There will be no law changes. That is the most welcome, but also the most unexpected, conclusion from World Rugby’s Shape of the Game conference.
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in London. It’s a shame, really, as I would have enjoyed being there. However, the outcome is a very good result and its importance cannot be over-emphasised.
While I have recently been on the case of World Rugby chairman Brett Robinson, it is now important to give credit where it is due. The well-worded, unifying statement issued post-conference tells us “there was universal agreement that the on-field game is in a strong position across global and international competitions”.
That is one hell of a clear affirmation in support of rugby union’s current laws. It confirms that the game’s uniqueness and key characteristics will not, after all, be tossed to the wolves. Not for now, anyway.
READ MORE
Furthermore, it underpins the principles of contest and that rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes – that there is a place for everybody. It’s all extremely positive and fully in line with union’s charter of the game.
Before the conference, the word on the street was that Australia and New Zealand were intent on bringing in further rugby league-style changes, but in the heel of the hunt, that hasn’t come to pass. There was also much talk of these two unions wishing to depower the scrum, but it seems the subject was not even raised.
So much for idle chatter and the ever-turning rumour mill, but mixed messages were indeed flying around the ether prior to the conference. While not alone, it does seem clear that France and South Africa were in particular disagreement to proposals from New Zealand and Australia.
However, the outcome should not be presented as a winners-and-losers scenario, which could potentially be very damaging. All issues were fully aired and now “universal agreement” is where the focus should be. The only winner is the game.
World Rugby also correctly stressed the importance of the game being played and refereed uniformly, citing “a focus on aligning laws and referee directives across elite competitions”. However, this is where we have something of a fly in the ointment.
Ireland pull off one of the great Twickenham days against England
Super Rugby Pacific (SRP) has already introduced more of these “league” changes. So, that needs to be sorted and it won’t be easy. However, if SRP’s key figures look closely in the mirror, they may come to realise there is little point in playing a different game. Also, their players are likely to be disadvantaged when the international Test matches come around.
It also makes life difficult for those elite referees who will move between SRP and international rugby. Their job is hard enough without having to manage different sets of laws and directives. As well as this, if SRP is trying to appeal to rugby league supporters, then introducing similar laws is not the way to go.
Of course, nothing succeeds like success, so a good run for Australia in their home World Cup would undoubtedly help. I’m unsure what influence Rugby Australia can bring to bear, but surely it’s not ideal World Cup preparation if the sport and its players are on different pages.
SRP is further reducing the number of scrums and replacing them with free-kicks. By doing so, it is heading for a game that does not have a place for all shapes and sizes – a kind of hybrid mishmash with elements of rugby league. It is not at all in line with union’s charter, nor indeed with the sentiments expressed in World Rugby’s communique.
It is also all very well to keep looking for more ball-in-play time (BIPT), but if that is not accompanied with a quality mark, then, as a goal in itself, it is meaningless. Rugby union is currently delivering in spades on this point, the Q-BIPT is top notch, while the vital contests remain pretty much intact.
The lineout global trial remains a concern. It goes forward for full ratification at World Rugby’s June meeting, despite its unintended consequences. A crooked throw will not be whistled if the opposition does not put up a contesting jumper. Fine so far, and the throwing team can then play the ball to the scrumhalf, or form a maul.
However, when the maul is illegally formed, the throwing team is being given a disproportionate advantage. Three or four players leave the lineout early, as the ball is thrown, then binding together they turn and drive on their jumper, as he lands, to propel the maul forward. It is extremely difficult to defend, or to stop. A simple tweak will fix it: apply the law which prohibits players leaving the lineout until it has ended. Allowing the practice to continue is effectively another law change, which has never been proposed or trialled in any way.
While the 20-minute red card is now part of the game, there is still discussion in relation to the on-field permanent (straight) red. France, in particular, have been very vocal in insisting on the retention of the latter, so there’s clearly more to come on this, hopefully sooner rather than later.
The conference outcomes don’t mean that everything in the garden is rosy. The bomb squads and 7-1 bench splits, for example, will continue. Apparently, it didn’t even merit discussion. It’s a subject that will come up again.
But right now, we should just be grateful that the current laws are retained and the charter of the game has been reinforced. In time, we will see more law-change proposals. These should always be tailored to fit the charter – not the other way around.
Follow our rugby WhatsApp channel
