged to the point that they give up trying. It might, somewhat, increase the number of people that try to turn the ball over in the tackle and this will reward the sides that can protect their attacking ball as well as getting defenders to the breakdown. Why is that good? That generally means more forwards tied in and a bit more space for the backs to run the ball.
And rather than introducing 30 changes at once, it's a change to how two existing offenses that already rely largely on the interpretation of the officials are penalised. To some extent the officials will always be interpreting what they see of course but a ruck becomes a ruck because the referee shouts "ruck" and suddenly you're giving away a penalty for doing what was OK before he expressed his opinion - it happened today at least once - changing that strikes me as a good move.
-
