No more one-mark scrums for Springboks after World Rugby changes free kick law

The more cynical among us might think that the Springboks have penetrated so deeply into the psyche of World Rugby that changes to the laws are being made with the sole intention of stopping the world champions.

This is unlikely to be the case. But there is no doubt that the Springboks, with their power play and team composition made up of almost two full packages of world-class forwards, are at least partly responsible for a change, after it was announced that they would no longer be They will perform free kick scrums. permitted.

This is one of three legal changes that will come into effect on July 1, with several others set to be tested in global competitions in the coming months.

World Rugby said the changes and possible future changes “seek to increase the accessibility and relevance of rugby among a broader, younger fan base by embracing on-field innovation and a reimagined presentation of the sport with compelling storytelling.” No, I do not undertand neither.

Take power away from the scrum

What is evident is that the new laws appear to view scrums as an obstacle, rather than an integral part of what makes rugby unique.

At the Stade de France in October, Springbok fullback Damian Willemse called for a scrum from a mark during the Rugby World Cup quarter-final match against France.

A mark is essentially a free kick and nothing in the law prevented the Boks from opting for a scrum, although no one could think of another example of that. Despite losing territory, the Boks backed their scrum to hurt Les Bleus. And they did, as they won a set-piece penalty.

That incident was hailed as revolutionary by some, but criticized by others as contrary to the spirit of the game. It is impossible to imagine why it was considered unfair to do something that had never been attempted in over 100 years.

World Rugby announced on Thursday that: “Under Law 20.3, it will no longer be possible to select a scrum from a free kick. Free throws should be tapped or kicked to encourage the flow of the ball.”

Let’s pause there for a moment. Never mind a scrum from a mark, which as we know has only been done once, this change means that every time there is a free kick, a team cannot opt ​​for a scrum.

Imagine a scenario where two teams are scruming and the referee penalizes the attacking team’s scrum half for a slanted pass. It’s a free kick. Under the new laws, the team awarded the free kick cannot request another scrum, even if the infringement occurred in a scrum.

What about a situation where a team with a weaker scrum manipulates a free kick, even against itself? The team with the strongest scrum will no longer have the option to call another scrum. This seems unfair, because scrums are vital to rugby.

In this fight to promote “ball in hand rugby” to make the sport more appealing to a younger audience, a cornerstone of the game is being undermined.

Ironically, there is a school of thought that believes scrums create more space on the field, and therefore more incentive to keep the ball in hand, because they concentrate 18 players (including scrum-half) in a small area. This opens up space in a larger area.

Under the new law, the only options available on a free kick are tap-and-go penalties, kicks to touch, or throwing an up-and-down shot.

Other changes

The second change focuses on kicking in open play and the clause commonly known as the “Dupont Law” due to France’s propensity to practice “kick-tennis.”

In the future, it will no longer be possible to put a player into play when an opposing player catches the ball and runs 5 meters or passes the ball. Rules 10.1 and 10.4 will make it clear that players offside must attempt to retreat, creating space for the opposing team to play. This should reduce the amount of kick-tennis in the game.

Ironically, Willemse’s decision to scrum after a mark against France was the result of precisely this kick-tennis problem.

The third change that will take effect on July 1 is to prohibit the action of rolling, turning or pulling a player on his feet in the tackling area (the “crocodile roll”). This is essentially about player safety and not a change that many would oppose.

Closed-door legal trials

In addition to the three changes, there are also closed legal trials underway in select competitions such as the U20 World Championship and Pacific Nations Cup.

The 20-minute red card, currently used at the U20 Rugby Championship in Queensland, will also be used at the U20 World Championship in Cape Town next month.

In this test, a player who receives a red card can be replaced after 20 minutes, which happened to the Junior Boks against Australia this week.

The intent is not to unduly affect the integrity of a game due to the indiscretion of a single player. But this proposal comes with stricter sanctions under a revised on- and off-field sanctions process.

The goal is to promote consistency and simplicity, making navigation easier for players and fans, while maintaining player well-being.

For red card infractions, automatic sanctions will be imposed, which imply suspension for specific periods, without mitigating circumstances. Where a player has attempted to make a legal tackle, but still received a red card, he will receive a two-week suspension.

If the red card is issued for an illegal tackle, such as a spear tackle or shoulder charge, a four-week ban automatically applies. Mitigation will only be considered if there is an appeal.

In another closed test, teams in the U20 World Championship and other World Rugby competitions such as the Pacific Nations Cup and WXV will have 30 seconds to establish scrums and line-outs. The cast time for a conversion will be reduced from 90 seconds to 60.

The other closed trials are:

• Protecting the scrum half at the base of the scrum, ruck and maul following successful trials in Major League Rugby in the USA and community and elite competitions in New Zealand. The scrum-half may not play while the ball is still near a tackle, ruck or maul, and the offside line in the scrum for the non-intervening scrum-half will be the middle of the tunnel.
• The ability to mark the ball inside the 22m line from the restart, encouraging attacking options.
• The ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, not twice.
• Continue playing in a lineout if the ball is not thrown directly, but only if the lineout is unopposed, which helps the flow of the game.

These procedural laws were discussed at the “Shape of the Game” conference in February. The results of the closed-door test will be evaluated with a recommendation made to the World Rugby Council in November.

“This work is vital to ensuring the product on the field lives up to the opportunities we have in front of us, a great sport that is fun to play and watch and helps attract a new generation to rugby,” he said the World. Rugby chairman Sir Bill Beaumont said.

“Personally, I think the amendments to the law and the set of closed-door trials will increase the entertainment factor. As with all tests, we will thoroughly review its effectiveness and receive feedback from throughout the game.

“The revised red card sanctioning process is a good example, and it is important that we test, evaluate and make definitive decisions based on data and feedback.” DM