SANZAR in an attempt to promote attacking (high scoring) rugby aim to have specific interpretations of 4 vital rugby laws.

This action is the result of a meeting between referees and representatives of the super 14 coaches last year (Todd Blackadder – Crusaders, Rassie Erasmus – Stormers, David Nucifora – Brumbies).


The laws relate to the following areas:

Tackled Ball:
Scrum engagement:
Players in front of the kicker:
Formation of the maul:


These laws have been highlighted as key areas where referees can influence the way the game is played. The Aussies and Kiwis especially were concerned with the large amounts of kicking employed last season, the lack of tries and the supposedly negative mindsets of some sides.

Australia in particular have come out strongly suggesting their sides will try to play expansively and provide entertainment for their fans. They wanted the laws to help promote this. I’d suggest if their sides were simply better at the basics, they’d win more often and attract more followers.

I am not in favour of constant tinkering with how the game should be played. Last year’s Super 14 final showed that it is not the laws themselves that determine whether tries are scored, and the game is played expansively.

I don’t like the fundamentals of the game being forever scrutinised either. A fair contest for the ball by both the attacking and defending sides is important. If the Aussies want the attacking side to have a monopoly on possession, I suggest they go play rugby league.

I also don’t understand why ever year we go through this. There have been times when the policing of the breakdowns especially has been very good. Why did we try to fix something that wasn’t broken?

Surely the laws should be written and policed in a way that we don’t have to determine how they should be interpreted every season/competition?

Lyndon Bray, the SANZAR referee’s manager told the Dominion Post “We’ve agreed philosophically to change what the tackler can and can’t do. He is doing too much. We’ve allowed, in the evolution of the game, to let him remain in contact with the ball and ball carrier after he leaves his feet and he stays on the ball and jumps up and rips it away.”

“It looks great in the one-on-one scenario, but it’s actually against the law. It creates in the game a repetitive scenario where the ball carrier ends up with no rights because he can’t do anything with the ball. The tackler inevitability gets the penalty which philosophically goes against what we are trying to achieve. We’ve agreed the tackler must release everything when he goes to ground and not hold on as he gets to his feet” said Bray.

Here are the areas that are being addressed.

Tackled Ball:

“The tackler, once hitting the ground in the tackle, must release the ball and the ball carrier. This gives the ball carrier a chance to ‘play the ball’, and will tidy up the tackle-ball area which has previously been weighted towards the tackler. As well, any player involved in helping make a tackle, who is in contact with the ball carrier when he is taken to ground, must then release the ball, before then attempting to contest possession, even if he is on his feet. This ensures that in Super 14, we are truly refereeing the Law at the tackle, and it provides the ball carrier with his rights, having been tackled. After this tackle, any player then on his feet, in a position of strength (his side of the tackle) may then contest possession.”

The aim here is to ensure the attacking side has more (ie all) the rights.

The attacker gets the opportunity to place the ball. I can see attacking sides holding the ball that split second longer to place it out of reach of the opposition.

Scrum engagement:

“The scrum engagement must follow a true sequence, starting with all props required to touch, on the touch call. Props must also have their head and shoulders above their hips, and then hit straight on engagement. This enhances the chance of the scrum being contestable, and to stay up resulting in less resets.”

Players in front of the kicker:

“Players will be forced to comply with standing still or retiring in relation to being in front of the kicker. This will see referees calling for a player to stop advancing – if he continues to advance, he will be penalised and players must retire from within 10m of the receiver of a kick – otherwise an immediate penalty will be given where these players look to contest the kick. The objective is that this will improve the time and space for players to counter attack, when receiving kicks in general play, and reducing some of the aerial ping pong people we have been seeing in rugby.”

The aim here is to ensure teams receiving kicks have room to counter attack so that they don’t just kick the ball back everytime.

Formation of the maul:

“At the time that a maul is formed, players supporting the ball carrier will not be allowed to obstruct the opposition. This is intended to at least make the maul defendable at the set up stage.”

Once again, not sure why this one needs highlighting. It should always be the case that the opposing side doesn’t obstruct, and then defending sides shouldn’t transgress to pull the maul down.