The Rugby World Cup has finally come to an end and as the dust settles we all cannot help but start reflecting back on the good, the bad and the ugly. Hearty congratulations to New Zealand for being such gracious and welcoming hosts. I must say that judging from the scenes on television and the reports coming from those that were fortunate enough to attend, I have a new found respect for the general public in the so called “home of rugby’. One could sense a level of solidarity and genuine warmth emanating from the land of the Silver Fern. And with the All Black captain lifting the William Webb Ellis Trophy, it all seemed to culminate in a way that even the best of Hollywood script writers could hardly have conjured up for a fairy tale ending.

However, before your hearts get all too warm and fuzzy, I would like to also reflect on the not so good parts of the game of rugby, based on what I observed, albeit from the comfort of my living room in South Africa. I have a problem with the interpretation of some of the rugby laws as set out by the international Rugby Board (IRB), particularly the breakdown.

Interpretation of the breakdown
This is one area where I certainly felt that the Rugby World Cup 2011 re-emphasised just how vague the rugby laws are. I have picked out a few of the laws that apply to the breakdown to illustrate my frustration. I have decided to focus on certain excerpts which I feel are critical in assessing the breakdown. The rules of the breakdown as set out by the IRB are as follows:-

15.4 THE TACKLER
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick
15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(a) A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining possession of it, and must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A full list of the relevant rules can be accessed at http://www.irblaws.com/EN/

I have highlighted the text which I believe is too vague and has led to the ambiguity of the breakdown. It is clear from the rules that the use of words such as “try and make the ball available immediately” have left a lot of the breakdown application to the interpretation of the ref. How does one define “immediately”? Better yet, how does one determine whether a tackled player is holding onto the ball, or whether he cannot release the ball because the tackler has not allowed him to release it, or whether a player is not rolling away simply because he has four other players weighing 110 kgs each, all lying on top of him? I believe this is the foundation to the ambiguity that has left many a rugby fan puzzled by some of the calls made by the referees. You will also note that except for rule 15.6, every other sanction for breaking the rules of the breakdown leads to a penalty, leading to a potential 3 points given to the opposition. This alone has led to a greater importance being placed on the accuracy of the goal kickers and less on the ability of the team to play running rugby.

In the World Cup final played on Sunday the 23rd of October 2011, between the 60th and the 75th minute, France had almost 75% possession and territory combined. When considering the entire second half, this statistic is slightly lower. And yet the Frenchmen only had one penalty in the New Zealand half. This either means the entire 15 New Zealand players were perfect in terms of 1) tackling, 2) releasing the tackled player, 3) rolling away, 4) getting to their feet, 5) re-entering through the “imaginary gate” and then fetching on the ground. Alternatively, it could just be that the occasion was such that Craig Joubert may have decided to err on the safe side and interpret the laws in such a way that he does not make any bold calls. I am not in any way suggesting that New Zealand won because of the referee; they won because they put in a gutsy effort and pushed the boundaries as much as they could. But my point is that had the referee been a Northern hemisphere ref, there were at least 3 occasions that both Jerome Kaino and Richie McCaw could have been blown for coming in from the side, all within kickable distance. Any one of those kicks going over would have placed the French in the lead with 10 minutes to go. What is even more concerning for me is that had the referee blown these, he would also not have been wrong. My point being that the breakdown is so vague that any referee could make any call and justify it simply because it comes down to interpretation.

Continue reading to page 2 of post