Ah! Kids in a sweet shop. How touching. On Thursday, it was decided that many
of the controversial experimental law variations (ELVs) that the
International Rugby Board (IRB) has been trialling around the world will be
used in the Super 14 of 2008, for which all the teams are now preparing.
The team websites have been oozing drool. The Super 14 coaches in New Zealand
and Australia have been falling over themselves to see who can give them the
warmest welcome. They just can’t wait to get out there for a good old
frolic.
What’s happening?
THE SUPER 14 will not feature one of the most controversial experiments – that
you can handle the ball in the ruck. Nor will there be a problem with some
of the sound ancillary ideas – that touch judges can flag for offside, for
example. There will be more controversy over the ELVs that allow the quick
throw-in not to be straight, that set the defensive lines at scrums five
metres back (instead of at the rear feet), that dramatically reduce the
number of full penalty offences and others that appear to change the game’s
character. The new laws, so one Kiwi coach said, “are meant to speed up the
game as well as reduce the number of penalties and emphasise back play”. He
is quite wrong, but more of that later.
There has also been excited chatter that if the ELVs are applied, the ball
will be in play longer. Let’s not wipe the cheesy grins off their southern
hemisphere faces by pointing out that nobody has ever established that
faster rugby is better rugby. If they had, then the Keystone Cops would be
world champions and we may as well play in running spikes (that would stop
people lying on the ball, I suppose). And in rugby, as in life, if you
reduce the number of penalties, all you do is increase the number of
offences.
I cannot think of anything more fatuously bogus than some anorak with a
stopwatch telling us how long the ball is in play. How long was the ball in
play in last season’s thunderous Munster-Leicester match? About 10 seconds,
it felt like, but it was a classy, compelling wonderful game. Ball in play?
When teams labour horribly with those dullard six-inch pick-and-drives
around the fringes, the ball is in play all right. It is what happens
when the ball is in play that counts.
The most excited coach of all is the Australian Ewen McKenzie, of the
Waratahs. Reflecting on the past decade, he said: “We very much pioneered
some new directions of the game and actually pushed the limits . . . in
terms of laws. Then there was a conscious decision three or four years ago
to actually realign and make sure that we [were] lining up with the world
game.” God bless him. Stalin paid people millions to rewrite history like
that. McKenzie’s so-called “pushing the limits” is a reference to a
desperate period from 1996, when the Super 12, pushed by Australia, decided
to chase false gods of entertainment by telling referees to ignore laws they
deemed inconvenient and produced a sickly, gaudy, one-dimensional brand of
nothing. It had around 20 tries per match, which ignored practically all the
key phases of forward play.
And the “realignment?” That came when they realised the shambles they had
created. It cost New Zealand World Cups and it caused Australia years of
forward humiliation, right up to the World Cup quarter-final of October 2007
when England’s Andrew Sheridan and Phil Vickery demolished the Wallaby pack.
The Australian props, children of the sickly era, would not have been good
enough to play in English regional leagues.
It is, therefore, amazing how similar are the excited noises this week. Even
now, people cannot see that the best way to free your back divisions is to
power up your forward pack. When Australia played England, their back-line
was menacing. Chris Latham, Stirling Mortlock and Matt Giteau were two
classes above anything England had to offer. Yet they never had a chance.
They were killed, not so much by Sheridan and company but by their own
technocrats and marketeers, who ruined their forward play. Clearly, too,
Australia and probably New Zealand see the ELVs as a way of depowering the
packs of England, France and Argentina.
Who’s afraid of Sheridan and his ilk? They are.
The view from Down Under
THE AUSTRALIAN view of the ELVs is not altruistic. It was summed up by John
Mitchell, the Kiwi coach of Perth’s Western Force. “It is essential . . .
for us in Australia, where we are competing with the other contact sports,
and it is important that the game is a lot more free-flowing.” In other
words, they think they have to compete with rugby league.
Again, the myopia is staggering. Admittedly, Australia is the one place on
earth that has to compete with rugby league in this way on domestic levels,
even though not at Test level, where the hurtling decline of the Kiwi team
reduces the ever-shrinking world of true Test teams in rugby league to two.
All other parts of the world have decided that far from patronising
followers with simplicity and “free-flowing rugby”, they will retain each
and every distinguishing feature – and then some – and also burnish rugby’s
sacred claim to be a sport for all shapes and sizes.
In any case, the laws are meant to apply to all 115 countries where rugby
union is played, and played in all climates, on all surfaces, with all the
national peculiarities and historical strengths and mindsets, all the myriad
different philosophies of coaches and appetites of spectators and television
audiences, played by the pros and the sixth XV, in all the frustrating and
magnificent panoply of the game. Not because the Aus-sies have a local
difficulty. Thank god that synchronized swimming isn’t huge in Australia, or
they would be demanding that we all play rugby in waterproof make-up with
our feet in the air.
The official line
EARLIER this year I sat down with Paddy O’Brien, the IRB referees manager, and
Greg Thomas, head of communications. Both had redefined their roles by their
own excellence. We spoke about the advent of the ELVs. They explained the
setting up of the Laws Project Group (LPG), led by Rod Macqueen of (you’ve
guessed it) Australia.
I wrote at the time that while the group, for me, had too many dreamers and
too few professional hard-nuts, at least they were trying. The IRB men
emphasised that any law change adopted must conform to the IRB charter,
which sets down that rugby must remain a game for people of “different
physiques” and also must maintain a full contest for possession in the
forwards – neither concept would survive an onslaught from the southern
droolers.
We spoke for over an hour on the ELVs. Not once during the conversation did
either IRB man talk about chasing entertainment or about the ball in play,
or about “emphasising back play”. I am not saying they did not wish for a
better game, of course they did, but the role they see for the ELVs seems
profoundly different from the way they are being seen in the 2008 Super 14.
As O’Brien said, he wanted to “take the referee out of the equation”. In other
words, for the ELVs to simplify not the game but rugby’s laws, so many of
which depend on the individual whim of the referee. Thomas on Friday
restated the idea of “simplifying the game for the referee and the players”.
But two things worry me. First, the latest report from the ELV trials held to
date, and written by the LPG (reporting on their own work), lists no
evidence that any of the experiments (some radical, others bizarre) in 15
areas of the law have failed. That suggests they are moving towards
recommending a blanket application of the whole lot. That disturbs me. To be
fair, they conclude that the ELVs do not, necessarily, depower forward
phases, and can augment them. There will be a raft of free kicks under them,
but you can opt for a raft of scrums.
But what also disturbs me is the unholy, if unwitting, alliance the IRB are
striking. The gushing reaction of the south to the ELVs is, in many ways, a
hijack of the IRB’s original concept. But once those laws have had a full
season in the Super 14 (and last week, the idea that they be applied also to
the 2008 TriNations was being openly and publicly aired), then they become
the status quo and there is nothing so difficult to shift. In my
investigations round the major European unions, I found in some cases a
remarkable lack of grasp of the whole ELV process. Some unions do not even
have a technical department to talk about them, or to stand against a
railroading process by the south, which may well happen.
Thomas insists that “there is no cajoling . . . the IRB wants to get it right.
With Sanzar choosing not to test all ELVs in the 2008 Super 14, the IRB will
look at other tournaments in 2008 to complete testing. Complete trial
information . . . will be provided to the IRB Council”. The council has the
final vote.
A northern perspective
OTHER coaches are a lot less excited. Shaun Edwards of Wasps warns that rugby
could be “reaping a whirlwind created by those who make a habit of tinkering
when it’s unnecessary”. He also makes an even more salient point. “If it’s
not bust, don’t mend it.” As I have said several times recently, I cannot
remember a time when rugby was in such a boom period. It is eating up
countries all over the world, it is outgrowing English and French stadiums.
There is a rush of youngsters, women players, spectators, burgeoning
television deals. We have just had a World Cup which, until it reached the
final, was brilliant. We certainly have a game that can be brilliant in
different styles (and poor in any style, of course). Why are we talking
radical change?
And finally, are the IRB ignoring their own history? It is full of law changes
that proved wildly counterproductive. Syd Millar, the outgoing IRB chairman,
said to me in 1997: “Rugby law should be left to evolve. We must never force
it.”
The World Cup final was a kick-fest. Thomas reveals that the ball was kicked
91 times, a grim statistic. But perhaps here is one reason. Not so long ago,
the IRB asked that players isolated when caught in possession should be
ruthlessly penalised if they hold on to the ball. As ever, referees
overreacted to new measures. These days, you get pinged to high heaven just
for being isolated, even if you have released. When it comes to a massive
occasion, teams are in living dread of the turnover, of being penalised by
the referee. I sensed that same fear in the World Cup final, and it was a
fear that led to the kicking barrage. Just one IRB measure, made with good
intentions, having the opposite effect. Beware.
The final word
Some of the ELVs are excellent, particularly the procedural ones. But I will
need all the evidence in the world to acclaim the radical ones and I refuse
entirely to accept that they should be applied in total. I also reject the
idea that law changes must ever be forced, and reject the idea that, at
present, they are needed anyway.
Finally, I have the nagging fear that below the equator, we are again going to
be told what true entertainment is and that we are not going to be in the
least entertained by it; and that once again, rugby is going to go flouncing
down a blind alley. Australia and New Zealand will be the losers, of course.
But so will rugby.
Lawless laws
Far too often, the International Rugby Board has changed laws to improve the
game only to find that the changes have been counterproductive
- Use it or lose it The IRB wanted to prevent the ball being trapped in
mauls, so they brought in the use-it-or-lose-it law. Previously, possession
after indeterminate mauls had been given to the team going forward, but the
new law gave possession to the team which had not taken the ball in.
Forwards were no longer needed to commit to driving the maul forward, so
they scattered across the field, cluttering it and changing the face of the
game. They are still there
- Replacements tide Because there was so much skulduggery afoot when
replacements could only be used to replace injured players, the IRB acted to
allow replacements at any time. However, this measure has dynamited the
closing stages of matches, with inferior teams able to bring on an army of
reinforcements
- Beware the turnover The IRB demanded that all players isolated in a
tackle should be penalised if they failed to release the ball. This is so
strictly adhered to by referees that players are terrifi ed of being caught
in possession and resort to kicking as a safer option
- Moving the corner post The corner flag is moved back two metres, and
provided players are not grounded on or over the sideline as they touch
down, they will now be awarded a try. At present, if they strike the flag
before touchdown, the score is ruled out
Experimental laws
These are the main areas for experimental laws
Breakdown: There will be a new offside line at the tackle. Defenders
have to track back to enter the tackle area from their own side. If the ball
is unplayable at a breakdown, the side that did not take the ball in to
contact receive a free-kick. There are only three penalty offences at the
breakdown. These involve offside and players on the ground preventing
release
Maul: Defending players can pull down the maul. If a maul becomes
unplayable, the team not in possession at the start receives a free-kick
Scrum: The offside line for players not in the scrum and who are not
the scrum-half is fi ve metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum
Touch judges: Can indicate offside at the tackle
Quick throw: At a lineout, the ball can be thrown straight or
backwards if the lineout is not already formed
The World cup played to record crowds and TV audiences. Premiership and Heineken cup rugby attendances are rising. The game does not need to be made "more entertaining". Leave well alone!
James, London,
Rugby Union in Australia is a long last to Rugby League, AFL and Football. It needs something very quickly. Hence, the infantile support for the ELVS. If the se new laws are introduced we may as well give up and follow Rugby League as most Australians do.
Charlie, Christchurch, NZ
Rugby Union does not belong to the RFU, or the IRB, it belongs to the kids playing on the muddy padocks year after year, to the club players hammering away in all conditions at all levels, OF ALL SIZES. The new rules, influenced by men whose mantra is money, whose integrity must be questioned because they add nothing to the world wide game, and whose one-eyed, biased version of the world is formed only in Australia and perhaps NZ, who seem to follow Aussies like sheep. So, what am I to tell the 15 year old props I have coached since they were 8, who have given more to union than the Aussie law makers ever have or will, and give it without asking for anything, and in the full knowledge that most will never have hope of touching the Twickenham turf? Sorry boys, someone in the IRB just made your position all but redundant? I'm a small town coach but I will resist anyone who messes with my game, and there are many of us. The RFU and the IRB really don't want to take us one.... trust me.
sean, Plymouth, england
I believe that we should not judge the state of rugby on such a pressure cooker atmosphere as the latter stages of the world cup. A lot of finals in all sports never live up to the billing. When the pressure was off Argentina and France produced some of the most exciting rugby in the 3rd place play off.
The years in between world cups has seen some glorious attacking rugby winning out - NZ in the Tri nations, Wales in the Grand Slam and the French in European Cups. All these played under the same rules we are looking at changing.
Rugby is very cyclical, defenses work out one style of attack, which provokes new methods of attack, which in turn mean new defensive strategies. The boot is now on the foot of attcking coaches to earn their crust and break down the defensive structures.
However I would love to find some rule changes to stop the picking and driving a few inches forward until a penalty is awarded. I thought this had been made but does not seem to be enforced.
Dewi, Dubai,
The biggest issue I have with the ELVs is with the collapsing of the maul and at the breakdown. The offside line at the breakdown I can live with, but not the turnover on unplayable ball. Ditto the turnover for collapsing the maul. Both reward crappy play and killing the ball by the defender. Nevermind the safety issue at the youth level.
I don't like, but I can live with the "not straight is okay before the lineout is set" rule, but I don't think anyone will be happy with the strategies that evolve to exploit it.
Beyond that, the pick and crash for two inches at a go is tiresome to watch. Bring rucking and and the forwards back into the game if you are going to do anything. Otherwise leave the game alone.
Pat Beaird, Little Rock , AR, USA
Oh my gosh...This as an arguement from the same group of people who, if they had there way, would still be playing amateur rugby without a World Cup (remember those 2 brilliant, British attempts to keep the status quo??). Yes, the best way to set a backline free is to dominate in the forwards - no arguement there - but with all the forward dominance England have enjoyed over the Wallabies, exactly when are they planning to use their backline? Australia has scored 4 of the last 5 tries in World Cup finals, and the 5th was scored by someone who grew up playing league. Who wants to see 25mins of action and then no score other than penalty kicks?
Dan , Singapore , Singapore
I am not a rugby player, nor a very knowlegeable fan, but I do watch a lot on TV and have been to a few games with my kids who are into the game. I grew up playing football, and boxing, in the inner city, so have a view based not on the intricacies of the sport or its culture, but on the entertainment value alone. So with hand on heart I assure you that the one thing we love above all else, the one thing that sets rugby apart from every other game in the world, is the powerful scrum battles, the mauls, the rucking, the lineouts. The clash of the heavyweights, the giant, gnarly wrestlers, strong arming yards, inches and points, and the way this is combated by the middleweight centres and the fast and flighty backs. For crying out loud leave the game alone, already by removing the rucking you've dilluted it, don't dillute it more. You have the perfect sport, great fans, awesome players, and it appears, complete donkeys in charge! as an adult I leaned enough to love it, so can others.
Peter, Swindon.,
I agree whole heartedly with all who oppose these rule changes. If you ask any non rugby playing / watching adult or child what image they see when asked about rugby 95% of them would say the scrum. It is the cornerstone of the game and must not be devalued because 1 country cannot find a front row worthy to compete on the international stage.
To offer free kicks to a team to reward the collapsing of a maul (another of the games institutions) and killing the ball is ludicrous. Rugby is a power game and as such needs to played by powerful men. We, the English, have had to develop a game to combat the free running French and New Zealand teams who have the luxury of a decent set of forwards and world class backs. The Australians need to develop a game to compete with traditional forward power and not whine about entertainment. I agree with Dave from Sydney (see above)
If they want to watch a more 'marketable' game let them watch football and leave our game alone!
Chris Salter, Egham, UK
John in Brisbane makes na interesting point... the ARC though has has just been dissolved to massive losses, so the viewers and sponsors weren't there, just fast and furious men running around like crazy for 2o minutes, then getting slower and more confused because there was no way of slowing the game down or contrusting valid set pieces. It was ugly, it was 15 a a side league, and it wasn't rugby as we know it. If the Aussies want it, let them go it alone, if the southern hemisphere want it, let them all go... european rugby certainlky doesn't need the southern unions, their players can come north if they want to stay in real rugby, as they aleady are!
David, london,
The Australian Rugby Championship was being played at the same time as the RWC and I and many others over here turned off the RWC kick fests and enjoyed the free-flowing rugby of the ARC. The ARC was using the ELVs and what became apparent was that players with skill were able to use the ball to create try-scoring opportunities - matches were fast and furious and normally very entertaining.
In this part of the World we expect teams to play attractive, positive rugby, always looking to score tries.
By the way scrums and lineouts were still an important part of the ARC matches
John , Brisbane, Australia
David, London. The union propaganda machine has always claimed that union is, 'the game they play in heaven'. I am not sure if this is true. Some form of corroborated evidence would certainly be appreciated to support this outlandish claim. However, you are now claiming that union is also, 'the greatest game on earth'.
I feel totally and utterly deflated. I always gained comfort from the fact that my game, rugby league, was the greatest game on earth. I was content with this, even though I knew that when I die, and (hopefully) get to heaven, union would be number 1. Now I have to see out the rest of my days knowing that I have actually been living under a complete misapprehension. Union is infact number 1, “on earth as it is heavenâ€. It’s just like the day I discovered that Santa Claus wasn’t real.
Dave, Manchester, England
Mr Reynolds...no tries in the final?? Yes there was, but it took another Ozzie 3 minutes to decide not to award the attacking back play!!
Rugby is not broken...so try to fix it>
mikeCRISP, gloucester, uk
Chuck, USA, There have been substantial changes in the way the tight 5 srcummage which has lessoned the serious injury problems of previous generations. There have been great improvements in coaching and player technique too, and although the position still carries risk, it is far safer than it was. These rule changes wont on the face of it, depower the scrums that do occur, there will be just be less and less of them, and more and more tap-and-go. It is a dumbing down of the game, an undermining of the aspects that take years to learn and master, in order to appeal to a hypothetical audience of rugby-ignorant viewers with short attention spans in the southern hemisphere, as such the motive for the rule changes lacks integrity. The game has evolved over many years, and now the tinkering by the IRB risks destroying the greatest game on earth.
David, london,
Pulling down a maul will be proven to cause injury, especially cleat marks on your backside. What more could a forward want than fresh meat lying on the ground in front of him or her.
As a referee, I will never allow this "law" to be played.
Robert, morrisville, USA
In 2006, Bill LeClerc (former All Black?) gave a talk about scrums to high school coaches in the Chicago area. He predicted law changes to limit scrums due to chronic back problems that are suffered by the tight five later in life.
I have not seen that reason put forward in any of the commentary, and wonder why not, or did I miss it?
Chuck Riley, St Charles, Illinois USA
Stephen did you happen to catch any of the World Cup? It was rather difficult to stay awake for parts of it, so you are forgiven. Rugby needs to embrace change. Yes, there are purists like yourself who enjoy technical forward battles. But your numbers are growing fewer. At least give the changes a go.
Phil, Dublin,
Nick from Reading - the high tackle is not permitted in rugby league.
Dave, Manchester, England
Moan, moan, moan...
I notice that all the current comments on display under the main article have been penned by readers in the UK. Why is there such a resistance to change/development of the game of rugby? The last world cup proved that defence has become so sophisticated that it is stifling the current way the game is played. Note: no tries in the final between SA and England!
About time that 'something' is done to the laws, otherewise I think the game will die as spectators decamp to another sport with more fluency. It is a fact of modern life that entertainment rules and if the RWC final is the pinnacle of this sport, something isn't working...
Richard Reynolds, Dublin, Ireland
Collapsing a scrum is one of the few offences that is genuinely dangerous in terms of the possibility of causing injury if that is not deemed a penalty offence then what will be next?
Allowing the high/smother tackle a la 13 a side?
One of the highlights of the world cup for me was watching the unfancied Georgians tearing the Irish to shreds in the scrum/ruck/maul.
If anything needs changing it is the enforcing of the existing laws on put ins to the scrum, I do not think I have seen a straight feed to a scrum for a decade or more.
I am all for free flowing rugby ONCE possession has been won and defenders sucked in but tinkering with the rules to emasculate the forwards and allowing the backs extra space in which to accelerate before hitting the defensive line is ridiculous.
Just what was the make up of the panel that came up with these ELV's - I'd guess a full back and several wingers with maybe a token loose forward and administrators from clubs with no forwards and flying backs.
nick, reading,
This is not foot ball, not American Football nor I hope it ever will be. Rugby has had enough changes over the years, with the last world cup being as epic as it was, for sponsors, new fans let alone players and passionate supportors - leave it alone.
Charlie Walford, Working in London, Somerset
I played these new rules in Aussie last season, and as a forward I can assure anyone and everyone that these rules are the end of rugby union as we know it. The game involves so many tap and go restarts and so much running that it makes rugby league look structured! And I played league too, so I have a sense of this issue. In the longer run, there will few if any teams who will develop props and locks, with the years of effort and dedication needed, and they will opt for the lighter guys instead and just play tap/go, with very few scrums, and no real mauls. Also, it is too easy and tempting to infringe when there is no penalty. it's a mess. And it's designed to allow the Aussies to compete with Aussie rules and league, and as such it's not acceptible. Rugby is a sport for players, and the fans are predominantly players and former players and their families, we don't want that to change that. If the S. Hem' want this, let them go, if the IRB want it, let them go too. Perhaps it's time.
Peter Mcqueeny, london, england
Hmm, seems to me that if the Australians want to invent 'Aussie Rules Rugby' then good luck to them. We may even get to see it once or twice a year on Trans World Sport. I'll stick to my mauling and scrummaging.
George, Maidenhead,
Why is anyone aside from Australia welcoming these proposed changes! South Africa, France, New Zealand, England and Argentina all seem to cope, and all play a pretty entertaining game.
Why should we change the game because one country cannot quite cut it at the top level. Hey, lets give Georgia a chance. Why not cut the pitch to 60x30m and give the Georgians a change to use their pack (Not that Georgias backs are in any way as bad as Australias forwards!).
What sway do Australia hold over the IRB? What5 sway do Australia hold over the rest of the rugby playing world. Tell them to stuff their rules and go play netball.
MK, Newcastle,
Re: Mr Harris, Surrey: Why do we want to aid countries/cultures where the scrummaging ability is questionable? The scrum is one of the key facets of the game.
As an Irishman living in Australia, I can say that the waning interest in super14 is because here rugby union is viewed as entertainment, moreseo than in the north, where winning is the key factor. A lot of this comes from the nature of the premier competitions in both hemispheres. I totally afgree with Shaun edwards. Why change a game that is the purest team sport in the world? The biggest push for this is coming from Australia, who cannot find a pack of forwards, and the IRB who want a more "marketable" game? If people cant be bothered to learn the rules ,let them watch rugby league or football. The 6 nations must hold fast against these new rules. This idea wil leventually see the John Hayes, and Phil Vickeries pushed out of the game, as the set piece and forward play is viewed merely as a way to restart. HOLD FAST!!
david, Sydney, Australia
I have some big problems with the proposed new laws:
Penalties will only be given for offside and foul play. So what would I tell my players? Stay clean, stay onside, fan out across the pitch and give away free kicks for as long as you like because we won't concede any points from them. Players will soon become wise on how make the ball "unplayable" in the ref's eyes to win a free kick. It happens all the time now!
Under pressure in the scrum? Just keep collapsing it, its just a free kick, no points conceded. Pushover tries will no longer exist as any sensible defending team will just drop it repeatedly and give away a free kick. How many free kicks before a penalty or a penalty try?
Want to maul the ball? Forget it! The maul will disappear with these rules; what's the point when teams will deliberately collapse it and win a free kick despite being physically inferior? This will change the face of rugby completely and lose a defining part of the game.
Very worrying.
Dylan, Brisbane, Australia
Changing laws to make a game better for the spectators is folly. Law changes should be only to make the game better for players.
I've talked to non-rugby fans and asked what laws should be altered to make them want to watch rugby and never had a positive response. If you don't like a sport, there is little one can do to make a convert. Indeed, for the few that may change their minds, legions will be alienated.
Law changes are made by a few but once implemented, there are many thousand trying to find a loophole or way to exploit it. Can you remember when it was not deemed a knock-on if the ball went forward in a tackle? Soon there were players throwing the ball forward as an attacking move.
If the game is good to play in, it is good to watch.
A Palmer, Barrow-in-Furness,
Stephen - whilst I agree with many of your views here, I really think people need to give much more focus to the scrum/free kick option ELV at the breakdown. The not-so-hidden agenda is to reduce the number of scrums in the game, thus allegedly speeding it up and keeping the ball in play for longer (see your article above). Coincidentally it may benefit those teams/cultures whose scrummaging ability is questionable. However people have missed the point of the scrum, which is temporarily to reduce by 16 the number of players on the pitch - I always imagine the game as a dynamic piece of elastic, expanding and contracting constantly. The net effect of this ELV will be to have all 15 defenders strung across the pitch. This might work within a rugby league context, but they have fewer players. I suspect the good old IRB may get a lot less than it is bargaining for.
Martin Harris, Surrey,