Sudden-death was looming and the teams remaining tied. Extra time had just one minute left. The throw-in had to go long. It had to be straight, inch perfect. It was high risk.
It was also Steve Thompson’s William Tell moment, the tension unbearable as he released the ball – he didn’t miss. Lewis Moody, towards the tail of the lineout, soared high, delivering a perfect fast ball to scrumhalf Matt Dawson. Moments later, following a sniping run from Dawson, Jonny Wilkinson’s drop-kick beat Australia, winning the 2003 Rugby World Cup for England.
Thompson now suffers from early onset dementia; also probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which can only be confirmed postmortem. He cannot remember anything of the match, including his cup-winning contribution. Mess up that throw, there is no drop-kick.
The recent news that Moody, Thompson’s target that day, has been diagnosed with motor neuron disease (MND) is utterly devastating for him and for his family. Coming so soon after the loss of ‘Doddie’ Weir from the same horrible disease, it is also very frightening.
READ MORE
While there is no proof at present that brain injury causes MND, the research seems somewhat conflicted. The yet-to-be-answered medical question is whether the nervous system can really take a mighty battering and remain immune to illnesses such as Parkinson’s and MND. Moody, a brilliant player and England captain, was fearless. He was not in the business of taking a backward step and suffered more than his share of concussions.
The skill in the execution of that lineout in 2003 is a far cry from what we’ve seen in recent times. The nonsensical, counterintuitive proposal that requires a team to put up a contesting jumper to ensure crooked throws are penalised has now reached global trial status.
High on the list of why it needs to be binned is the fast, sudden throw-in. The opposition has no time to react, no time to put up a jumper, so the thrower just chucks the ball directly to a team-mate. It’s actually more of a pass. In line with the trial, the referee will play on with undefendable tries coming from this manoeuvre.
There is also the growing ploy of players leaving the lineout the moment it starts – which is when the ball is thrown – whereas the law requires them to stay in place until it’s over. Having left early, players then turn and re-enter, driving the catcher forward immediately he lands. It’s obviously an unfair advantage, only defendable by keeping all players on the ground in an attempt to stop the imminent maul. Referees need to sharpen up here: if I can see the clear and obvious then they can too.
My Australian cousins are giving me grief. They love all this stuff, calling it “innovative coaching”. It’s nothing of the sort: it’s underhand, it’s trickery and doesn’t happen by chance. Is there any other sport which sees its laws manipulated past breaking point so often?
Rugby has a well written Charter of the Game, originally drafted by Australia’s Dick Marks, a former international, and tip-top administrator. Essentially, it’s rugby’s constitution, and its purpose is to outline the “fundamental principles on which the game is based”.
Central to these principles is strong, unequivocal reference to the importance of contests for possession – at scrum, lineout, in open play. These are termed “key features” of the game. The contest at scrum time is long gone, replaced by a heavyweight penalty-generating shoving competition, packed with illegalities. No one seems bothered that matches are being decided by debatable scrum decisions.
What’s now permitted in the lineout is an unwelcome unintended consequence of this global law trial, which reduces the contest for possession. Is it really the wish of World Rugby to downgrade another of its “key features”? If so, a rewrite of the charter should be compulsory. It would be an interesting read.
Australia has seen a welcome rise in interest in the sport during the Lions tour, the derived income also enabling clearance of their enormous debt. There is a huge opportunity to build on this. They will host the men’s World Cup in 2027, the women’s one in 2029. The Rugby Championship was magnificent, with the Wallabies producing some terrific performances under the guiding hand of Joe Schmidt. That style of play, filtered down into Super Rugby, is what will attract fans. Tinkering with laws will not.
The charter also speaks of the necessary balance between continuity and contest for possession. Less contest sees more continuity of possession, teams owning the ball for even longer periods. Promoting rugby’s “key features” is surely a far better road to travel rather than attempting to produce an all singing-all dancing game. That was tried with the ELVs (experimental law variations, which concluded in 2009) when the vast majority of offences were sanctioned by free kicks, not penalties.
What that proposal delivered was a huge increase in offences, particularly at the breakdown, accompanied by an equally huge number of sanctions. More than 40 free kicks per match was not unusual; fast ball only coming when those were taken quickly. Despite that, the southern hemisphere unions were all for it. It was only overturned at the 11th hour due to the intervention of the IRFU and the RFU. I dread to think what the game would look like today had it gone through.
Unions who wish to retain the charter’s principle of contest and to outlaw chicanery which makes a nonsense of the law should be prepared to say so, voting accordingly. The suggestion of a free-kick instead of a scrum for a crooked throw might help. So while it is just one step away from becoming law, it’s not too late. It just needs a bit of organising.
