Probyn: Watching soft tries doesn’t equal entertainment
Tries, are they what define the game or are they just another way of entertaining some people who don’t really have a full understanding of the game of rugby? The Times headline last week: ‘Is scoring getting boring?’ asked a question and then answered it in its own way, but didn’t explain why.
Would people with little or no knowledge of the game still turn on and watch if the number of tries per game were steadily decreasing instead of increasing? Obviously not, in the mind of World Rugby, as they continue to try and make the game ‘attractive’ to a new audience by making it easier for the team in possession to score, and limiting what a defender can legitimately do to turn over the ball.
From decreasing the power in the scrums while allowing a crooked feed, to removing rucks, proper mauls and allowing lineout lifting, laws also allow backs to jump in the air while catching a ball so they can’t be challenged, and there has been a changing priority at the breakdown, so everything is now weighted towards the team in possession.
This removes elements of competition from all aspects of the game.
The idea of a game for all shapes and sizes is born from competition across the pitch from 1 to 15 where size wasn’t everything and the old phrase ‘a good big one will always beat a good little one’ was not only disproved but totally dispelled by so many great players of the past who used skill and strength, not size, to enthral a knowledgeable crowd.
Rugby was a game played by 15 players (over a full 80 minutes), who relied on the tactical ability of each player to use his unique skills, maintain his strength, fitness and energy to last for the whole game, while attempting to wear down his opposition, physically and mentally, to take advantage in the final quarter, as the match reached its crescendo.
Now, we have a squad of 23 allowing over half the team to be replaced by a coach who monitors all for signs of fatigue or failure in his selected group as a game progresses.
What was once akin to a game of chess with players testing opponents’ skills in defence and attack and trying to create space to exploit, has now morphed into a game of attrition.
Power players attempt to browbeat the opposition into submission with a series of endless pick-up and charges round the side of the breakdown into the waiting arms of equally big defenders until it’s their time (around 50-60 minutes) to be replaced.
The simple facts the game relied on, were a knowledgeable crowd who had, at minimum, a basic understanding of the laws and how the game was played, and for both teams to have a roughly equal ability to capture the ball at any breakdown in play.
In scrums, it was not unusual for a tighthead to strike for the ball, securing possession against the head. The lineout with lifting banned, relied on players to use skill and timing to outwit the opposition to win the ball.
Rucks were a way for the opposition to turn over the ball by getting more players to the breakdown and driving over the prone bodies on the ground.
Mauls were a wrestle for the ball with the ball at the front of the maul instead of at the back protected by a phalanx of offside players in front of the ball carrier.
When the ball was moved wide, the backs sought to create or find space to run into, rather than an opponent to run into.
Tries were hard to come by and so were much celebrated when achieved, and it was also much harder to accumulate points by kicking goals, particularly as referees seemed more reluctant to give so many penalties for minor offences.
Over the years, the balance has swung from tries to kicking penalties as the best way to win a game, and it is the attempts by World Rugby to redress the balance that has been the driving force behind the law changes making try scoring much easier.
That should have been obvious to anyone who remembers the start of Super Rugby, when every game saw a plethora of tries and a big drop in the number of spectators, which reflected the importance of competition.
Rather than making tries easier to score, World Rugby should have reduced the influence of goal-kickers by restricting where and for what a kick at goal could be taken.
A simple way to redress the balance could be allowing goal kicks only for technical offences within the 22 metre zones, but from anywhere for foul play. That could stop games being won or lost because a referee doesn’t like the way a prop is binding.
Yes, you want your team to score more than the opposition but it is how the points are scored that adds to the excitement and entertainment that attracts a paying public.
A game that is full of competitive play which ends in a nil nil draw would enthral a crowd with the nuances of the competition across the pitch far more than a game of 40 points each with no competition. So in answer to the question posed in
The Times: scoring isn’t boring if there is a competitive build up and teams have to work much harder and together to achieve it.
I can’t help thinking that Joe Marler must be kicking himself having walked away just when his rivals have been injured and he could have made the shirt his own.
“Rather than making tries easier to score World Rugby should have reduced the influence of goalkickers”