Laying down the law

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

An insight into how the laws of the game are changed and also the thought process behind such changes:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5a7cc0a-2c43-11...feabdc0.html
For rugby aficionados, the laws of the sport have a poetic beauty. They encourage variety and subtle relationships between phases of play, which demand an immense range of skills and playing styles for competitors of different shapes and sizes.

For less-committed spectators, the sheer complexity of rugby can be an obstacle to comprehension and enjoyment; one that leaves them once again mystified about why the referee's whistle went, what the player was deemed to have done wrong, and why that particular offence was punished with a penalty kick rather than a put-in at a scrum.

In rugby, everything is connected. A shift in line-out practices may alter the frequency and direction of tactical kicking. Moving the offside line might turn a claustrophobic midfield into an arena for brilliant running play.

It is, as England player Joe Worsley once described, "an ecosystem". Touch one part and you affect the rest. An understanding of game theory comes in handy. Players and coaches are integral parts of the game, invariably seeking out means to minimise their disadvantage and maximise benefit from changes.

Rugby union has 23 laws. Yet the booklet containing the English-language version runs to almost 200 pages. In recent years, the laws of the game have been through one of their most systematic revisions in decades, a process identified with the introduction of a raft of so-called "experimental law variations" (ELVs). Many were discarded, although 13 have passed into law.

The northern and southern hemispheres were united in mutual distrust of ELVs, with each convinced the other side of the equator was plotting to manipulate the laws to benefit them. Such analysis finds little favour with Steve Griffiths, head of technical services at the International Rugby Board, a dry label for a position with responsibility for almost everything concerned with the players and the game.

Griffiths, who has also headed up the Rugby Football Union's refereeing department, says: "We have done research on referees that shows little or no difference between those from the northern and southern hemispheres [in relation to ELVs]. The biggest difference is between referees in the same unions."

He is still less impressed by the common view that Australia, in particular, has a long-term policy of downgrading the importance of the scrum. "The only point at which you can see a serious difference is back in the 1980s, when the Australians were instrumental in bringing in new laws for under-19 players," recalls Griffiths, pointing out this was based on research from Australia and New Zealand aimed at making the scrum safer.

Debate about tackling, however, has been a constant – "since time immemorial", says Griffiths. "And that is no bad thing, since the contest for possession, and in particular the dynamic tackle, is a fundamental feature separating us from the other codes of football," he adds.

The process of changing the rules has itself evolved. An amendment needs to win 75 per cent of the vote on the IRB's 26-member council. However, the days when – legend has it – the fate of an amendment depended on lounge-suited, sexagenarian legislators packing down for impromptu scrums in meeting rooms are gone for good.

There is now a system to ensure a consensus over the rules is reached two seasons before each quadrennial World Cup is played. It starts with a conference of all 117 member unions, where each lists its six main worries. This leads to an analysis of those views by the IRB's rugby committee and experimentation with possible variations. In the early stages, this is done by "laboratories" – internal university competitions at venues including Stellenbosch in South Africa and Cambridge, England.

The variations deemed successful are then tested over the length of a season as ELVs, before a vote is taken.

Griffiths says: "We have huge amounts of game analysis to work with. The idea is not to look at the changes in isolation, but holistically, [to see] how they affect the game as a whole."

The aim is not just, as is sometimes assumed, to devise a more attractive game. As Griffiths points out, this is a highly subjective matter. "For some people, a good forward battle is just as entertaining as a high-scoring running game, and a 0-0 more exciting than a game that finishes 54-44," he says.

Entertainment and enjoyment are factors, but the emphasis is on more fundamental principles, such as ensuring the New Zealand All Blacks are playing the same game as a local club match; keeping rugby open to "players of different physiques, skills, genders and ages at their levels of ability"; and ensuring its rules maintain the sport's distinctive features "through scrums, line-outs, mauls, rucks, kick-offs and restarts".

Among the more controversial ELVs was an attempt to curb the rolling maul by allowing the defending team to pull it down.

"There was a feeling that [the rolling maul] had become impossible to stop and some balance was needed," says Griffiths. The ELV did not, however, make it into law, with many observers feeling the outcome would kill a distinctive feature of the game.

And while laws continue to change, Griffiths believes it is unlikely a definitive set of rules will be settled on any time soon. "It is a process of evolution, as is the game as a whole," he says. "That is part of its appeal – it is a complex, intellectually challenging game and no set of circumstances is exactly the same, which forces players and referees to react to what is going on around them."

Despite the law changes, the beautiful complexity of rugby is unlikely to be diminished.[/b]