Nervous breakdown: Rugby’s 40-20 plan is ‘dumbing down’
Opinion: Rugby union should work with the existing rules instead of trying an illconsidered imitation of league’s 40-20, writes Stuart Barnes.
The road to rugby league is paved with good intentions. Or something like that. The most high-profile of World Rugby’s latest package of new law proposals to be considered for trials after the World Cup is the adaptation of league’s 40-20 kick.
In this instance, the governing body’s tweak makes it a 50-22 kick.
Kick the ball from your own half and bounce it into touch in the opposing 22. The ‘‘attacking’’ side, who kicked the ball away, then get the throw at the lineout.
But what works in league is surplus to requirements in union.
I have been known to disagree with the pronouncements of Eddie Jones but there is no doubt that the England coach knows a thing or two about union. After England’s victory over Ireland in the Six Nations on February 2, he elaborated at some length on the subject of ‘‘space’’ within union.
There is always space if the team understands and is good enough to manipulate it.
If a team rushes in defence, there is room to kick behind. France found that out to their cost in their defeat at Twickenham. Drop a few players out of the often 14-man defensive line and the opportunity to spin the ball through the hand becomes available.
Union does not need the 50-22 experiment for a host of reasons.
Primarily the reasons are linked to the not-so-subtle differences between the codes. The scrum is a restart and nothing more in league. In union it can be an attacking weapon. Much as there seems to be logic in downgrading all those penalties that leave us scratching heads on the sideline, accurate refereeing of the scrum is at the heart of union.
If you concede supremacy at the scrum, you can concede points, territory and even the match. Hence a side should be forced to focus on the scrum. Pick some hefty men who may not be the most mobile defenders. There is one help for the positive forces of the sport.
In addition, having eight men bound in the scrum opens up options for No 8s and halfbacks to create opportunities near the set piece in a way that cannot occur within league, where its solitary role is restart.
Rugby committee chairman John Jeffrey has pointed out that a scrum lasts 62 seconds on average. Yes, that is a disgrace, but downsizing its importance is not the answer to the game’s problems.
Then there is the ubiquitous breakdown.
In league the tackle is made and the ball is pushed back through the legs of the tackled player – five times. In union, the breakdown was once a contest involving seven or eight players, pushing and shoving over the tackler and tackled man for the possibility of possession.
The ‘‘jackal’’ – when a defender gets his hands on the ball after a tackle, while staying on his feet – short-circuited the ruck, as it was once quaintly known.
When men such as David Pocock lock on to the ball there is no reason to contest it . . . and so the game evolved into one with no more than the solitary defender marking the tackled space, the rest stretched across the field.
One retired World Cup final referee shakes his head at the simplicity of what must be done: stop players using hands in the breakdown. Suddenly the ruck is a contest and, hey presto, there is space in which to play.
League has its 40-20 ruling because it does not have a battle at the breakdown. Not to understand this profound discrepancy between the sport is to understand neither code.
Where does this ill-considered option leave the game? Encouraging players to kick the ball away and retain possession.
I love running rugby as much as the next man but union is a question of balance. Giving the team in possession an extra three or four-man advantage only makes the art of passing into a mundane one. It is dumbing down on a mass scale.
The game has not considered making rugby balls narrower. The presence of a few deep-lying defenders will not prevent the sport from finding a few kicking geniuses who will pin teams back from first to last.
We don’t want to create a generation of kicking No 10s but nor do we want them to be pure passers. But this 50-22 idea encourages extremes.
Jones was absolutely right: there is always space in the game. We need to encourage players who can think their team’s way into that space.
Of course, player welfare looms above all other considerations. Rugby’s tackle count has never been higher because of the bodies strung out across the pitch. Well, how about taking the laws in existence seriously? Shoulder ‘‘hits’’ (I won’t call them tackles) should be outlawed. The late emergence of the second arm is no defence. Be draconian with high and standing tackles, too.
Tip tackles have almost been eliminated by strong officiating. If anyone has not noticed, there are also fewer horrendous aerial collisions as referees adopt something close to a zerotolerance policy.
At the rare breakdown, the laws state that players must be bound on entry, either to one’s own or an opposing player. That makes it impossible to smash into opponents with the injurycreating ferocity we see so often.
Referees do not seem to bother with that law. Let’s try refereeing what is in front of our eyes before we inject half-cocked notions designed for another sport.
Let’s try refereeing what is in front of our eyes before we inject half-cocked notions designed for another sport.