Hybrid rules continue to strangle rugby

Administrators needed to fix what is broken, but the intent is to muddle on

FRIDAY'S naming of SA Rugby's 12th Springbok coach since 1992 is top of mind at the moment but there are other pressing issues that should be occupying administrators.

There is the nettle of how to honour the assurance given the Southern Kings that they will play Super Rugby next year, what to do about waning crowds, how to fill the gaps left by some long-serving stalwarts, but unfortunately these localised problems will deflect attention from even bigger challenges.

Looking ahead to this overly-cluttered season it is astonishing the IRB proclaimed the game to be in ruddy health after the 2011 World Cup.

The standard of play was poor, the application of the laws incomprehensible and the attitude of teams questionable. Negativity was rewarded, with the result that it was too easy for teams to shut down games.

Yet the IRB told us that "with fewer set pieces, a substantial reduction in kicks from hand and many more passes, RWC 2011 saw a renewed emphasis on running rugby." What tournament were they watching?

To me, it was a case of statistics being manipulated to suit the purpose of the IRB's Game Analysis Unit.

For one thing, how could the game's rulers be thrilled that scrums and lineouts were reduced? Scrums and lineouts are intrinsic to rugby. Few if any sports contain such disparate yet key structures. Without scrums and lineouts we might as well be playing league.

It was also erroneous to interpret the ball being in play for longer as proof of running rugby. The ball is in play more because it is being endlessly single-passed among the forwards, to be hit up, recycled, passed and hit up again.

If anything, one expected 2012 to dawn with an announcement that the IRB was embarking on a massive exercise to re-write the laws, followed by a ruthless campaign to ensure they are uniformly applied.

The biggest complaint, from coaches, players and fans, is the inconsistency with which the laws are applied. But how can it be anything but when the game has strayed so far from the edicts of the law book?

Without too much effort, one can think of any number of laws incorrectly applied and thus open to subjective interpretation: the crooked scrum feed; defenders ahead of the last foot at rucks and mauls; players being nearer than 5m at scrums and closer than 10m at lineouts; hands in the ruck; joining the rucks and mauls from the side; the tackler not releasing the tackled player and getting back to his feet; playing the man without the ball (ie cleaning out at rucks and mauls); outside or blindside backs being blatantly off-side.

Can there be any wonder then that a manifestly aberrant refereeing performance such as Bryce Lawrence's in the quarter final between the Boks and the Wallabies occurs?

These are not the only anomalies. What of the four-stage "crouch-touch-pause-engage" scrum engagement sequence that causes so many problems? Is the "touch" not already a pause?

What of looking at whether the use of television replays (TMOs) is adequate or whether the scope should be extended?

I had hoped these things would be addressed, that SA Rugby with the pain of "that" quarterfinal still fresh in mind might have taken the lead to try to fix what is broken, but it seems the intent is to muddle on until it is announced that "no revision of the laws will be considered until after the next World Cup in 2015".