The laws already work, refs need to apply them
At last the rugby famine is over, with New Zealand’s Aotearoa competition kicking off last weekend, and Australia hopefully following on in a fortnight’s time. The huge crowds for last weekend’s games showed just how much the game had been missed, and it was our first chance to see the more rigorous application of the game’s laws by the referees.
I can’t for the life of me understand why we ever got into the mess whereby we selectively ignored some laws! It really is very simple: the rules of any sport should reflect the way it will be officiated – if any of those aren’t fit for purpose then change them.
Shame on World Rugby and the Unions for ever letting us get into this situation, and while New Zealand’s focus is on the tackle area, there are plenty of other laws where we’ve fallen into the trap of allowing ‘interpretation’ by referees.
Anyway, the stricter application of the laws around the tackle was interesting, and in the first two games led to a penaltyfest as players struggled to adapt to it. Over the two games there were 58 penalties, which is about 50 per cent higher than the average in Super Rugby last season, and on average seven penalties per game were for offside – the NZRU’s referees manager, Bryce Lawrence, said that last season the average was two.
This has to be good news as every Premiership fan will have moaned about the opposition being repeatedly offside, and it going unpunished. All of those offside penalties were awarded on the advice of the assistant referees who generally are the ones who can see the offside line.
It’s early days, but one other change in law application might be even more significant. It’s one of life’s mysteries how referees have let players launch themselves into the breakdown like guided missiles, but only acted when it looked really bad. Last weekend those acts were getting penalised, and anecdotal evidence suggests that players felt better physically the following day.
There have been worries for years about players becoming bigger, and the collisions ever more fierce – it’s a contact sport and big tackles are a part of the game, but huge blokes going off their feet and diving into a ruck with force is dangerous, and will now be penalised.
It would be great if the referees in our leagues told coaches and players that when we eventually restart they intend to apply the laws with the same rigour, especially at the breakdown. Enough of different interpretations in the PRO14, the Top 14 and the Premiership – let’s simply apply the laws consistently and the game will be much better for it.
I ’ve never liked Swing Low Sweet Chariot (SLSC) in the context of rugby for a number of reasons, and now we’re hearing that the RFU are reviewing the ‘historical context’ of the song in the light of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Singing SLSC at matches is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it’s a bit of a mystery why it ever caught on. I first heard it at a dinner where a large proportion of the audience leapt to their feet and gave a rousing rendition, complete with sometimes lewd hand gestures!
The anthem is reckoned to have first appeared at Twickenham during the Middlesex Sevens in the late 80s when it was sung as a tribute to Martin ‘Chariots’ Offiah, but quite why it was then adopted as England’s unofficial anthem is beyond me.
The current focus on SLSC is because its author is believed to have been Wallis Willis, a former slave on an Oklahoma plantation who wrote it in the 1840s, something that I doubt many knew until last week.
However, now they do understand its origins, I can’t understand why singing it is in any way disrespectful to its composer or his struggles.
I would hope that the RFU’s response will simply be to put a feature about Wallis Willis and SLSC in the programme at England matches, while encouraging fans to sing something a bit more relevant.
I’ve always believed that
Jerusalem should be England rugby’s song – at least it makes reference to England! However, if, after a few pints, supporters want to bellow out SLSC, let them do it – while it might be an irrelevant dirge, it’s in no way disrespectful to its author or his heritage.