Blame the Ref

So the Sale vs Wasps postponement debacle has reached a thrilling conclusion.  Yes that's right, it was all the ref's fault.

A written verdict from Monday's Premier Rugby disciplinary panel has revealed that referee David Rose applied an International Rugby Board law instead of a Premier Rugby regulation.  Oops.

According to the powers that be, Rosey "did not state to Wasps that he was the only person entitled to decide whether or not the pitch was fit to play and did not state sufficiently clearly to Wasps his decision that the fixture should be played given that, in his view, the pitch was fit for play."

The almighty Gods of Premier Rugby continue:
"Had the referee's decision about the fitness of the pitch and/or its communication to Wasps been clearer, Wasps would have been in breach of the regulations as alleged, if they had then refused to play the fixture."

OK so that's clear then.  As clear as the mud on the Edgeley Park pitch.

Still not smelling of roses

This isn't the first time this season that referee David Rose has been in the limelight for all the wrong reasons.  If you're not aware, it was the lovely David who incorrectly disallowed Hendre Fourie's try in the Saracens vs Leeds game - a try which had it stood, would have won the game for Leeds.  We Leeds fans have long memories you see Mr. Rose, not that I'm suggesting your current situation has anything to do with the hex I put on you, or the incantations I repeat every night before I go to bed.  No, nothing of the sort.

If truth be told I have to say that for once I'm on the referee's side.  Is it just me or does the judgement from Premier Rugby sound like the biggest cop out ever?  Fine, so there was a loophole where the ref didn't assert himself as much as he probably should have done and his decision wasn't seen to be final.  Did the presence of Wasps' lawyer at Edgeley Park have anything to do with this I wonder?  Either way, now that we have been told that the referee's decision as to whether it is safe for a game to be played IS final then surely this kind of fiasco can never happen again.

And for God's sake, give all the referees some training so if this situation does crop up in the future at least they can speak with authority about the differences between an innocuous patch of mud and a potentially dangerous pitch.

See Rosey, even though you suck at your job I'm still defending you.  Surely that's got to be five Guinness Premiership karma points for Leeds?

Zzzzzzzzzz Ping-Pong?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the Autumn Internationals fizzled rather than sizzled. 

OK so there were a few good games.  Scotland vs Australia was a tense defensive affair, Ireland vs South Africa was pulsating game (even though I felt like I was watching "Gorillas in the Mist" at times with the fog at Croke Park), whilst the game between France and New Zealand was by far and away the best game of the lot.  This game proved that rugby doesn't have to sacrifice itself to constant route one ball if teams play with attacking flair and display a desire to play with the ball in their hands rather than have it flying off their feet. 

Still, despite the odd exception, on the whole this November's array of international rugby was really rather drab.

Wake me up when they start playing love

Yesterday the IRB decided not to change any laws to try and spice up the game before the Rugby World Cup in two years time.  I can understand this as it is a bit of a risk so late in the World Cup cycle, but by leaving the laws alone it does seems that the short term future for rugby is one of the following two options:

Option 1:
Players will become increasingly fearful of being turned over or penalised whilst running with the ball due to the current interpretation of the laws at the breakdown as they seem to favour the defending team.  This will transform rugby into a burly game of 15-a-side ping-pong, with players anxious to kick the ball away and hope their opposition messes up before they do, all with tedious results.

Option 2:
Players will think: Sod all this kicking malarkey.  I want to play rugby, not some game of glorified gorilla tennis.  This will result in players zipping round the pitch, offloading for fun and avoiding the big, lurching forwards who amble around the pitch attempting to snaffle the ball off them at the breakdown.

Is this the future?

I prey to the Gods of Rugby that all teams take heed of Australia and New Zealand's performances in their final games of the autumn series and run with the ball.  If you're not isolated and left to die in possession then the mysteries surrounding the breakdown are of little consequence.  This is because you'll be far too busy trotting under the posts to dab the ball down instead of rolling around on the floor with some fat bloke looming over you as he attempts to rip the ball out of your muddy little hands.

Are we in for plenty of snore-fest rugby ping-pong over the next two years?

I hope not.

For Ruck's Sake!

The International Rugby Board council meets next week, and with more players spending time on the physio's bench rather than trotting around the pitch it is highly likely that changes to the laws of the game might be on the agenda.  The number of players out injured at any given time in a Guinness Premiership squad is estimated to be around 25%.  This coupled with the perception that crowds are being forced to prop their eyelids open due to the many snore-inducing games of defensive ping-pong rugby, means that the game is in danger of damaging its appeal to fans and young players like. 

Sure there are always exceptionally exciting games, and yes some games are fascinating and nail-biting without including a rake of tries.  Look at the Scotland vs Australia game last weekend for example.  There was a solitary try but it was a tense, exciting game.  However, on the whole it could be argued that the champagne rugby of yesteryear has been replaced by a rather depressing looking bottle of flat cider.  Not very appetizing.

I apologise as I'm going to go all Statto now, but I think it proves a point: 
This year the average number of tries per game in the autumn internationals (to date) is 2.86.  In 2007 it was 7 tries per game.  Last year the average number of tries scored in a Guinness Premiership game was 4.12.  So far this season it is a measly 2.63.  A quick glance at the Premiership table reveals only five attacking bonus points have been won this year as opposed to twenty three losing bonus points.

Yes, defensive play is the new black.

So what are the solutions to nip this tedium in the bud and get teams playing expansive exciting rugby whilst moving to reduce the number of injuries? 

Here are a few suggestions that are currently doing the rounds, some which I agree with - others not so much.

Rucking good fun

Bring back rucking
Quick ball anyone?  Yes please.  Then I say bring back rucking.  Oh no, but mummy and daddy won't let little Timmy play if rucking is brought back as it's far too rough.  Yes, I can see their point, but as Peter de Villiers rightly said: it ain't tiddlywinks folks.  OK, so Timmy might get a few scratches on his back, but after he's been rucked a couple of times he'll know to get his arse out of the there as soon as possible.  The net effect?  A few red marks and much quicker ball.  Oh, and don't sweat it Timmy: as you'll discover in a few years time - chicks dig scars.


Rolling substitutions?
The RFU taskforce brought together after the rather long and drawn out 'Bloodgate' scandal suggested the introduction of rugby league-style "rolling substitutions" as one possible way of dealing with the increasingly physical nature of the modern game.  Is this really an answer or will it encourage players to pile on the muscle at the expense of their stamina and fitness because they won't be expected to last eighty minutes anymore?  (Well in truth, can any man really last that long?)  I think that rolling substitutions would only encourage there to be bigger players and this won't actually resolve the injury issues as they will still continue to run into each other.  I don't want to see rugby turn into some hackneyed version of the NFL, where a specialist team of "Scrummagers" stomps onto the pitch only to be replaced by a fleet of twinkled toe prancers once the ball is back in their own half.  Not that I really imagine that this will happen, but it's a scary thought none the less.

Bring in an Independent Doctor
This would make sure that Tom (Dick or Harry) haven't been chewing on blood capsules and they really have got a cut lip, bless them.  Then again, how would an independent doctor be able to tell if the replacement hooker really has stumbled off with 'concussion', or if it is just a tactical ploy to save his team from being annihilated in the scrum and instead allow them to bend over and tickle each other's bums like they do in rugby league with the easier uncontested version?

Two heads sometimes aren't better than one

Reducing the number of substitutions?
Hmm, interesting.  This would place the importance firmly on player fitness and probably reduce the number of pie-eating props ambling round.  Well they'd have to get in shape, otherwise their lack of fitness would see a parade of tries being waltzed in by the opposition whilst they flail around on the touchline begging for gas and air.

The 10 metre Mark
With the breakdown shrouded in mystery like some sort of black art, and with referees all to quick too penalise the attacker for holding on to the ball for 0.1 seconds once they've been tackled, it's no surprise that the ball carrier would rather aimlessly hoof the ball up field rather than risk having half a dozen fat blokes fall on them and then get pinged for not releasing.  However, if the defending team could 'mark' the ball anywhere up to the 10-metre line in their half (or maybe even up to halfway?) it would deter aimless kicking and open up the game.  If you're going to kick then it had better be good.  In principal I like this idea, although it would need to be trialled to see if it has the desired effect.

Crouch.  Touch.  Pause.  Engage.
This new mantra at scrum time was brought in to help protect those playing in the front row, but since this has been introduced, how often have you seen a scrum disintegrate and result in a free kick?  Lots.  Maybe referees need to go to scrum school and sort out how they're going to police scrums once and for all.


So there you go.  What do you think?

Whether the IRB will go ahead and change any laws before the 2011 World Cup remains to be seen, but with the mounting injuries and the vogue for pointless kicking, maybe their hand will be forced.

We will see next week.



.