There will be lots of evidence to add to the following in the next few months, as the ELVs are tested globally.  However, given that I (somewhat inadvertently) have a world exclusive on my hands, I thought it’d be worth sharing my experience of refereeing the ELVs over the past few weeks.

Some of the ELVs trialled in Cambridge will not go forward immediately, notably the scrum offside lines for scrum-halves.  It’s the right call to delay this amendment.  The referee already has enough to look for at the scrum, without trying to track one of three other offside lines, and it was difficult to do accurately even with miked-up assistant referees.

Not only that, the law lacked definition, even though it was only at the trial stage.  It was unclear whether a number 9 at the backfoot of the scrum was able to move laterally across the pitch, rather than remaining by the set piece.  The danger is that scrum-halves will simply line up the opposition half-backs and smash them from the backfoot offside line.  This would counteract the welcome effects of the 5m offside lines established by the 2009 ELVs.

Of those ELVs that are going global (listed below), the most welcome is the imperative to use the ball at the back of a ruck.  Commentators across the board have already hailed the idea, and even some excellent European finals this weekend gave plenty of evidence for its necessity.  There is, as many forwards will tell you, great skill in retaining possession in the tight, whether you’re running down the clock or just trying to suck in defenders.  What is unacceptable is taking 10 seconds to set up each phase, deliberately steering clear of the skillful but unpredictable contact area.

Some referees in the trial felt that this would be a challenge to enforce, but I don’t think these fears were realised.  Referees already have the discretion to rule on an unsuccessful end to a maul in a similar manner, even if they don’t always do it very well.  The only caveat for officials is using this law in the right situations.  The change is designed to stop cynical time-wasting – it is absolutely not intended to rush scrum-halves in their attacking rhythm if they should pause and look for options.  Similarly, it must only be applied when the ball is clearly won: any sort of contest in the ruck should delay a call of ‘use it’.  Ultimately, I only used the law when I felt the objective of the scrum-half was to waste time.  Encouraging Lee Dickson actually to execute his box kicks would at best be a welcome side-effect.

The other Variations are not of great import, although the quick throw-in rule does demand good awareness from referees and their assistants.  It is worth noting a significant advantage of the lineout option, however.  Many will feel that this is unnecessary tinkering, but its real impact comes near the end of a game.

Picture this scenario: time is up on the clock, and red are defending a 5m lineout and a 5 point lead.  If red concede a penalty by dragging down the lineout, inadvertently or deliberately, the opposition has almost no subsequent options for setting up a rolling maul, potentially their best chance of getting over the tryline.  Kicking the ball out, even from a penalty, would end the game if normal time has ended.  Red have thus successfully staved off their opponent’s most potent attacking weapon through an act of illegality.  This may be a rare and specific occurrence but it only needs to happen once to have happened too many times.  The change is a good one.

Overall, then, the ELVs are a good package.  They speed up the game, the players seem to have enjoyed them and they are unproblematic for officials.  It remains to be seen whether professional trials confirm or undermine the positive impression they made on me and the players I talked to.

A note on the scrum engagement

The proposed change to the engagement sequence has been neither rejected nor scheduled for wider trials – it instead goes to the specialist Scrum Steering Group.  The impetus behind it comes from New Zealand, where they feel that a one-word engagement command will make the timing of the hit easier.  There has also been widespread concern that the ‘pause’ phase places great strain on the massive front rowers of the modern game, increasing the chance of errors at the point of engagement.

I agree in principal with both points, although ‘engage’ has never seemed the root of the scrum’s problems.  It does, however, appear that the pause creates instability and places unreasonable demands on bigger props, and it also seems a touch unnecessary given the natural pauses between each phase of the engagement sequence.  Despite agreeing in principal, however, I remain unconvinced that ‘set’ is the right replacement.  The sibilant S does not give the command a clean beginning and it lacks clarity, which was reflected in several early engagements in the matches I officiated.  Alternatives are hard to come by (I’ve heard everything from ‘hit’ to ‘kiss’ suggested) but I would not endorse ‘set’ after the recent trial.

I would also like to include the following verbatim, from Nick Marshall, a Cambridge University prop (level 4): “The thing about the pause is that it gives a split second in which you have to exercise the utmost control and technical skill to get the timing right.  This is what allows you to beat the other team to the engagement.  People don’t realise it, but that ability is something that the pack as individuals and as a whole have to master; a good pack holds itself in the pause and gauges it just right to beat the opposition to it.  Obviously the new sequence is something one could get used to, but I personally feel the cadence of four words is better than that of three.”

Interesting stuff, and a model of articulacy for fellow front rowers.  The debate continues….

ELVs to be trialled globally in 2012/3

1. Law 16.7 (Ruck): The ball has to be used within five seconds of it being made available at the back of a ruck with a warning from the referee to “use it”. Sanction – Scrum.

2. 19.2 (b) (Quick Throw-In) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.

3. 19.4 (who throws in) When the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team will be offered the choice of a lineout at the point the ball crossed the touch line; or a scrum at the place of the knock-on. The non-offending team may exercise this option by taking a quick throw-in.

4. 21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements: Lineout alternative. A team awarded a penalty or a free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout, they throw in. This is in addition to the scrum option.

5. A conversion kick must be completed within one minute 30 seconds from the time that a try has been awarded.

Cambridge University has this year been one of only two bodies worldwide to trial experimental law changes for the International Rugby Board, the other being Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Using the Colleges’ Cuppers competition, which concluded with a superb match yesterday, the College teams have played under seven potential law changes before reporting on their feasibility and their effect on the game.

These attempts to alter the game follow on from the last set of Experimental Law Variations, which were also trialled in Cambridge in 2008, a year before their full implementation. Several of these, such as the 5m offside line at scrums and the inability to carry the ball back into your 22 before kicking it out on the full, have now been adopted worldwide.

There are seven ELVs in the current cycle, most of which are aimed at speeding the game up and removing unnecessary delays:

(NB: wording in italics is from the iRB; otherwise, wording is that of the author)

1) Unsuccessful end to a ruck – if the ball is clearly won and is at the back of the ruck, the referee may give a call of ‘use it’, at which point the attacking side has 5 seconds to use possession. Failure to do so will be punished with either a scrum, with the non-offending side throwing in, or a free kick for the non-offending side (both sanctions are to be trialled at different stages).

This law is intended to reduce those occasions when a team will eat up the clock by leaving the ball at the back of the ruck and taking a long time to set their next play. It is mostly aimed at the higher level of the game, and should not be used to hurry scrum-halves during normal play, but only to combat what is essentially legal time-wasting.

2) Quick throw-in – a quick throw may be taken anywhere outside the field of play between the line of touch and the player’s goal line.

Many people believe this to be law already. However, in the event that the ball is kicked out on the full from outside the 22, a quick throw may only currently be taken between the point where the ball has crossed the touch line and the throwing-in team’s goal line. This is despite the fact that the point at which the ball has crossed the touchline is not the line of touch if the ball goes out on the full from outside the 22 (the line of touch in this instance being a point level with the place where the ball was kicked). Under this ELV, the quick throw can be taken anywhere up to and including level with where the ball was kicked from i.e. if the ball goes out on the full from outside the 22, a player can collect it and run all the way back to where the lineout would be if the quick throw were not utilised. This will significantly affect the tactics of kick-chases and defending kicks that aim to put the ball into touch.

3) Knock-ons into touch – when the ball goes into touch from a knock-on, the non-offending team may opt for the lineout instead of the scrum, including the option of a quick throw.

In practice, many referees play this law anyway, particularly when scrums are troublesome. However, if the ball is knocked-on and goes into touch the current law states that the scrum must be awarded. This ELV will allow a team with a weaker scrum, or one that simply prefers a lineout, to exercise this option.

4) Forming a scrum – ‘crouch’, ‘touch’, ‘set’ – the referee will now call ‘crouch’, ‘touch’, ‘set’ instead of ‘crouch’, ‘touch’, ‘pause’, ‘engage’.

This law should reduce the amount of time that heavy-set front rowers have to spend in a crouched position before the engagement. It will also introduce a one syllable command for the engagement, which it is hoped will help to manage the hit.

5) Offside at the scrum – when a team has won the ball in a scrum, the scrum half of the other team is offside if both feet are in front of the centre line of the scrum, while the ball is still in the scrum.

This is the most complex of these ELVs. Primarily, it is designed to allow quicker ball from the base of the scrum and to prevent opposition scrum halves from spoiling possession at the back of the set piece. It will also allow skilful back row players to use the ball, even in a retreating scrum. The defending scrum half now has three options at the scrum –

1) to stand 5m from the back foot, with the rest of his backs (in which case he is offside if he gets closer than 5m to the back foot of the scrum);
2) to stand next to the scrum half who is putting in the ball and then to stay there, without moving away from the scrum and, if necessary, retreating as his scrum is pushed backwards;
3) to stand level with the back foot of the scrum, which does allow him to move away from the scum laterally, provided that he does not step in front of the back foot of his scrum.

If he elects option 2, he may move back to the positions detailed in options 1 and 3; however, if he elects option 1, he may not change his mind and approach the scrum. This will lead to a fundamental change in the positioning of scrum halves. There is little point in standing level with the centre of the scrum, so options 1 and 3 will be used almost every time, leading to a new tactical options in how the scrum half is used defensively. It should also introduce quicker, cleaner ball at the base of the scrum for the attacking side to use.

6) Penalty and free kick options – a team awarded a penalty or free kick at a lineout may choose a further lineout, and they will throw-in.

Currently, a team that wins a penalty or free-kick in the lineout must kick the ball out to introduce a further lineout. If a team is pushing for a try with a lineout close to the line, this ELV will mean that they need not waste time punting the ball back into touch for a further lineout. Two further consequences also ensue: it will prevent an attacking team being denied the chance to set up a rolling maul because a defending player has committed a free kick offence; and it will mean that, if a penalty is awarded after time has run out on the clock, the side with the penalty can take the lineout without kicking the ball out, which would end the game.

7) In goal – if a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful conversion kick or penalty kick, the defending team has two choices – to have a drop-out; or to have a scrum where the ball was kicked, and they throw in.

This is the same as the current law, but has removed the exception relating to drop goals. Under the ELV, an unsuccessful drop goal which sends the ball over the dead ball line or into touch-in-goal could result in a scrum where the ball was kicked. This will discourage players from attempting speculative drop goals as a way of wasting time at the end of the game – at present, a team which is ahead can hit a speculative drop goal from near the half way line, secure in the knowledge that it will either score or will result in a 22 drop-out, which will at least bring territorial advantage.

There are also further ELVs related to the powers of the Television Match Official, but these were not trialled in Cambridge as such technology is not available.  They will be confirmed by the iRB as they are rolled out in the professional game later this year.  Meanwhile, none of the Variations is guaranteed to make it into Law – each is simply being trialled and refined at this stage – but it does seem likely that several will be adopted, particularly numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Jack Lewars

This post stems from a number of different areas – my personal involvement in refereeing; the different styles of refereeing that are seen at elite level; a late night debate with a friend over a beer; and a side point I made in a previous post, saying that referees should be agents of consistency, not agents of change.  It is perhaps these diverse origins which mean that there is no firm conclusion to the question posed in the title.  But it is a question worth asking, for referees, players and the game’s administrators.

It seems to me that the role of the referee is shaped by two competing concepts, each the antithesis of the other.  The first is the role of independent adjudicator of the laws, a role which is largely reactive.  This is an idea of refereeing which says that the laws should be configured to give a clear solution to any situation which occurs in the game, and that the referee therefore should be a) an expert in law and b) someone who is best able to observe the situation of the game, in order to feed this information into the mechanism of the laws and reach a decision.

The best example of this model is cricket umpiring.  Cricket’s laws give an absolutely definite answer in all situations – the ball pitched in line with the stumps, missed the bat, hit the pads of the batsmen and would have gone on to hit the stumps; the batsmen is therefore out.  Cricket umpires are chosen because of their exceptional powers of observation, which enable them to assess accurately what they have seen and so to reach a decision.  There is, to the casual observer at least, very little management of players needed, certainly no ‘preventative umpiring’, and laws are clear on the outcome of any given situation.  This role is at its heart reactive, as the umpire observes what has happened and, if required, makes a decision.

There is, unfortunately, no easy example of the other extreme of refereeing.  Probably the best available is that of a boxing referee.  These officials are not only there to prevent dirty play, but also to manage the contest with a view to creating an exciting, enjoyable bout.  Although he is empowered by laws that forbid excessive clinching and the like, he still has to take a proactive stance in keeping the fighters honest, ensuring that they box in the spirit of the sport.  His role is as much proactive and preventative as it is reactive to what he observes.

A good rugby referee must, of course, borrow from both concepts.  On the one hand, he must ensure that the laws are upheld, reacting to foul or illegal play appropriately as a disinterested adjudicator.  He must be an expert in law and a keen observer, and his ultimate recourse in moments of indecision is the law of the game.

On the other, however, he must also be active in his management of players and situations, and must empathise with the game.  He should verbally encourage players to roll away, release the ball and keep their hands out of rucks.  He should hesitate to penalise the player who crept offside on the blindside as the ball went open, and he should stick to ‘clear and obvious’ penalties (materiality).  He should also bear in mind the level of the game, its spirit and the conditions in which it is played  (contextuality).  Not only that but, in the modern game, he is more and more being expected to enforce new laws which are obviously intended to influence the method of play, and so he must consider the spirit of the law as well as its wording.  He is therefore neither completely reactive nor completely proactive, instead aiming for an empathetic and informed balance to his decisions and style.

None of this is especially controversial – in fact, to borrow from Basil Fawlty, it comes with a Nobel Prize for stating the bleeding obvious. The tricky bit, of course, is finding exactly where the ideal attitude lies.  Indeed, given the level of nuance that we’re talking about here, it is probably helpful to think in terms of attitudes, or that sort of pseudo-instinct that guides an individual referee in moments of doubt or ambiguity.  To put it another way, should a referee take to the field looking to be the grey man, the facilitator, who keeps a low profile until otherwise required?  Or should he, as my friend argued, set out thinking ’my job is to create an attractive, exciting game of rugby’?

The exact balance an individual referee strikes between these two extremes can have a very real effect on his officiating.  Take the following scenario: a red player goes to tackle the ball carrier and manages to put in a strong hit, driving the ball carrier (blue) backwards for  several yards, behind his supporting attackers.  Once they go to ground, the tackler gets to his feet and challenges for the ball, but without releasing the tackled player first.  Blue forwards are forced to backtrack in order to enter the breakdown and so cannot quickly or effectively dislodge the red player, leaving their ball carrier hanging on to the ball and preventing its release.

In this situation, a very reactive referee would penalise the red tackler.  He is required to release by law, and his penalty precedes that of the ball carrier in the ‘order of consideration’ (tackler(s), tackled player, arriving players).  It is not relevant to the law that the tackle was a good one, and so the decision is clear.  Not only that, the law forcing the tackler to release was designed to protect the side in possession – it is therefore within both the letter and the spirit of the law to penalise the red player.

The very empathetic referee, however, will most probably penalise blue.  The tackler has acted positively and has dominated the contact, which is a key facet of the game.  His failure to release the tackled player is probably not material, and even if it is, his tackle should be rewarded.  The law requiring him to release may be in place to protect attackers, but it is more designed to prevent a normal tackle turning into an unshakeable jackal, rather than to protect a player who has been smashed in contact.  Few fans or players will quibble about losing the ball if their player has been creamed.

To my mind, there simply isn’t an easy answer to what goes above.  Some referees will look at the discussion and argue that it is too theoretical; that the scenario proposed is only ambiguous because I haven’t given enough detail.  I would say from experience, however, that a huge part of refereeing is instinctive and that instinct is guided by underlying attitudes and approaches.  Not only that, in a sport where there are frequently two or three penalties being committed at once, the referee cannot always effectively use the laws and recommended practice to reach his decision.  The right approach is therefore something that each referee should spend time considering, both to inform his self-analysis and to make sure that he is secure in his own mind before a game begins.

For what it’s worth, my personal leaning is towards the grey man model.  This doesn’t exclude all the management aspects of the game, such as communication with players or the use of materiality and contextuality.  I recognise that these are essential.  It does, however, discourage the referee from trying to take centre stage or over-emphasising his own importance.  Any official who begins a game thinking that he must impose an agenda of fast rugby is in danger of making the wrong decision for the sake of aesthetics or, even worse, of becoming inconsistent.  It is the desire for a spectacle which leads referees to turn a blind eye to obvious knock-ons in bad weather; to tell players how to play their rugby; and, worst of all, to referee in a way which evens up a one-sided game.  It is never a bad thing to have empathy with the game and to reward positive endeavour but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the laws and refereeing protocols to do this, not of the individual referee.

In the end, however, I doubt anyone is qualified to give a decisive answer to the question that this article explores.  Much more productive will be the time that a good official spends considering the two different types of referee, allowing him to find a balance with which he feels comfortable, and which he decided on via informed and considered thinking.  As with nearly all questions worth asking, the process of answering it is as constructive and worthwhile as the answer itself.

Lionel Faure (far right) and Morgan Parra's antics did Clermont no favours in their Heineken Cup semi-final loss

Jack Lewars

Just as India is the driving force in world cricket, the club structure in France is becoming an increasingly important factor in world rugby.  Although it is to be hoped that rugby will never see the levels of subservience that have emerged in elite cricket, the game of bat and ball is a salutary lesson in the insidious effects of money on sport (assuming football does not provide evidence enough).  In essence, India’s ridiculous control over nearly all aspects of cricket stems from the revenue generated by its Twenty20 season.  It is far from fanciful to suppose that the money in the French game could soon have the same distorting effect.

The procession of foreign players plying their trade in the Top 14 is the first symptom of growing French influence.  Just as every cricket-playing nation is now forced to arrange its fixtures around the Indian Premier League to allow its players to cash in, thus the RFU and WRFU are increasingly compelled to compromise their selection policies to cater for French recruits (something that Southern Hemisphere sides have been doing for years, as players in their prime left to seek a “new [richer] challenge”).

Although the RFU have taken particularly strong action to pre-empt the emigration of England players, their 201o statement against the selection of those based abroad was destined to be ineffective as soon as it included the “exceptional circumstances” get-out clause.  Ultimately, it is clear that Stuart Lancaster will select whomever he wants if they’re the right player, as Steffon Armitage will likely demonstrate on the summer tour to South Africa.  For the Welsh regions, the battle to keep homegrown talents has been lost almost before it has begun, with Gethin Jenkins and Luke Charteris set to join Mike Phillips, Lee Byrne and James Hook across the Channel, and more expected to follow.  It remains unclear how the recently-announced salary cap will stem this exodus of capped players.

National selection is not the only area in which the influence of the French leagues is felt.  European club rugby is starting to be dominated by French clubs and, whilst a French side will not lift the Heineken Cup this year, they provided two of its quarter-finalists and all the semi-finalists for the second tier Amlin Cup.  Recent winners have not been exclusively French (far from it, in fact) but Gallic sides have been at the business end of European competition far more than would be expected on a level playing field, and it is only powerhouses such as Leinster that have prevented the cup crossing the Channel more often.

The concentration of resources and talent in France does not have to be a malign influence on the game, of course.  If properly managed, a high-quality, well-funded club competition brings good publicity for the game and helps players to improve when they’re away from the international stage.  The crucial thing is to ensure that the money and success of French sides is not given undue weight in decisions about governance, scheduling and availability.  India’s ability to control everything from fixture lists to technology should be the ultimate warning to the game’s administrators.

It is on the subject of publicity and the French, however, that this post is really focused.  This weekend saw the very best of European competition – a fantastic drop-goal at the death from Jonny Wilkinson to overcome Stade Français; a sense of what might have been as Edinburgh’s handling errors blew their chances of a Heineken Cup Final; and incredible last-ditch defence from Leinster as they squeezed past Clermont in Bordeaux.  Amongst such a cracking series of games, however, one note was especially sour.

The game was 21 minutes old at the Stade Chaban-Delmas, and Clermont had just equalised via a penalty.  As they poured forward again, Leinster captain Leo Cullen was sufficiently annoyed with prop Lionel Faure to give him a slap, possibly because the front-rower was preventing him from competing in a ruck.  At this point, the grizzled Premiership winner processed what had happened (a fairly appreciable delay) and then dove to the floor, theatrically clutching his unmarked face.

Thankfully, Wayne Barnes dealt with the matter sensibly, speaking to Cullen but awarding no penalty.  That should not detract from the fact that, were it not for eagle-eyed officiating, Lionel Faure could have ruined a European classic through a blatant act of cheating, either by having Cullen carded, or by “winning” a kickable penalty, or both.

Diving is fairly rare in rugby, partly because the physicality of the game leads to enough real injuries as it is.  There have been signs that gamesmanship is creeping into the sport for some time, however, particularly when backs chase kicks and then seek the floor at the slightest contact from a defensive runner.  Whilst it remains an uncommon occurrence in the game as a whole, however, it is increasingly prevalent in French rugby.

Faure’s behaviour fitted perfectly with that of Morgan Parra, who later knelt in a classic footballer’s pose, appealing to the referee, after a perfectly legitimate tackle as he kicked ahead.  The incredibly talented half-back also has previous after his repeated simulations against Leicester in the group stages.  High and dangerous tackles should never be enjoyed, but it was difficult not to feel a certain satisfaction when George Chuter floored him later in that game, after a running battle in which Parra acted like a spoilt child.  Needless to say, Parra received treatment after Chuter’s hit until a yellow card was given, and then got up to convert the penalty and complete the game.

These are not isolated incidents – watch a game of Top 14 rugby and see how often someone tries to influence the referee by pretending to be taken out or pretending to be badly hurt.  Once time-wasting is taken into account (Imanol Harinordoquy, I’m looking at you, Leicester vs Biarritz, 2005), along with the militantly partisan crowds which these actions manipulate, it is only a matter of time before someone’s cheating swings an important game one way or the other.

My feelings towards players who feign injury for tactical reasons are difficult to express politely.  It’s absolutely pathetic.  It’s sly, deceitful cheating, conducted with calculated dishonesty and a complete disregard for the spirit of the game.  In a sport like rugby, which struggles with its image and its aggressive nature, not to mention the difficulties of elite refereeing, having players simulating their reactions to confrontations actively undermines the game (and far more so than the gamesmanship of the breakdown’s Dark Arts, for example).  I fail to see any distinction between Bloodgate and someone play-acting to get an opponent carded.

As in football, of course, nothing will happen as a result of these incidents.  Governing bodies will (quite rightly) say that the case is unprovable; Clermont’s coaches and crowd will continue to adore Parra, probably even more so if he can win them a game by underhand means (indeed, part of the problem with his attitude is that he is so outrageously talented); and the French game will continue to disgust foreign fans and neutrals alike, without any attempt to clean itself up.  The stakes are too high for decisive action; the rewards for victory are too great to make honest self-criticism worthwhile.

Despite all of that, though, I would dearly, dearly love it if the iRB  or the FFR were to cite Faure for “acts contrary to good sportsmanship” (Law 10.4 (m)).  This is the law under which eye-gouging is prosecuted, and I cannot think of a better definition of poor sportsmanship than pretending to be hurt to get another player sent off.

More realistically, this sort of behaviour will only be dealt with effectively by self-policing.  I would like to see the reaction from Richard Cockerill, Martin Castrogiovanni and Marcos Ayerza if Dan Cole were to feign injury like that – I like to think he wouldn’t do it twice.  Better club cultures and education about the values of rugby will serve to eradicate this blemish much more effectively than top-down sanctions.  After all, camaraderie and team spirit are probably the most important part of a professional player’s existence.

In the meantime, however, French rugby really should take a hard stance to stamp out this disgraceful aspect of their domestic game before its grip tightens.  As the financial power of the Gallic game increases daily, and it continues to be at the forefront of the domestic leagues, it has never been more important or more opportune for this to happen.

Will Howley stay with Wales when Gatland leads the Lions?

Jack Lewars

The news that Rob Howley will lead Wales’ tour to Australia after Warren Gatland’s recent domestic accident is fairly mundane.  Its wider implications, however, are not.

It is considered all but certain that Gatland will appoint Shaun Edwards and Graham Rowntree as his defence and forwards coaches for next year’s Lions tour.  What is not clear is who will fill the role of attack coach.  While Gatland could take this on himself, he is primarily a forwards coach and strategist, not someone who coaches the technical side of attack.  This leaves an intriguing gap in the Lions coaching make-up.

The obvious candidate is Rob Howley.  He is Wales’ attack guru and was on the 2009 Lions tour along with the three aforementioned coaches.  However, he has already been named as the joint leader (along with Robin McBryde) of the Welsh team in 2013, when Gatland will be on his Lions sabbatical year.  This includes not only the 6 Nations but also the summer tour to Japan, which coincides with the Lions fixtures Down Under.

It is not impossible, of course, that Howley could still travel with the Lions.  Being named as the caretaker of Wales does not prohibit being subsequently named as a Lions coach, and this may be thinking behind Robin McBryde’s joint appointment for the 6 Nations, especially as McBryde took charge of Wales’ 2009 tour to the USA in the absence of Gatland, Edwards and Howley.

If this is the expected progression, however, it seems rather strange that Howley has been given sole charge of Wales’ summer tour to Australia.  This would be a great chance to give McBryde further experience as the head guy, in preparation for his joint and then single custodianship next year.  Although it is firmly in the realms of speculation, it seems to me that Howley’s appointment for the 2012 Australia tour puts his Lions participation in doubt.

Regardless of the lack of certainty here, this gives an intriguing opportunity to muse about alternatives.  The unfortunate truth is that there really aren’t that many.  Scotland can’t buy a try at the moment, which probably discounts Gregor Townsend, although he has fine Lions pedigree as a player.  I’ve got to be honest and say that before researching piece I’d never actually heard of Gert Smal, who seems to be Ireland’s attack coach, so he would be a shock choice as well.

This apparent dearth of candidates adds considerable weight to the position of England attack coach.  After Andy Farrell decided to stay with Saracens (and, although his work on defence during the 6 Nations was outstanding, anyone who saw Sarries plug away at uninspiring plan A against Clermont for 80 minutes won’t be devastated to see him exit the frame), there has been much speculation about the final part of Lancaster’s preferred triumvirate structure.  Waikato Chiefs coach Wayne Smith is the favourite to get the job, especially after masterminding the All Blacks’ World Cup triumph, but he isn’t available until the Autumn.  This necessitates a temporary coach for the South Africa tour and if Stuart Lancaster has demonstrated anything, it’s that possession is nine-tenths of the law in coaching.

If Smith is the RFU and Lancaster’s first choice, it wouldn’t surprise me to see either of Mike Catt or Brian Ashton travel to South Africa.  Catt has international pedigree and is respected by the players, although he is relatively inexperienced and has not coached above club level.  Ashton, meanwhile, was the brain behind England’s unstoppable attack patterns in the Woodward era – something he did so successfully that he became England head coach and led them to a World Cup Final.  In many ways, and still assuming that Howley is unavailable, Ashton would be the most likely person to travel with the Lions, both on ability and pedigree.

Although this is largely speculation and educated guesswork, the thought of a Gatland – Ashton – Edwards – Rowntree coaching team is extremely exciting (not to mention Lancaster – Ashton – Rowntree for England).  There would also be a sense of justice in giving Ashton, a committed servant of the game and a revolutionary attacking thinker, the chance to redeem himself after his appalling treatment at the hands of the RFU in 2008.  Although it remains to seen whether Ashton is willing either to re-enter elite rugby or to talk to the RFU again, he did suggest himself as an interim coach for both the 6 Nations and the South Africa tour in the press.  This suggests that a shot at redemption might just be as appealing to him as it is to the rest of us.

Is Armitage's French form enough to force a place in the England squad?

Jack Lewars

Toulon’s crushing victory over Harlequins provided much food for thought on Friday night.  Jonny Wilkinson showed that international retirement has diminished him not at all, and also gave an insight into why oppositions teams have feared him for so long as he ruthlessly punished Harlequins’ appalling discipline.  From Harlequins’ point of view, they must wonder why even a weakened team was so comprehensively outplayed.  Although Jordan Turner-Hall, Matt Hopper, Ugo Monye and replacement Danny Care all showed class in the face of a overwhelming French pressure, Mike Brown and George Robson did their chances of international honours no favours at all.  For potential Premiership champions, it was a truly abject display.

The most intriguing aspect of the contest for Stuart Lancaster, however, will have been the performance of Steffon Armitage.  The doughty flanker has not really featured on England’s radar since his move to France in 2011 – he was one of those players that Johnson was happy to lose to make a point about moving abroad.  Even before that, he hadn’t held down a place and he did not seem to fit the mould of the England back row.

Like many, however, a move to France has reinvigorated him.  Playing in the star-studded Toulon team, the diminutive flanker has consistently been first choice at openside, valued for his pace and his ‘on the floor’ ability at the breakdown.  The French side have granted him the sort of freedom that Tom Croft enjoyed in the Six Nations, allowing him to pop up in the wide channels in attack where his pace is most effective.  Indeed, quite apart from his brilliant work in the tackle area, he caused Harlequins no end of problems with ball in hand, twice breaking the line and also demonstrating a more-than-useful boot.  This follows a crucial late try against Stade Français in February, when he barged over in the corner to force a draw.

For those who feel that England would benefit from a genuine openside, Armitage is surely the outstanding candidate (along with Andy Saull of Saracens).  His first notable action was to win a penalty for holding on as he timed perfectly his arrival at the ruck, before clinging limpet-like to man and ball.  With his lack of height and powerful frame, he is perfectly suited to ripping away possession, much in the mould of Neil Back.  It is a skill-set that England might find extremely useful against the powerful South African ball-carriers this summer.

Unfortunately, Armitage remains an outsider for the travelling squad, let alone England’s starting fifteen.  Already out of favour for playing abroad, he incurred further RFU displeasure when he described them as “dickheads” for suspending brother Delon in November.  Furthermore, with Croft and Morgan cementing their places during the Six Nations, the only other back row spot is occupied by Chris Robshaw, Lancaster’s captain.  This gives him a considerable amount of protection, even without taking into account his decent showings since January.  Robshaw may not be a top-class breakdown practitioner but he is an excellent leader and he deserves far more credit for England’s cohesion and backs-against-the-wall quality than perhaps he has received.

Even with these obstacles, however, I would like to see him tour in the summer.  Given England’s plethora of blindsides, he would offer good cover from the bench, as he can also play at number 8 (he lined up there for a couple of attacking scrums against Harlequins, although the visitors’ front row failed to complete either of these set pieces).  In addition, Calum Clark’s lengthy suspension and the mysterious silence regarding Tom Wood’s recovery mean that back-row spots are available.

Certainly, Armitage would seem a better impact substitute than Phil Dowson, and his pace will suit South Africa’s fast, dry pitches.  In the event of a Robshaw injury, England could field a fearsomely quick back-row of Croft, Armitage and Morgan, one that brings pace, good handling, powerful carrying, big defence and competitiveness on the floor.  With the need for Lancaster to develop and diversify his squad’s ability, England fans can only hope that yesterday’s performance brought this one step closer to reality.

Richard Cockerill "makes it clear what he thinks" to Calum Clark after Hawkins' injury.

Jack Lewars

Calum Clark has been banned for 32 weeks for deliberately hyper-extending the elbow of Leicester hooker Rob Hawkins.  The Northampton flanker, who was selected in Stuart Lancaster’s EPS for the 6 Nations but not included in a match squad, will not play again until 2nd November 2012.

The ban is an interesting one, not least because the RFU has published a full report from the hearing.  This offers a rare and fascinating chance to see inside rugby’s disciplinary process.  For the purist, it also offers the opportunity to compare football’s (deeply flawed) discipline procedures with those of rugby, as the FA’s report on Luis Suarez’s investigation for racist abuse is still in the public domain. I, however, am going to focus on points of interest from Clark’s report alone.

Clark pleaded guilty to the offence with which he was charged, and the video evidence was also damning.  For many, this should have carried at least a 12 month suspension, given the horrific injury which Hawkins suffered and the ugly image that the incident presented.

The 22-year old’s mitigation, however, was that he did not mean to hurt or injure the player, as he was only trying to manoeuvre Hawkins away from the ball and did not realise that he was trapped, which led to his elbow giving way.  This defence was accepted by Judge Jeff Blackett, the RFU’s chief disciplinary officer, and was a key factor in reducing the ban from a potential 5 year duration to 64 weeks (which was in turn reduced by the maximum allowance of 50% for mitigating factors).

This throws the case into an area of ambiguity and debate.  On the one hand, a lack of intent on Clark’s part does not mitigate the injury to Hawkins, who may suffer long term damage.  The IRB, for one, have made it clear that lack of intent is only scant excuse for dangerous play, by telling referees to disregard it in the case of dangerous tackles.

This also does little to save the image of the game, the concern which almost certainly led the RFU to publish of the report.  While Richard Cockerill has accepted the punishment as sufficient, even offering a few uncharacteristic words of conciliation, it is ammunition for those who see rugby’s licensed aggression as unacceptable.  Few other sports would offer the chance for such a cringe-worthy injury, and parents and young children will not view the incident well.

Looking at it from the other direction, however, one can feel a touch sorry for Clark.  Assuming he is being truthful, which his clean record and reputation would suggest, he has made a terrible mistake which has set his career back by eight months and significantly damaged his professional reputation.  This is weighty punishment for an accidental consequence.  Coming from this angle, Northampton Saints issued a strongly-worded and eloquent statement of their sense of grievance:

“The disciplinary panel found that Calum Clark had not intended to injure Rob Hawkins in the course of moving his arm. Accordingly the unfortunate injury suffered by Rob Hawkins was unintentional.

“In the light of that finding of the disciplinary panel, Northampton Saints is bound to express concern and disappointment at the imposition of such a long suspension, even after significant mitigation in recognition of what was accepted to be Calum Clark’s genuine remorse.”

Further adding to Clark’s case is the searing honesty which is documented in the report.  It is worth quoting directly: “The Player said that after the game and since he has been devastated for lots of reasons, primarily for Rob Hawkins himself.  He said that he would not wish an injury such as this on anybody….  Last weekend he went to coach local children and he was afraid that their parents would not want someone perceived as a violent player to coach them.”

There is, of course, no simple conclusion to such a case.  It is the nature of an aggressive contact sport that mistakes will occur and that serious injuries will happen.  It is also paramount for the game to protect its image.  For what it’s worth, it seems to me that Blackett has made exactly the right call here – a serious ban, but not in the order of a 5 year suspension.  Indeed, perhaps the best conclusion to draw is that it is to rugby’s eternal credit that it has a disciplinary system which is transparent but at the same time sufficiently complex to deal with such difficult cases.  The use of a strong evidence base, drawing on everything from medical testimony to character references; the ability to take genuine mitigating factors into account; and a strong disciplinary staff, headed by a respected legal figure, are all crucial in ensuring that rugby, more often than not, gets it right.

In the meantime, the published report is well worth reading, and offers a great insight into a little-highlighted area of the game.

Was this the pivotal moment in Barnes and Pearson being dropped?

Jack Lewars

Although it appears to have passed largely unremarked upon in the rugby world – the odd sentence tacked onto another report, the odd inset in an opinion piece – this week England’s two representatives on the IRB’s elite refereeing panel were dropped.  In the case of Wayne Barnes, this was perhaps not totally unjustified.  In the case of Dave Pearson, however, it sets a deeply worrying precedent.

Wayne Barnes has probably not been at the top of his game for around 12 months.  He was one of the favourites to referee the World Cup final (indeed, I heard that he would have retired immediately if he had been appointed for the game) but only until the tournament started.  A few indifferent displays later, and especially after he controversially adjudged Felipe Contepomi to have been onside when he charged down Dan Parks’ last-minute drop-goal in the group stages, he had fallen from favour, and he participated in the knock-out stages only by running touch.

Difficult situations appear to have followed him around a while, from AR Richard Goodliffe telling him to yellow card both Chris Ashton and Manu Tuilagi when the latter assaulted the former, via several other unsightly brawls in the Premiership, to the recent Bradley Davies incident (more of which later).  He is, however, an excellent communicator and a consistent decision-maker, and I’m sure he will reassert his class if given the opportunity.

The main quibble with Barnes being removed from the panel is that figures such as Steve Walsh, who can be unconvincing at times, and in particular Alain Rolland retained their status.  Rolland still suffers from the accumulated grief of Warburton’s World Cup dismissal, a decision with which I have no issue.  In addition, however, he had one of the worst games I have ever seen from a top flight referee when England played France in the 6 Nations.  Not only that, it bore all the hall marks of Rolland’s traditional failings.

He completely opted out of decisions at the scrum, allowing Corbisiero to fold inwards repeatedly without penalty, before penalising England for apparently wheeling a scrum at express pace on their own ball inside their own half.  He gave a typically pedantic, mystifying penalty against Chris Ashton for the most innocuous of flare ups – the kind of attention-grabbing that he seems unable to avoid, and a classic piece of inconsistency.  Rolland will see such confrontations most weeks at professional level and will not penalise them.  In the same vein, he watched a French assistant coach catch a clearance to prevent a quick line-out, but did not produce a red card, as he did for Will Skinner recently in the Heineken Cup.  I can hardly think of a better demonstration of inconsistency, and in each case he seemed compelled to make a stance for its own sake.

More outrageous than any of this, however, was his decision to yellow card Charlie Sharples for a deliberate knock-on, just minutes after Wesley Fofana had conceded the same penalty in an arguably more dangerous position.  When asked if the incidents were not the same by Chris Robshaw, his only response was “no, they are not”.

Rolland is a pedantic, inconsistent referee who has come close to reversing the outcome of a game on more than one occasion (which is pretty difficult to do when you are, as he undoubtedly is, impartial).  As was often said of football referee Graham Poll, he seems unable to let the game flow without needing to assert himself.  Regardless of Barnes’ subdued form, Rolland should have been far ahead of him when it came to a cull.

Ranting about Rolland is not really the point of this blog, however.  The real story lies in the treatment of Dave Pearson and its wider implications.  Pearson is an up-and-coming referee, who earned his first World Cup appearances on the back of consistently good performances in the Premiership and Heineken Cup.  He then progressed to the 6 Nations, where he took charge of his first tournament game when France played Ireland.  To have been dropped from the panel signals a considerable change of trajectory, and immediately begs explanation.

Given that he had an uncontroversial game when the Paris clash went ahead, there are only two things Pearson has done which can have counted against him.  One is to postpone the match on 11th February, when he decided the pitch was unplayable just minutes before kick-off.  The IRB have publicly supported him in this (as has everyone who went near the apparently rock-hard pitch) but it left the French RFU deeply embarrassed, and I hope that this has not led to back-channel retribution.

This seems unlikely, however, and it smacks of a conspiracy theory.  This means that the most probable explanation is that Pearson has been dropped because he recommended only a yellow card when Bradley Davies clearly dumped Donnacha Ryan on his head, some seconds after the ball had gone.  This was a bad decision, which may well have contributed to Barnes’ demise (although, in my opinion, it’s very difficult to question a firm recommendation when RefLink is broadcasting your every syllable to the world).  If it is the (potentially only) reason for Pearson being discarded, however, it’s downright scandalous, for the following reasons.

First, it was an off-the-ball incident which happened some time after the play had moved on.  While this makes it more heinous, it also makes it much less likely that Pearson had a clear, focused view of the action.  It is the touch judge’s job to ‘lag with his eyes’ behind the play, in order to catch such things, but the delay between the ruck and the tackle was such that only instinct could have kept Pearson’s eyes on Davies and Ryan.  This explains the doubt which led him not to recommend the harshest available sanction.  Second, a yellow rather than a red card almost certainly did not affect the outcome of the match.  This isn’t a great standard for judging a decision’s merits, but it is relevant.  Wales had an extra man for the last three minutes, but Davies did not carry significantly as they won the decisive penalty.

Thirdly, however, and most importantly, it was only one decision. Except in absolutely exceptional circumstances, a referee should never be dropped on account of a single split-second decision. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent, especially for a referee who is new to the international stage and thus in a position of learning and development.  Anyone can make a mistake, especially when it comes to the severity of a card when the incident was only half-seen.

The result of such action will be to undermine the confidence of elite referees, which is arguably the root of the problem anyway.  When referees give yellow cards where a red would be appropriate, I always think that the pressure from fans, pundits and players to avoid ‘ruining the game’ is at work.  Referees are partly tasked with providing a spectacle (hence the consistent claim that it is the referee’s fault when numerous scrums collapse in a match – perhaps the front rows are partly responsible?) and this makes them loath to give a straight red card unless they are absolutely certain.  Essentially, they are worried about making a bold decision and it subsequently being proved incorrect (look at the fallout when Rolland’s dismissed Warburton, almost certainly correctly).  A system where one mistake can lead to demotion will surely result in even greater hesitancy from referees, and a much greater likelihood that they will take the easy or safe option whenever one is available.  In the majority of foul play instances, this will lead to more yellow cards, which is almost always safer than a straight red.  I even heard an elite referee say recently that they would always give a yellow as a default and “leave the rest to the citing commissioner”.  The IRB are thus in danger of promoting exactly the stance that they seem to be attacking so harshly in Pearson’s case.

The changes to the elite panel list are accompanied by reforms to the referee management structure, with four selection meetings a year instead of one and a “more fluid” panel system.  This basically means that international referees are going to be much more vulnerable to demotion during a season.  I can hardly see this helping them to produce precise and decisive refereeing, nor helping them to adapt to the international game and its demands.  Greater insecurity for figures who already come under extreme scrutiny and pressure is, to my mind, utterly counter-productive.

Dave Pearson had a very good game in the middle when Ireland played France.  He made a very difficult call when postponing the fixture first time out, and quite probably saved someone serious injury by doing so.  In Dublin, he did catch sight of a late, off-the-ball incident, alerted the referee, correctly identified the culprit and delivered a clear, concise explanation of the scenario, with a firm recommendation.  His only mistake was in the colour of the card delivered.  While this was a bad mistake, and one that he will know he shouldn’t have made, a public demotion on the back of this one aspect is absurd.

The IRB’s management of referees was already troublesome enough.  By using law to alter the game, they pressure referees into being agents of change when they should be agents of consistency.  By introducing more and more offences at the breakdown, they force referees to choose what to penalise and what to ignore much more publicly (take, for example, the fact that nearly every international team comes off its feet at attacking rucks – there are often at least four offences being committed at every breakdown, and the recommended ‘order of consideration’ is not always decisive).  This promotes inconsistency, as one referee’s method differs from another.  And by telling referees what they must do in the event of a tip tackle, they rob them of the ability to use contextual judgement in their decisions.  The only thing keeping the game in some sort of order is the exceptional ability of most elite referees, which leads to good performances in spite of what happens above them.  These latest reforms are not a step in the right direction.

Jack Lewars and Chris Gollop

Following the World Cup, we suggested the following fifteen for the 2013 Lions tour:

Jack Lewars

Stuart Lancaster will today be confirmed as the new full-time England head coach after his 6 Nations success.  Despite rumours that the RFU would go for the more experienced Nick Mallett, coming second in the European tournament was enough to earn a reported four-year contract.  This can only be good news for English rugby.

Lancaster has achieved a staggering amount since January.  He came to a squad which was disunited, stagnant and low on confidence after a poor World Cup.  Before the tournament, England were widely tipped to finish fourth, possibly third if they could overcome Ireland at home.  Indeed, Scotland had the novel experience of being favourites for the opening fixture at Murrayfield.

The former Leeds and England Saxons coach had other ideas, however.  With just three weeks to mould the squad before the competition began, his initial focus was discipline, both on and off the field.  He used motivational speakers, letters from coaches, friends and family and simple team-building exercises to ensure that players felt pride in the jersey and trust in each other.  This then translated into wholehearted defensive efforts against Scotland and Italy, in which the most striking feature was exceptional discipline under pressure.  There is no doubt that Martin Johnson’s England would have lost both those games through conceding needless penalties – Lancaster’s side kept their heads and allowed their excellent scramble defence (and some woeful Scottish decision-making) to bail them out.

From that base, the Lancaster-Farrell-Rowntree triumvirate has gone on to achieve an incredible breadth of improvement.  As well as upgrading the defensive system from a scramble defence to an aggressive, hard-hitting blitz, they have given England structure and depth in attack and turned a decent pack in an absolute wrecking ball; they successfully blooded a whole raft of new players, from the ice-cool Owen Farrell to the rampaging Ben Morgan, and have turned previously average-looking players into Test match competitors (think Geoff Parling); and, even better, there has been clear evidence of top class coaching.  It is surely no coincidence that Dan Cole and Tom Croft, both players with an abundance of class but little to show for it in recent seasons, had their best ever periods in an England shirt – this is where Lancaster’s experience as a developmental coach really tells.

The only danger to Lancaster’s bid to get the position permanently was shifting expectations.  If you had offered England fans in January two wins and a desperately unlucky loss to Wales from their first three games, they would have taken your hand off.  That alone was serious progress from the dark days of December, when leaked reports offered little hope of any cohesion at all.  Suddenly, however, there was talk of needing a win against France (and I remain convinced that a loss to the World Cup finalists, even away from home, would have given those seeking Mallett’s appointment just the opportunity they needed to sow seeds of doubt about Lancaster’s credentials).  This was asking a coach who had conjured something from nothing not only to put in a credible performance, but a record-breaking one.  That he achieved this most unreasonable of requirements, in a display overflowing with pace and style, is truly amazing.

England were not perfect in the 6 Nations, of course, and there remain serious questions to be answered – can England attack if Tuilagi isn’t fit?  Why is the lineout so hit and miss?  Can they learn to put sides to the sword when they’re on top, as they failed to do against France and Wales?  Perhaps most importantly of all, given that he is a crucial part of the three-man team that has brought England so far so quickly, will the RFU be able to prise Andy Farrell away from Saracens?  There is absolutely no doubt, however, that Lancaster is the right man to be searching for these answers.