No, nine



In another shocking display of common sense the IRB has changed the current scrummaging procedure by calling time on the referee's verbal 'Yes, Nine' instruction for the scrum half to put the ball into the scrum.

All very sensible given that the current situation undoubtedly helps the team without the put-in get ready to drive.

Instead the emphasis will switch back to the flankers screaming "READY, READY, READY NOW" much like the good old days.

What is intriguing though is that the referee will now use an as yet unspecified non-verbal means of telling the scrum half when to put the ball in - a nudge being as good as a wink to a blind man, say no more...

IRB shuffles the deckchairs

The IRB has announced a global trial of a new “crouch, bind, set” scrummage engagement sequence.

Under the new sequence, which will start next season, when the ref calls "bind" the props will bind with their outside arm and maintain the bind until the referee calls “set”. At that point, the two packs engage.

The new sequence is hardly a radical departure from the shambolic "crouch, touch, set" we currently have to endure and completely misses the point. The issue is not what happens before the scrum is set. The problem is how the scrum is refereed once it is set.

Insist the scrum is steady before the put-in, penalise the early shove (or 'hit') and insist on a straight feed and we may be back in business.

Until then we are merely tinkering around the edges.

Practice what you preach

The capacity of the IRB to shoot itself in the foot never ceases to amaze.

What have the Board done this time? Only deny the economically challenged country of Cyrpus the chance to qualify for the 2015 World Cup, that’s what.

This the same Cyprus who, last month, defeated Bulgaria 79-10 to set a new record for successive Test wins – 18 in all since “the Moufflons” were last defeated (by Israel in 2008).

The grounds for the decision of world rugby’s governing body appear to be that Cyprus are not yet full members of the IRB.

And yet this is the same IRB who keep banging on about growing rugby’s global family. Come on IRB, practice what you preach.

There’s an online petition doing the rounds in the hope of forcing the IRB into a re-think – a long shot, but worth a go.

Incidentally, I wonder if our old friend Felix Frixou is still involved?

Tinkering is not the answer

A bit late with this one, but it seems as if the IRB have, after all, sanctioned a trial change to the scrummaging laws. Instead of the much maligned "Crouch, Touch, Pause, Ennnnnnnnn.....gage" we now have a new law 20.1 (g) which reads:

The referee will call “crouch” then “touch”. The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop touches the point of the opposing prop’s outside shoulder. The props then withdraw their arms. The referee will then call “set” when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then engage. The “set” call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready.

Is that really the best that the IRB's Scrum Steering Group can come up with?

Apparently this has been successfully trialled at student level at Stellenbosch and Cambridge but this rather misses the point. It's at the elite level that the problem exists - where winning the "hit" is everything - and simply removing the 'pause' instruction will do nothing to change this.

I'm with Brian Moore on this one. Tinkering is not the solution. To cure rugby's scrummaging ills all one needs to do is apply the existing laws i.e. insist on a correct bind and go back to penalising the early shove and the crooked feed.

Simples.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

The IRB’s announcement this week of a bunch of law trials for next season appears to have been generally well received.

Not being a huge fan of law tinkering, however, I remain unconvinced.

Many of the technical changes are largely inconsequential and are, ergo, arguably pointless.

The more prominent changes involve the role of the TMO and a new law for use of possession at the back of the ruck.

Under current rules, TMOs can only rule on events which occur in-goal and in the act of scoring a try but their jurisdiction is being extended to incidents within the field of play that have led to the scoring of a try. How far back a TMO may go, however, remains unclear. It often already takes an age for the TMO to rule on whether a try has been scored – how much longer will this take if he has to decide whether there was, say, a forward pass 6 phases earlier?

And, while we all get frustrated by scrum halves who have time to put the kettle on and read the newspaper before clearing the ball from the base of a ruck, will a 5 second time limit really help? When, for instance, will referees deem the ball to be “available”? Surely they could just apply current laws and penalise teams for going off their feet and sealing off?

The one change missing, of course, is a change to the scrummaging laws. A proposed amendment from the current "crouch, touch, pause, engage" sequence to a new "crouch, touch, set" sequence has been referred to the IRB’s Scrum Steering Group (whatever that is) but I suspect the phrase “too little, too late” might end up being appropriate.

Identity Crisis

The selection of Edinburgh’s Dutch winger, Tim Visser, for Scotland's summer tour squad brings the age-old debate about international eligibility to the fore once more.

On 12th June McVisser will have resided in Scotland for 3 years and will therefore be eligible to represent the the land of William Wallace.

As a reminder, currently a player may play for the country in which he was born, or in which a parent or grandparent was born, or in which he has completed thirty six consecutive months of residence (provided, of course, that he has not already played for either of the top two representative teams or the senior sevens team of another country).

So, under the rules, Scotland are perfectly entitled to select McVisser and no doubt rugby in Holland will receive a boost as a result. Nevertheless, as with the smattering of South Africans now plying their trade with England, the selection just doesn't feel right.

In the modern professional era the IRB's eligibility criteria, particularly the residency qualification (and in some cases the grandparent rule) have meant that, effectively, players end up playing international rugby for a country other than their country of birth, more often than not for economic reasons.

Perhaps McVisser's case is not the right example to use as he almost certainly would not have had the opportunity to play top class international rugby for his country of birth (and arguably still won't with his adopted country!) but, unless the eligibility rules undergo a radical overhaul, there is a danger that international rugby will simply lose its soul with each country fielding a multi-national line up of immigrants playing under a flag of convenience. Player development will become pointless - after all, a player could play age-grade rugby for one country and then accept a lucrative 3 year contract in another country and end up switching allegiances. And where is the incentive for a country to develop, say, a new prop when there are already a bunch of, say, South African props already playing professionally in that country and biding their time until they are eligible?

The solution? I quite like the system currently being operated by the England & Wales Cricket Board, namely that a player must complete a residence period of 7 consecutive years, unless he arrives in the country as an under-18 (where a 4 year period applies).

Would this solve all the problems? No, but a 7 year qualification period would certainly ensure that a player would need to be fully committed to his chosen country rather than just be a transient economic opportunist (where are you now Mr Flutey?). And, while we're at it, let's abolish the grandparent rule entirely to avoid Thomas Waldrom-like situations where an English grandmother was somewhat conveniently discovered in time for the Rugby World Cup last year.

A question of eligilbility

This week those nasty men at the IRB have resisted calls for eligibility rules for Pacific Island players to be watered down.

To be fair, it’s pretty clear that you can’t have one set rules for Pacific Islanders and another set of rules for everyone else.

In fact, overall I’d say that eligibility rules need tightening up if anything. The 'one grandparent' rule is utterly ridiculous, for instance, as is the rule only requiring 3 years of residency.

There may, however, be a solution. If a player was always allowed to play for the country of his birth, whether or not he had previously played for a different country, then surely (providing only one “switch” was permitted) that’s the problem more or less solved.

Could it be that easy?