Taking a leap of faith with law changes
As has become an annual tradition, the powers that be have decided that the rules need a little bit of a shake-up. Though normally done to improve the quality of the rugby product, it looks like safety is the main motivation for the latest mooted changes. The major change that is now being trialed in the U20-Championship is lowering the maximum allowed height for a legal tackle (to the nipple line), but it’s another law that has been causing issues for a number of years now that is also potentially up for discussion: jumping to compete for high balls.
Mind-bogglingly high leaps have been one of the hallmarks of many great players’ games, particularly fullbacks. You only have to have seen the Waratahs play the Chiefs over last weekend to see how much of a bonus it can be having a player who’s capable of performing almost gravity-defying jumps. Israel Folau did his best to keep the Waratahs in the game by taking a number of kick-offs he had no right to stake a claim to.
Over the years, the law interpretations seemed to have regularly changed when it comes to competing for the ball in the air. The current law stipulates that “a player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground” – it seems fairly clear that you can’t intentionally take out a jumping player, but things get a bit murkier when there’s no intention involved – for example, when multiple players are competing for the ball.
Seemingly left to the referee’s interpretation, it’s hard to predict who’s going to be penalised when two players are competing for the ball in the air. To an observer, the general interpretation seems to be that when competing for high ball, a player that jumps second will be punished if they collide with the first jumper. If both players jump at the same time then either no one is punished, or the player who fails to catch the ball is punished. Basically, don’t jump unless you know that you’re going to get the ball – otherwise you’re risking a penalty or worse.
In the heat of the game it can obviously be quite difficult to judge whether or not you’re going to win the air battle, which creates a bit of a conundrum. At present, players can either compete for the ball and risk being disciplined, or not compete for the ball, thus removing a key contest from the game.
The other, potentially more infuriating issue, is how players who don’t jump for the ball are dealt with. In a situation where a jumper propels himself forward (as is almost always going to happen when the fullback rushes forward to take a high ball), players on the ground, by the letter of the law, have to actively get out of the way of the jumping player. Think back to the ITM Cup match last year between Tasman and Taranaki when Viliami Lolohea was red carded for twice being caught underneath jumping players – Lolohea never attempted tackles on either of the jumpers, but because they jumped over and into him, he was punished.
A general dangerous play law exists in the rulebook that states “players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others” – which is ostensibly a catch-all for anything the referee feels the need to punish on the day. Whilst not moving out of the way of a jumping player may fall under the category of “dangerous to others”, it seems somewhat harsh to penalise a player for standing his ground.
The fact that there are no laws designating when it is or isn’t ok to jump creates a big issue – as was seen on last year’s Lions Tour. When Connor Murray delivered a poor pass to Kyle Sinckler, Sinckler jumped to catch the ball instead of just reaching up to grab it. Charlie Faumuina was then penalised for tackling Sinckler in the air. The Lions received the benefit of Murray’s poor pass when it should have helped the All Blacks. If Murray’s pass had been straight into the breadbasket, would Sinckler have been allowed to leap into Faumuina’s arms?
There are some extremely obvious cases where it makes sense to penalise a player on the ground for taking out a jumping player, but it seems that more often than not the call is not so easy to make.
Apart from completely avoiding an area two or three metres around where a high ball should be falling, it can sometimes be impossible to avoid putting a jumping player in a dangerous position. Simply keeping clear from the impact area hardly seems like a smart solution because it will create huge open spaces for catching players to run into. This begs the question, should jumping be removed from the modern game?
Perhaps purists will argue that competing for high balls is a rugby tradition, that removing the aerial battle will remove some competition from the game, but the fact of the matter is that fitness levels and athletic abilities are higher now than ever before – jumps are higher and falls are heavier. Even if two players both observe the rules to the T, it’s inevitable that there are going to be some incredibly dangerous mid-air collisions. You could argue that the way the laws are interpreted now means that the aerial battle has already been somewhat subdued – players have to sit back and wait for a player to jump or face some pretty hefty consequences.
There will be suggestions that if jumping is banned, it won’t be long before the rest of the traditional rules are tinkered with and the game is turned soft. Rule changes are, however, almost exclusively independent of one another. There’s no reason why outlawing jumping should have an impact on any other aspect of the game.
Many will not agree with removing jumping from open play, and that’s their prerogative – they think it’s a key part of the game, for right or for wrong. But how often do you read a match report discussing how important jumping was in the match? Israel Folau’s recent work aside, it’s a fairly rare occurrence. How often do you read about how a game was marred due to a strange or inconsistent yellow card decision?
Jumping may well be a rugby tradition, but sometimes traditions need to be let go in order to move forward. Maybe removing jumping altogether isn’t the way forward, but something certainly needs to be done about the current laws.
In other news:
Comments on RugbyPass
Great insight into the performance culture with Sarries and I predict Christie will be a fixture in the Scotland team now for some time to come. However, he is slightly missing his own point around Scotland “being soft” when he cites physicality examples in defence of that slight. The issue is much closer to the example he referenced around feeling off before a game but being told “it doesn’t matter, you can still play well” by Farrell. Until Scotland can get their psyche in that square, they will carry on folding under extreme pressure…
1 Go to comments> We are having to adapt, evolve and innovate more than when we were in Super Rugby where there was only really one style that everybody had to play to gain the most success. Have = able to? Interesting what that one style might be? I thought SA sides still had bad tours now, or at least bad schedule, months away? Those extra few hours flights have to be a killer though, no surprise to see their sides doing so badly at the start of the season each year. I wouldn’t enjoy that unfairness as a supporter.
4 Go to commentsThe problem for NZ, and Aus, is they ripped up the SR model and lost a massive chunk of revenue that hasn’t been replaced. Don’t forget SA clubs went North because they were left with no choice, Argy unceremoniously binned and Japan cast adrift. Now SR wasn’t perfect, far from it, but they’ve jumped into something without an effective plan, so far, to replace what they’ve lost. The biggest revenue potential now lies in Japan but it won’t be easy or quick to unlock, they are incredibly insular in culture as a nation. In the meantime, there is a serious time bomb sitting under SH rugby and if it happens then the current financial challenges will look like a picnic. IF the Boks follow their provincial teams and head north then it’s revenue meltdown. Not guaranteed to happen but the status quo is a very odd hybrid, with the Boks pointing one way and the clubs pointing the other way. And for as long as that remains then the threat is real.
35 Go to commentsI think Etene has had some good tuition, likely while at the Warriors to be a professional that helped his rugby jump, but he was certainly thrown in the deep end way too early. Should have arguably 20 less SR caps, and therefor a way better record that he does at his age, but his development would have been fast tracked by the need to satiate his signing away from league. Again, credit to him and others that he has done it so well. Easy to fall over under that pressure in the big leagues like that but he kept at it when I myself wasn’t sure he was good enough.
1 Go to commentsAwesome story. I wonder what a bigger American (SA) scene might have mean for Brex.
1 Go to comments“Johnny McNicholl and the Crusaders” save a Penney. Who has been in camp this week and showed them how to play?
5 Go to commentsSo, reports of the Crusaders’ demise / terminal decline are perhaps just - slightly - premature/exaggerated…? 🤔 Will we see a deep-dive into that by the estimable Rugbypass scribes, and maybe one or two mea culpas? Thought not.
5 Go to comments1. The Chiefs are rudderless without DMac, which enhances his AB chances 2. Chiefs pack are powderpuffs. The hard men arent there anymore 3. They had their golden title chance last yr and wont threaten this yr. Gone in second round of playoffs.
5 Go to commentsHonestly, why did you have to publish such a foolish article the day they play us? 😂
35 Go to comments> They are not standalone entities. They are linked to an amateur association which holds the FFR licence that allows the professional side to compete in the league. That’s a great rule. This looks like the chicken or egg professional scenario. How long is it going to be before the club can break even (if that is even a thing in French rugby)? If the locals aren’t into well it would be good to se them drop to amateur level (is it that far?). Hope they can reset from this level and be more practical, there will be a time when they can rebuild (if France has there setup right).
1 Go to commentsWhat about changing the ball? To something heavier and more pointed that bounces unpredictably. Not this almost round football used these days.
35 Go to commentsThis is the problem with conservative mindsets and phycology, and homogenous sports, everybody wants to be the same, use the i-win template. Athlete wise everyone has to have muscles and work at the gym to make themselves more likely to hold on that one tackle. Do those players even wonder if they are now more likely to be tackled by that player as a result of there “work”? Really though, too many questions, Jake. Is it better Jake? Yes, because you still have that rugby of ole that you talk about. Is it at the highest International level anymore? No, but you go to your club or checkout your representative side and still engage with that ‘beautiful game’. Could you also have a bit of that at the top if coaches encouraged there team to play and incentivized players like Damian McKenzie and Ange Capuozzo? Of course we could. Sadly Rugby doesn’t, or didn’t, really know what direction to go when professionalism came. Things like the state of northern pitches didn’t help. Over the last two or three decades I feel like I’ve been fortunate to have all that Jake wants. There was International quality Super Rugby to adore, then the next level below I could watch club mates, pulling 9 to 5s, take on the countries best in representative rugby. Rugby played with flair and not too much riding on the consequences. It was beautiful. That largely still exists today, but with the world of rugby not quite getting things right, the picture is now being painted in NZ that that level of rugby is not required in the “pathway” to Super Rugby or All Black rugby. You might wonder if NZR is right and the pathway shouldn’t include the ‘amateur’, but let me tell you, even though the NPC might be made up of people still having to pull 9-5s, we know these people still have dreams to get out of that, and aren’t likely to give them. They will be lost. That will put a real strain on the concept of whether “visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon” type rugby will remain under the professional level here in NZ. I think at some point that can be eroded as well. If only wanting the best athlete’s at the top level wasn’t enough to lose that, shutting off the next group, or level, or rugby players from easy access to express and showcase themselves certainly will. That all comes back around to the same question of professionalism in rugby and whether it got things right, and rugby is better now. Maybe the answer is turning into a “no”?
35 Go to commentsWow, didn’t realise there was such apathy to URC in SA, or by Champions Cup teams. Just read Nick’s article on Crusaders, are Sharks a similar circumstance? I think SA rugby has been far more balanced than NZs, no?
3 Go to commentsBut here in Australia we were told Penney was another gun kiwi coach, for the Tahs…….and yet again it turned out the kiwi coach was completely useless. Another con job on Australian rugby. As was Robbie Deans, as was Dave Rennie. Both coaches dumped from NZ and promoted to Australia as our saviour. And the Tahs lap them up knowing they are second rate and knowing that under pressure when their short comings are exposed in Australia as well, that they will fall in below the largest most powerful province and choose second rate Tah players to save their jobs. As they do and exactly as Joe Schmidt will do. Gauranteed. Schmidt was dumped by NZ too. That’s why he went overseas. That why kiwi coaches take jobs in Australia, to try and prove they are not as bad as NZ thought they were. Then when they get found out they try and ingratiate themselves to NZ again by dragging Australian teams down with ridiculous selections and game plans. NZ rugby’s biggest problem is that it can’t yet transition from MCaw Cheatism. They just don’t know how to try and win on your merits. It is still always a contest to see how much cheating you can get away with. Without a cheating genius like McCaw, they are struggling. This I think is why my wise old mate in NZ thinks Robertson will struggle. The Crusaders are the nursery of McCaw Cheatism. Sean Fitzpatrick was probably the father of it. Robertson doesn’t know anything else but other countries have worked it out.
35 Go to commentsIt could be coincidental or prescient that the All Blacks most dominant period under Steve Hansen was when the Crusaders had their least successful period under Todd Blackadder and then the positions reversed when Razor took over the Crusaders.
35 Go to commentsDefinitely sound read everybodyexpects immediate results these days, I don't think any team would travel well at all having lost three of the most important game changers in the game,compiled with the massive injury list they are now carrying, good to see a different more in depth perspective of a coaches history.
3 Go to commentsSinckler is a really big loss for English rugby.
2 Go to commentsThanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause
35 Go to commentsNo way. If you are trying to picture New Zealand rugby with an All Blacks mindset, there have been two factors instrumental to the decline of NZ rugby to date. Those are the horror that the Blues have become and, probably more so, the fixture that the Crusaders became. I don’t think it was healthy to have one team so dominant for so long, both for lack of proper representation of players from outside that environment and on the over reliance on players from within it. If you are another international side, like Ireland for example, sure. You can copy paste something succinct from one level to the next and experience a huge increase in standards, but ultimately you will not be maximizing it, which is what you need to perform to the level the ABs do. Added to that is the apathy that develops in the whole game as a result of one sides dominance. NZ, Super, and Championship rugby should all experience a boom as a result of things balancing out. That said, there is a lot of bad news happening in NZ rugby recently, and I’m not sure the game can be handled well enough here to postpone the always-there feeling of inevitable decline of rugby.
35 Go to commentsNo SA supporter miss Super Rugby - a product that is experiencing significant head wind in ANZ - the competition from rival codes are intense, match attendance figures are at a historical low and the negativity of commentators such as Kirwan and Wilson have accelerated the downward spiral in NZ. After the next RWC in 2027 sponsors will follow Qantas and start leaving in droves.
4 Go to comments