Rugby, played with the ball and not the foot, is the way forward says SPIRO ZAVOS
on RugbyHeaven – and then divides the rugby/football and football/rugby camps.
“If you live by the penalty, you can also die by it.”
The IRB goes into a review of the game this week with the first-tier nations divided into two groups.
In the rugby/football camp are Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Wales and Scotland. These teams try to win games by attempting to score tries by moving the ball through the hands. Australia and New Zealand, playing beautiful, effective rugby/football, demolished Wales and France at the weekend. Ireland defeated the Springboks and completed an unbeaten season in 2009.
The football/rugby camp contains South Africa, England and Italy. These teams kick the ball whenever they can and try to win games through penalties and drop goals.
England have been booed by their supporters this season (and rightly so) for their one-dimensional and boring kicking game. South Africa have lost to France and Ireland on their European tour.
Against the Irish at Croke Park on a misty, windy day, the Springboks mechanically kicked virtually every ball they gained from their dominant scrum and lineout. The match plan broke down when Morne Steyn missed drop-goal attempts and penalty shots.
If you live by the penalty, you can also die by it.
It is history now that the full ELVs were torpedoed by the strident opposition, particularly, of the Rugby Football Union (the English union) and a gaggle of journalists writing for British broadsheet newspapers.
This meant that this year, the SANZAR players had to go from playing the full ELVs in the Super 14 to the modified ELVs in Tests.
Balanced, effective running game
The transition was initially made most effectively by the Springboks. They never really changed their play to take advantage of the licence granted under the full ELVs to play the running game. The Wallabies and All Blacks, though, have taken until the last Test of their seasons to come up with a balanced and effective running and kicking game.
This is the game of the future if the IRB is determined, as it says it is, to encourage rugby to be played in a thrilling and effective manner.
Boks are masters at loitering
The review needs to bring in regulations that offer protection for catchers under the high ball. The Springboks have made an art form of charging the catchers while pretending to go for the ball.
As teams have learnt to defuse the bombs, the chances of the Springboks winning Tests with their boring football/rugby style have diminished. The 10m circle around the catcher should be policed more stringently, too. Again, the Springboks are masters of loitering with intent inside the circle and getting away with it.
Scrums must be restored to contests
The scrum needs to be restored as a contest. Referees should reduce their instructions from four to three: “Crouch, touch, scrum.”
It is ridiculous that a two-syllable word, “engage,” is used to launch the scrum. Referees too often penalise scrums for moving forward when they hear the “en” part of the “en-gage” word.
Jonathan Kaplan’s technique of placing his hands on the props and moving them together should also be adopted. The game also needs to have the regulations on advantage law tweaked to encourage referees to give the benefit of the doubt to attacking sides.
It has taken Robbie Deans 14 Tests to get the Wallabies playing intelligent, attractive and effective rugby. Stephen Jones, a vehement critic of the ELVs and Australian rugby, called the Wallabies’ play “superb”. And for once he was right.
For most of this season, the Wallabies have kicked the ball away without the accuracy and chase of the Springboks. Against Wales, however, the Wallabies created a thrilling balance between running, passing and kicking.
Which brings us to the real coaching problem in Australian rugby, the Super 14 coaches.
They failed Australian rugby this season by not getting a team in the finals. Moreover, their teams played to a “win ugly” formula, which turned away spectators. Deans has re-trained his squad to play successful and entertaining rugby/football.
Now the Super 14 coaches must do the same.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Spiro you view is so fundamentally flawed it is actually not worth debating.
Should I remind you who won the Super 14 under ELV’s?
Should I remind you what the score was in that final, against who it was played and how many tries the winners scored?
Should I reming you who scored the only 4-try bonus point win in the 3N?
In fact, should I remind you which team scored the MOST tries during the whole 3N?
Care to go back to the Ireland game of this past week and remind yourself who the ONLY team was to score a try and which team relied on penalties alone?
If the Aussies actually WON ugly as you stated they tried they might have not lost their audience because people support WINNERS!
Yet the Aussies failed to send a single team to the semi’s.
The Boks outplayed, outscored, and outsmarted your whining bitches in every aspect.
So you can kiss my ass.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
And rugby is not a foot game…
Schmuck, that is how rugby actually started, a try was worth ZERO according to our in-house historian…
You only scored points through punting.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
If your whining ass bitching players actually play WITHIN the laws of the game you will not concede penalties!
SA masters of loitering…
Kiss my ass man.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:47 pm:
Teen hierdie tyd is jou
gat al blink gesoen.
Feit is Bokke het laas in
1997 gespeel soos die ABs
teen die Parras.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 2:03 pm:
Hehe,
Die Spiros werk op my tiete!
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“The review needs to bring in regulations that offer protection for catchers under the high ball.”
If you can’t catch a ball with a defender closing in, then you don’t belong on a rugby field.
Maybe you should start looking at your players and forget about the laws for a second. Cause if it was Cullen or Latham at the back, then their might have been less kicking.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Reply to Number12 @ 2:08 pm:
Precisely.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Reply to Morné @ 2:07 pm:
Spiros is employed and paid
handsomely by the mainstream
media.
He is paid to write
controversial, out of
the box stuff with his
insight.
Like JJ and Rich and
slightly
the others.
At least he helps to
get a
active.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Since we know this git reads this site, we can write personal messages to him.
Spiro, you have written this just one win and one week after being punished by a Scotland that employed dogged defence and played without the ball to beat the Aussies in what has been called their worst defeat in 30 years.
And yet, Scotland is one of the run at all costs teams and Australia is enjoying a renaissance under Deans?
What a crock of sh*t.
As if you one eyed cr*p is not enough, you then ping the Boks for illegal play under the high ball?
Let me remind you that Giteau was lucky to escape a ban for a charge on Fourie du Preez in the air in the match against the Boks at Newlands on the 8th of August. Du Preez was lucky to escape serious injury. There have been similar incidents involving Montgomery, Habana and others.
Let me also remind you that playing at the edge of the law was pioneered by Sean Fitzpatrick, most notably the use of lazy runners. Australia have mastered the art of getting more powerful scrumming sides penalised.
Should we, South Africa, be whinging? Even if we stand on the more stable ground of being world and Tri-nations champions? No. Winning rugby requires learning to deal with the law, referees, etc. Get on with it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Some commentary on the Giteau incident for Spiro to digest:
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,,3551_5484933,00+en-USS_01DBC.html
Giteau’s great escape!
11th August 2009 15:08
The knives are out! South Africa’s 29-17 Tri-Nations win over Australia over the weekend will in most parts be remembered for ill-discipline, yellow cards and Matt Giteau.
Never mind the fact that the Springboks recorded their third win in the tournament on the trot, or that the Wallabies – like the All Blacks – talked the talk but then deflated due to unrelenting pressure from their hosts, or even that Morne Steyn or Heinrich Brussow are fast becoming the finds of the year.
No, unfortunately inconsistencies by the citing commissioner were highlighted once again following an incident in the 35th minute involving Giteau, his victim Fourie du Preez and an elbow charge.
The Wallaby pivot got ten minutes in the bin for his malicious hit on the Bok scrum-half, while Du Preez received medical attention on the pitch. Did we mention Giteau made no attempt to challenge for the ball, or try pull out of the altercation?
Giteau’s dangerous and blatant ‘tackle’ was met with a yellow card to match his jersey and little else. End of story.
But hold the phone, while New Zealand citing officer David Gray can close the book on yet another unjust and completely inconsistent chapter in the IRB’s book of foul play – we cannot. Instead of being left to enjoy the Cape Town nightlife, had Giteau at least been cited and hauled in to explain his actions, perhaps then the disciplinary committee’s decision to dismiss the act would be acceptable.
That Giteau walks free without a ‘trial’ so to speak, further compounds the fact that the IRB process is hopelessly ineffective in dealing with citings. It’s for this reason that South Africans believe their beloved Boks are the targets of the watchful eye of the dreaded citing commissioner.
And who can blame them?
I was fortunate to be at the game but unfortunate to hear the cries of foul play bellowing from Springbok supporters that if it were a green jersey and not a gold one, the penalty and consequences that followed would have been a lot harsher. Just imagine what might have happened if Bakkies Botha went charging in on Luke Burgess? Ten minutes in the bin? No citing? Hmmm…. one does wonder.
There seems to be a conspiracy theory going around the country that acts of foul play involving a green and gold jersey will be dealt with and punished accordingly – no questions asked. Word on the street is that if you have the names ‘Burger’ or ‘Botha’ on your back – chances are you will be in trouble before even taking to the pitch.
Ok, of course these two are no angels – but does that mean the rest of the rugby world are? It certainly looks that way.
South Africa have every right to feel hard done by with the IRB’s double standards. I would like to think that most level headed rugby fans will agree the citing process (both domestic and international) requires an overhaul.
There are many instances that come to mind that I still struggle to come to terms involving South African rugby players and the citing commissioner: Brad Thorn’s spear tackle on John Smit after the whistle had gone (no yellow card, suspended for one week), Andrew Sheridan’s punch on Andries Bekker in the groin area (no citing), Sione Lauaki ripping Bryan Habana’s head off in the Super 14 (no citing), Deon Stegman makes a spear tackle for the Bulls (six weeks), Bakkies Botha cleans a ruck and accidentally breaks Adam Jones’ arm (two weeks)…
All Bok supporters are asking for is a level playing field but at the moment it is though South Africa are playing Russian roulette and every chamber is loaded. It is exactly this type of inconsistency that leads to frustration and it all boiling up on the pitch. The thing that gets me the most though is that this was a blatant incident of foul play and yet the New Zealand commissioner knows that he can sweep it under the carpet and expect no consequences.
Perhaps Du Preez should have stayed down or left the field injured as it appears if nobody gets hurt, no citing is deemed necessary.
Where does it state in the laws that foul play is only illegal if you are effective at it? I always thought that the idea of citing and possibly banning players is to send out the message that foul play will not be tolerated. Foul play should be punished, not the consequences.
Even now, the South African Rugby Union are awaiting a verdict following their IRB misconduct hearing before an ‘Independent’ disciplinary committee, relating to the alleged “misconduct” of Springbok players for wearing white armbands during the third Test against the British and Irish Lions on July 4.
Their actions were a symbol of solidarity and protest for Botha, following the upholding of his two-week suspension by an appeal committee for dangerously charging into a ruck and taking out prop Adam Jones without binding on a player.
Before, I believed that the arm band protest was perhaps not the ideal way of addressing a very serious problem in the game at the time, but after reflecting on the subsequent events I have changed my mind. The protest was against an unfair system established by the IRB that has led to glaring inconsistencies that impact on match results, individual pay and reputations. This was touched upon in detail by my colleague, so I will avoid going down the road again.
However, if SA Rugby President Oregan Hoskins had come out after the Botha ban and publicly accused the IRB’s disciplinary process of being totally inconsistent and said his team were sick of getting the rough end of the pineapple, it’s unlikely that there would have been a “Justice 4″ arm band protest to begin with.
But following this Giteau incident, SARU would have plenty of ammo to fire at the IRB and their precious citing committee, but it may be too late… either that or the panel, like David Gray, will be wearing bullet proof vests. Untouchables, whereas any Springbok player is not.
By Dave Morris
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
Jeez you guys are a hotheaded bunch. If you don’t like what Spiro writes because you don’t agree with him, fine. But do you have to shoot the messenger and the players from his country because you don’t like his message?
If you don’t believe there is a perception that Saffers play boring rugby, you are not in tune with how we are viewed overseas. It is for our S14 and Bok sides to change this perception on the field. You are not going to change the perception by insulting people because you don’t like what they are saying.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Zavos is having a go at South Africans and is distorting the facts in order to so. I have in the past agreed with some of the things he wrote but in this article he was just being an asshole.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Reply to out wide @ 1:00 am:
Just as I put myself out there and open for criticism with my views, so Spiro has to realise he does the same.
He is taking a clear dig at SA and Bok rugby, and I counter and take a dig back at him with some pretty straight forward facts.