What's wrong with rugby?

Photo: Reuters

Whatever Prince Harry and Chelsy Davy is suggesting, it's got to be more appealing than England versus Australia, judging by the look on Prince Harry's face.

Relevant offers

IF YOU wanted a catalyst for change, maybe it came at Twickenham seven days before the All Blacks ran out to take on the English early this morning. The home team walked off at halftime of their test against Argentina, locked at 9-9, to a chorus of boos from their fed-up faithful. It was a cry for revolution, as much as one of derision.

They say that when the Twickenham crowd boos the home team, something has to go. Usually it's a coach, or in England's case right now, a manager. But maybe in this instance it's the game itself that needs short shrift. It might just be time to give test rugby in general a boot up the backside.

We've seen it coming down in our part of the world for a while now. Let's face it, the Tri Nations was hardly enthralling fare. And the dominance of the Springboks using their one-dimensional kick-and-chase game has given the conservative approach further momentum.

During the two tests in Bloemfontein and Durban, both won handsomely by the South Africans, the safety-first, territory-dominated game of the Boks won out handsomely over the flawed ball-in-hand style of the All Blacks. The blueprint had been established and suddenly everybody had to be able to catch a high ball, or heaven help you.

Almost overnight the skill-set of a test wing had changed. There would surely have been no place for Jonah Lomu in this age of bombs away, and limited lateral movement. Joe Rokocoko has already become a casualty.

The problem is that the game has become boring. Quality test matches featuring absorbing, flowing rugby and sweeping movements through backlines are becoming as scarce as a greasy spoon in inner London. And finally it seems the northern hemisphere critics have cottoned on to the concept that this isn't the game it once was.

Respected Daily Telegraph rugby writer Mick Cleary last week wrote a lament on rugby that really slammed the point home. It ran under the headline "SOS to IRB: our game is dying as a spectacle".

Cleary wrote that at halftime of England-Argentina, he felt like walking away, for the first time in 40 years in the sport. "There is too much kicking. Simple as that. Kick after kick after kick," wrote Cleary, calling them "witless hoofs prompted by fear". He added: "It is a soulless pursuit. It is plain boring – boring to watch and, I am sure, boring to play."

And Cleary is far from a lone ranger on this theme up here. Finally, even the Brits, who for years have always thought a rugby score should be divisible by three, have accepted that enough is enough. The ironic thing is the game wouldn't be in this state in the first place if the Home Unions hadn't blocked the Experimental Law Variations' key tenets from going through.

All Blacks coach Graham Henry conceded the game "needs an injection" of something. "The lawmakers need to look at that. They had the opportunity and didn't take the opportunity, which is a pity. The game needs to be more appealing. At the moment it needs some doctoring."

The straight-talking Steve Hansen agreed that kicking had "overtaken" test rugby. "They tried to change the rules, then halfway through the process the northern hemisphere decided they didn't want to play some of them. So we've got a hybrid-type game that's ended up with everyone kicking," he says.

There will be no more law changes for another two years, at least, but a recent shift in emphasis has caused some of the problem. Essentially, the advantage at the breakdown has shifted markedly in favour of the tackler, and the onus goes on the ball-carrier to release. Penalties have swung heavily against attacking teams, and if they're anywhere in their own half (or if you're playing the Boks, anywhere inside 60m from your own line) that's likely to cost three points.

Thus the fear-factor kicking. The reluctance to play ball-in-hand anywhere in your own half.

Solutions? Hansen would bring back the ability to mark the ball anywhere on the field. "Then you can't kick it," he says. "But sooner or later the kicking game might become a negative for a kicking team, as it's quite a good possession platform."

Henry also believes the scrum is adding to the problem. Referees need to be educated better, he says. "There needs to be boxes they tick to make sure the scrum is a positive part of the game. If everyone's packing square, shoulders above hips, it's a good start. Once people start pushing on angles, then you've got a problem."

He also blames the full-arm penalty at the breakdown. "That creates a negative situation for the attacking side because they're pretty reticent about going through that process. The ELVs had the answer [free kicks], but for some reason they didn't go through."

IRB referees' boss Paddy O'Brien, who made a public apology to the All Blacks over the treatment of their scrum by referee Stuart Dickinson in Milan, says it's a "tricky situation" for whistle-blowers. They're constantly balancing strict adherence to the laws with a desire to let the game flow.

But the Kiwi says it's churlish to blame the laws for rugby's problems. "The bottom line is defences have got better, teams are scared to lose the ball on the run-back, and that's because of strength in defence. Someone will unlock the door one day, and it will evolve."

O'Brien, however, reckons it's wrong to suggest the new breakdown emphasis is the catalyst for the one-dimensional game.

"A ref's job is to reward teams who get numbers there first. If the team with the ball don't get numbers in, they're vulnerable because teams are so good now getting hands on ball."

All Blacks assistant Wayne Smith, a purist if ever there was one, also raises a valid point.

"I love the game and I want people to watch, so you always want footy to be played the right way. But the right way for us is about winning. That's our first responsibility."

But Smith retains hope. "I think it will turn around. Everyone is trying to assert pressure, and they're doing it in a similar way. But the game goes in cycles. This isn't the only year the game has gone through change and has been derided. It will come again."

New Zealand skipper Richie McCaw pondered the responsibility to entertain question on the eve of this morning's test.

"We want to play the game people enjoy watching," he said. "They love to see tries scored and we love to play like that. But test rugby can be tight and physical, and the reality is it may not be like that. I love coming off having scored four or five tries, but you don't go out there just to chuck the ball round because it looks good.

"You go out there to win."

McCaw is right, of course. International sportsmen will do what they have to in order to win. Just ask Thierry Henry. It's up to the sport's rulers to take certain aspects of the process out of their hands.

- © Fairfax NZ News