Government on back foot

What if the laws of the Country were formed in the same way as the laws of Rugby...

...The Coalition Government announces measures that will transform the way legislation is drafted in the Palace of Westminster. The Prime Minister's Spokesman, Harry Mole:

"I can announce that as of Monday, the Cabinet will meet in an agreeable Dublin Hotel for a spot of lunch to see if there are any problems with the running of the country. If there are they will propose a new law to deal with the specific problem, possibly after trialling it in South African Universities. Another benefit is that the Queens speech will from now on be a lot shorter! Currently on the agenda for next week are neighbours not returning lawn mowers. A consultation is ongoing as to calling a scrum if the mower is not returned within five days..."

It won't happen of course, they would never get away with it. The IRB however it seems can get away failing to formulate Laws in any kind of coherent or holistic manner, churning out one reactionary, prescriptive law after another. What has set me off on this rant? News from Brian Moore on twitter that: "#IRB to introduce 5 sec law for keeping ball at the back of the ruck"

The problem? Fans get irate when scrum halves decide the ball is slow, do the pointy-pointy thing to three forwards, rearrange some legs on the floor (and their makeup) bend down slowly, hands hovering above the ball...pause...and lob the ball to said forwards. Of course the opposition know exactly what's coming and tackle the said forwards (who are standing still getting the ball) three yards across the field from where the previous ruck was. The scrum half decides the ball is slow...and it starts all over again.

The IRB's answer? "Thou shalt not hold ye ball at the base of a ruck for more than a count of five or a scrum shall visit ye"

Leave aside that the scrum currently at the top level is a farce, when does the five seconds start? Will the Scrum half be allowed to ruck stray legs and will the five seconds start before or after legs have been moved? Back rows and backs can count and will be flying up in defence on a count of 4.5

This is a classic problem with prescriptive laws. You solve a problem and your solution tends to create other problems (the law of unintended consequences) which then need a solution of their own! You end up with massive books of Laws and cumbersome and worse inconsistent, even discriminatory enforcement. There is a way to limit the effect of this multiplier however and it is to look upstream.

The question the IRB should be asking themselves is; what is the root cause of this problem? The answer is, of course, the 'back foot' law. It is this law that means that, in a handling game, the other team cannot compete for the ball as they cannot get to it legally. This is not the only problem arising from this law. Its other products are; teams not having to commit forwards to rucks and fanning out in defence, the 'pod system', forwards hogging the midfield, and the sight of grown men impersonating a caterpillar with their shoulder on the backside of the man leaning down in front of them like some sort of surreal playground game. In other words, many of the ills of the modern game. It's time to get rid of this Golden Calf.

So my message to the IRB is simple. Don't fiddle around at the edges,get stuck in to a review of the whole bloated law book and you can start with your 'back foot' law.

You lost me with your penultimate paragraph, but I agree. It's an overly prescriptive solution. However, it could work at the discretion of the referees.

If the law is only enforced when the scrum-half is believed to be deliberately slowing down the ball it could work. "Use it or lose it", then he has five seconds. Otherwise it's hard to see it working well.

It's black and white on paper, but when it gets to the pitch there will be so many shades of grey the refs will take flack for their wildly different interpretations necessary to make it work.

That's exactly the problem I think Notch. Each ref is different, they will ref this law differently, teams will learn that and then it'll be yet another stupid case of teams "playing the ref" instead of just playing the game.

Brian Moore understands (he indicated as much on radio last Saturday) that the fiddle-faddling of scrum halves at the back of breakdowns is going to be dealt with soon by the IRB. No law change is required. Just the 'use it' call.

There's a new trend for long tunnel mauls (see Falcons vs Sarries last month) in which the maul is similar to a tadpole stretching back about 5m to provide the scrummie an unassailable advantage and contest for the ball is impossible.

Serendipitously there is a discussion on R5 as I write comparing RL and RU.

To add to the confsion is the change says 5 seconds from when the ball is available.

The question is when does the referee decide the ball is available?

Is it when he sees it? (whilst numerous hands are clutching at it)
When it is on the ground inbetween all those legs that still has to be cleared?
Or when the hlafback starts pointing and hoevering over the ball, with his hands mere millmeters away from a ball, that for all intent and purposes are actually already out the ruck?

You're too young to remember the ball being the offside line Notch (pre early 90's). Them scrum halfs had to use the dive pass just to get the ball away. Forwards then had to be forwards, involved in every ruck and mail to obtain/preserve possession. The ball could get bogged down, but when the ball went out, backs had room to operate. Forwards in the back line defending comes from them not having to contest for the ball due to the back foot rule.

It's dealing with one symptom, not the cause.

biltongbek wrote:To add to the confsion is the change says 5 seconds from when the ball is available.

The question is when does the referee decide the ball is available?

This will be the problem and you'd think that at least one of the geniuses at the IRB would have seen it coming, but obviously not.

There are very few laws that need changing.

Just loads of ref recommendations that need to be revised. If the lineout laws are meticulously enforced, why cant the scrummaging ones not be? CTPE is a joke and the feed is a farce.

CTPE is a joke because it retains the hit, which is the cause of the problem. It also distracts from shoving before the ball is fed, which is an offence.

The Hooker doesn't even have to 'hook' anymore - the ball nearly always goes straight to the Number 8 unless the scrum is collapsing or driven backwards - seen alot of these being a Dragons fan

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:CTPE is a joke because it retains the hit, which is the cause of the problem. It also distracts from shoving before the ball is fed, which is an offence.

IF the CTPE recommendation (it's not a law) were to be revoked to setting the scrum on a row-by-row basis and the shove only came on at the feed, the ref's life would become a lot easier. He could detect both an early shove and a squint feed.

The tinkering with interpretations is the root of the problem.

Portnoy, that's as clear to me as it is to you. The problem is that neither of us work for the IRB!

And me neither.