S
Steve-o
Guest
The Laws Project Group
The group comprised IRB referee manager Paddy O'Brien and former international coaches Rod McQueen, Ian McIntosh, Richie Dixon and Pierre Villepreux as well as former All Blacks captain Graham Mourie. Syd Millar and Bill Beaumont of the IRB attended meetings.
---
Interview with: Ian McIntosh (SA Rugby Magazine - Issue #136 - July 2008)
Interviewer: Ryan Vrede (SA Rugby Magazine and keo.co.za journalist )
---
-Q: Let's get straight to it. what was wrong with the old laws?
-A: One indictment of the old laws is that there are many penalty offences at the tackle that make the breakdown a subjective nightmare for referees. At least 45% of penalties occur at the breakdown. Many roleplayers in the game felt that those penalties were left to the subjective interpretation of referees and sometimes those penalties determined the outcome of matches. Thus coaches saw penalties as their primary means of points collection. Wallabies coach Rod Macqueen changed his whole ethos at the 1999 World Cup. They didn't resort to their usual expansive play because he knew that World Cups are won on penalties. The same thing happened at the last tournament. That was a hell of an indictment on the old laws and refereeing. I use those as examples, but similar patterns existed generally throughout the game.
-Q: How did you become involved in the Laws Project Group [LPG]?
-A: After the 2003 World Cup, there was a conference in Auckland that sought to evaluate where the game stood. A number of high-profile role players were involved. In that meeting they discussed things pertaining to the laws, particularly allowing the collapsing of mauls and hands in the ruck.
Up to that point the laws had not been critically reviewed since the game went professional in 1995. In that time coaches and players had significantly developed their tactics, methodologies and skills aimed at winning, making the existing laws ineffective.
The other thing was that defensive systems had become highly sophisticated. Defenders were not committing to the breakdown, which meant that defences were difficult to break down. The game had also become one for large men who ground you into submission. There really was little room for skilful players to express themselves.
The IRB formed a non-representative LPG to address these issues. It was non-representative to avoid national subjectivity.
-Q: What was the ultimate goal of the LPG?
-A: Simply, we wanted to develop a set of laws that would enhance the game in terms of its entertainment value and make it easier to play and referee. This Laws Project Group has correlated demonstrable evidence to substantiate our belief that the ELVs achieve this. Its detractors deal in assumptions and perceptions. We based our findings on fact.
-Q: The NH argue that it compromises their traditional strengths and that conditions aren't conducive to the type of game the ELVs promotes. Isn't that a fair argument?
-A: I don't know where that argument comes from because in the 70s they had arguably the most skilful attacking backs in world rugby. And they played in the same conditions. In fact, the fields were far worse; most were completely mud. Maybe the conservative mindset that they've developed over the last 20 years has taken away the skill of their backs, not the conditions or the laws.
-Q: What process did the LPG follow before settling on the full set of ELVs?
-A: We started in the Stellenbosch University koshuis league with emphasis on the breakdown. It was felt the line-outs and scrums had been sorted out over the years and if we could get the breakdown right we would have the perfect game. Over time a number of provisions were added to the law governing the breakdown instead of directly addressing the challenges of this facet of play. So we took out all the provisions and allowed players to do anything in an attempt to turn over possession, provided they stayed on their feet, be on-side and didn't come from the side of the ruck. That was a mess and there was lots of criticism of this change.
Then we took away the tackler's right to play the ball on the ground and said the tackled player had to play the ball immediately. Players on their feet were allowed to play the ball with their hands. This included players leaning on other players with their knees. We did that because we wanted to create a contest to entice more defenders to the breakdown. This immediately produced the desired results.
Results showed that ball retention in the breakdown dropped from the mid 90% to 86% under the ELVs. So clearly there was a greater contest at the breakdown. The by-product of that was that teams were committing more players to the breakdown, which meant that when the ball went wide there were more spaces to exploit than there had been previously. This meant more linebreaks and, ultimately, more tries. We also did extensive trials on the other provisions and came up with 23 ELVs and commentary which we presented to the International Rugby Board.
-Q: What happened then?
-A: We went to Paris to dot the i's and cross the t's with regards to trialling the laws worldwide. But they had to be ratified by the respective national unions, who then cherry-picked the ones that suited them. The ELVs were supposed to be sold as a package -especially the hands-in-the-ruck law - yet it was decided to only trial some. The sad thing is that we'll never know whether the ELVs work or not because they were never meant to be used exclusively from each other.
As a group, we're disappointed that there has been picking because we won't get the result we envisaged. Anybody who tells me that they prefer the old game - scrum, penalty, line-out, another subjective penalty, kick, legalised obstruction of a maul - if that's what they want to see, then I can't understand that.
The complete set allowed you to play the type of game you wanted. You could opt for a scrum from free kicks if it suited your strengths, or you could quick tap if you preferred. If you wanted to play a kicking game, you could do that. It allowed you to play whatever style you wanted. The results we saw from the Australian Rugby Championship were outstanding. The complete set gave the game back to the players, whereas the old laws had dictated how we played in the past.
The plan was to trial the entire set worldwide and have a definitive answer to whether they made the game more fluent and easier to play and referee and more entertaining. Now we'll never have that definitive answer. The saddest for me is reverting back to penalties [in the northern hemisphere] instead of free kicks. This brings back subjective refereeing.
-Q: Were you surprised that there was initially such resistance to the laws?
-A: The uneducated say it was just a bunch of old guys who came together and sucked these ELVs out of their thumbs. That's not the case. It is a group of hand-picked, revered, respected, experienced men -myself excluded - who wanted to see the game advance. There were hours of analysis and debate and trials that went into their formulation. We have statistics coming out of our ears to prove that these ELVs, if adopted as a package, work.
-Q: The main criticism was that it would nullify teams who relied heavy on their packs to dominate, right?
-A: We had to stick to the charter of the law. That's why it frustrates me when people say that the ELVs make big guys obsolete. That's very far from the truth. We were very mindful that we wanted to ensure that it remains a game for all shapes and sizes. The side that picks three loose forwards in the front row as some people have suggested is going to get murdered. Yes, the ELVs will accelerate the evolution of tight forwards, but those aren't as dramatic as some may have you believe. And why do we fear change so much anyway, especially on a trial basis that would improve the game? I emphasise the word trial. The ELVs are not cast in stone. If it were found - from statistics not assumptions - that they didn't work then they wouldn't be introduced.
-Q: The northern hemisphere have been the most vocal in their criticism of the laws. Does that frustrate you?
-A: It does. In the north there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign to undermine the ELVs. Strangely, some of the laws' biggest critics in the north were the very people who insisted we critically review them in 2003 in Auckland. I can partly understand where they come from because they always get full houses, and the game, as far as they're concerned, is not in need of change. I've coached at club games in Europe and the atmosphere is amazing, which makes me think that they confuse atmosphere as being more valuable than doing what's good for the actual playing of the game.
-Q: The other global held fear is that the new laws will see rugby union morph into a version of rugby league. Do those fears have a base?
-A: That's ridiculous because the game moved towards league in the '90s already. We started to play phase rugby where ball retention was a prominent feature of our game and a big emphasis was placed on defensive structure. To say that the new laws have made union like league is absolute rubbish. What they have done is opened up the game.
-Q: Sanzar 'cherry-picked' their preferences for the Super 14 and Tri-Nations. Did vou expect them to be more adventurous and embrace them all? Were you disappointed they didn't?
-A: If they had taken time to research the facts, then I believe they would have acted differently. We're deeply disappointed that the full set wasn't trialled worldwide. Yet people have somehow come to the conclusion that they don't work. Those who've played under these laws for an extended period of time have enjoyed it and will confirm that they do work.
-Q: Have the ELVs achieved their intended goal?
-A: Look, there's no question in my mind that the [Super 14] tournament produced a far more fluid game and was more exciting for me than previous years. I know people have been frustrated with the number of free kicks but remember those used to be subjective penalties. But I assure you that we've only seen the surface of what the game could have looked like. I'll reiterate that if the full set of breakdown ELVs were adopted, we would have seen an outstanding tournament from an attacking perspective.
-Q: It's widely agreed that New Zealand's and Australia's top franchises have adapted better to the ELVs than South Africa's. Why is this?
-A: They've always had a mindset of attacking space rather than the man. Australia haven't got the depth of players that we have, and to survive they have to compensate by making those available to them as skilful as they possibly can be. Sadly, to our own detriment, we've generally stuck with the traditional way of playing the game. When we came back from isolation in 1992, we were arrogant in thinking that we could go out and play the same type of bash-'em-up rugby. But Australia taught us a lesson in our first Test back at Newlands. That proved the game had changed.
-Q: There were an average of five tries per game same in the 2007 Super 14. It's stayed the same for this year. Were the ELVs not supposed to promote try-scoring
-A: Teams have often opted for a conservative approach by kicking the ball downfield. Another factor is that, because we haven't adopted the complete breakdown ELVs, we haven't seen the effects of creating space in the opposition's backline. Finally, the majority of teams have played behind their forwards on attack, which nullifies their effectiveness. The Crusaders played in front of their forwards and attacked the advantage Line. That's when all the magic happens. Locally, the Sharks scored lots of tries in their last few games.
-Q: Explain the hands-in-the-ruck ELV
-A: This was absolutely key to the success of the package and that's why I'm disappointed that it hasn't been adopted. Of all the proposed ELVs, we envisaged that this one to be central to space creation in the defensive line. The principle is simple: by creating a greater contest at the breakdown you encourage the defending team to commit more men to the rucks. When the ball is recycled, the theory is that there'll be more space to attack because the defensive line won't be as congested. More space leads to more opportunities for linebreaks and ultimately more tries
-Q: Explain the collapsing-a-maul ELV
-A: What we saw in Scotland [where the ELVs were trialled at club level] - especially with regards to the collapsing of mauls, which there's been a big outcry about because some believe that it nullifies a strength of some teams - was that it becomes extremely difficult to collapse a maul if the opposing team knows that is going to be your strategy. If we're smart we'll develop methods to counter the laws, not become hysteric about them before even giving them a chance. What happens if the opposition pull the front pods down is that the ball is freed up at the back and it becomes a dynamic maul instead of a static one, and that provides you with an attacking opportunity
-Q: Your take on the referees?
-A: I think that there's been a lot of controversy. Less experienced referees have tried to stamp their authority on matches, which goes against what we were trying to achieve with the new laws: to lessen their influence on play. Most of the senior referees, however, have become near anonymous, and that's really refreshing.
-Q: And the numbers that matter?
-A: Statistically, 20 is still the average number of scrums we have in a match. That's the same as the 2007 Super 14. The line-outs have gone down from an average of 31 in 2007 to 26 in 2008, but that's because there's less touch kicking. In 2007, the ruck count stood at 137, and that's gone up to 146. That's due to the fact that the ball is in play longer than it had previously been. Interestingly, in the Australian Rugby Championship, they averaged 122 rucks per game because they look to attack space rather than smashing into the defender and taking the ball to ground. Our [SA] sides are generally bad at ball retention at ruck time because our placing and cleaning technique is flawed. Penalties and free kicks averaged 21 in 2007 and 27 in 2008. Of the 21,19 were penalties. This year, it averaged 12 penalties and 15 free kicks. If we had brought in the hands-in-the-ruck rule, that figure would have fallen even more.
[/b]
