Offside revision has snuck in under radar
IT is best not to be cynical, but politicians have a habit of trying to bury bad news when there is lots going on.
On no account do you release the news when there is a lull in political events and you certainly do not let it out when there is nothing going on.
The start of the Six Nations is a big event – as big as it gets - and if you like conspiracy theories you might have wondered why two important announcements were almost buried by the imminent clashes concerning England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Italy.
It is probably a mere coincidence, but the offside law in rugby has been quietly ‘revised.’
This is an odd one as World Rugby chose the term ‘revised’ very carefully as there is supposed to be no change in Laws in a World Cup year.
So to make everything tickety-boo, the wording of Law 15.4 is a revision and not a law change and this is to try to end the confusion that was apparent after Sam Underhill appeared to score what was probably a match-winning try against New Zealand in the Autumn international at Twickenham.
It is all meant to be crystal-clear and it is now the case that the offside line at a ruck will no longer be the hindmost foot, but, and this takes some working out, on the hindmost point of any player from either team.
This can cover any part of the player’s anatomy and it does not have to be a foot on the turf.
The problem with rugby is that different people see so many interpretations on just about every aspect of play and the breakdown is a nightmare.
When Courtenay Lawes came to charge down the kick from the New Zealand scrum half, you would be well advised to hire a QC to sort out the law because there was a strong case for each decision that was possible.
As you tend to see what you want to see, the England supporters thought it was perfectly legitimate for Lawes to be where he was – and, of course, the Kiwi followers thought he was miles offside.
We are told that the subtle change in words and definition will make life easier for referees and will be of benefit.
But if rugby runs true to form, this one may come back to haunt us.
The back-foot interpretation has been understood and accepted for many years and players have developed a sixth sense by conditioning the reflexes as to what they can legitimately do.
That has now changed and the forwards in particular will need to carry a Law book in their pockets.
There has been legitimate alarm at the rise in concussions in the game and the RFU carried out a test period to find out if a lower tackle might make the game safer.
That trial took place during the 36 opening games of the Championship Cup where the permitted line of tackle went down to a line across the armpits.
This was a partial success in that the results showed that there was a 41% decrease in the number of tackles where contact was made with the head or neck of the man with the ball, yet the incidence of cases of concussion rose in spite of the measures.
The trial was halted with seven knock-out games remaining, but statistics can be misleading.
The rise in concussion cases may have been a mere blip and it is possible that the graph of incidence could fall dramatically for the rest of time.
A clinical experiment on a new drug would go on forever and a day so that ‘odd’ results could be ironed out and a true picture can be gained on the efficacy of the test.
There is little to be gained by a short experiment as negative, short-term figures would be hard to live with.
Yet the experiment may have led to some real progress if it had been given time for the figures to flatten out.
The increase in concussions in the short term might well have been followed by very few for the rest of a longer experiment.
Once you start meddling with the laws of any game, you can get results that are the total opposite of what you wanted to achieve.
We shall never know the true results of the experiment because it was never given a long enough period to get an answer that ploughed through the highs and the lows of injury numbers and offered a valid, definitive conclusion.