Chris Rattue: The rule tweak that could change rugby

The tackler must now get their hands off the ball and the ball carrier before jumping to their feet to dispute possession. Photo / Getty Images

A new season, a new rule and, believe it or not, some hope. There may be new life in dear old rugby yet ...

First, the bad news. Rugby rules are made to be broken. A game that was, mythically speaking, invented by breaking the most important rule of another sport has never broken the habit of a lifetime. Cheating and rugby go hand in hand, like Colin Meads and a bloody heavy fencepost.

The 2010 rugby season, which kicked off at the weekend with Super 14 trial matches, has unveiled yet another vital rule change, this one involving the tackle area. As it turns out, what we will get is a new interpretation of the old rule, the old interpretation having been - according to a leading referee - incorrect anyway.

Under the new Sanzar dictate, the player in possession will be given a much-needed advantage, because the tackler must now get his filthy hands off the ball and the ball carrier before jumping to his feet to dispute possession.

Which sounds hunky-dory. But experience should tell us to hang fire with the over-enthusiasm.

Coaches and defenders will not take this lying down, rest assured. The schemers will be working out ways to combat this already. The very people who may trumpet this rule will also beat it into submission.

Furthermore, should the change lead to a better game (and goodness knows rugby needs a change for the better) our friends in the north - as in the Northern Hemisphere - will be filled with a suspicion matched only by their cynicism. More open and attack-orientated rugby can only lead to one thing - the south dominating the north, and of a Southern Hemisphere team winning the World Cup.

The inference is that the new interpretation will filter into the European game, but let's wait and see on that one.

And as sure as Stuart Dickinson didn't send Paddy O'Brien a Christmas card, different referees will interpret the new interpretation in different ways. There will be inevitable arguments - during and after matches - about whether penalties were fairly given, whether defenders had broken contact with the attackers or not.

By the standards of rugby rule revisions, which are normally instigated at an intoxicated snail's pace, any change this close to the 2011 World Cup invites chaos and rancour at the global tournament.

And finally, the game is so complicated and unruly that only a few can master a beast that is beyond saving. All Sanzar has done is give the handrails a quick polish on the Titanic.

Which is an awful lot of bad news.

So, to the good news.

Sanzar, that elusive body that runs the Southern Hemisphere game, is on the right track here. And despite the antipathy between north and south, there is a general feeling that rugby just has to be reinvigorated - or make that saved - as a spectacle.

One of rugby's over-riding problems is that there is too much risk in taking risks any more and the bigger the occasion, the fewer the risks taken.

Gone are the days when maverick attackers such as David Campese delighted the crowds, partly because there is less space on the field in the more muscular and fitter professional age, but also because getting isolated is a crime almost on a par with actually losing hold of the ball.

What should be seen as a stunning move can quickly turn into a dud, because the attacker is forced to concede the ball or a penalty because he is denied any time to legally find support. This concept is ridiculous in a game where - unlike other football codes such as league and gridiron - possession can easily be contested.

Even mild risk is shunned. Cribbing cautiously across the field has become the default position, posing as attack, delighting the phase counters and boring most of us to tears.

If this new interpretation works, the problem isn't going to be solved entirely, and we are talking about a tiny, split-second change. Yet at least the change might tip the balance - slightly yet crucially - towards the attacking team.

Lyndon Bray, the new Sanzar referee manager, told the Dominion Post: "We've agreed philosophically to change what the tackler can and can't do. We've allowed ... him to remain in contact with the ball and ball carrier. After he leaves his feet ... he stays on the ball and jumps up and rips it away.

"It's actually against the law ... we've agreed the tackler must [now] release everything when he goes to ground and not hold on as he gets to his feet."

No wonder commentators, the media and of course the public end up scratching enormous holes in scalps over this infuriating game.

The tackle area, the game-destroying advantages given to tacklers, has been at the root of the entertainment problem, yet here we have a top referee revealing that the administration of the rule has been incorrect all along.

That aside, Sanzar is moving in the right direction with this. Rugby needs to find ways of encouraging players to again take attacking risks, to work off-the-cuff, to eliminate the safety-first kicking obsession and allow genuine attacks to develop and flourish.

In response to this new rule, a veteran rugby writer told me yesterday: "The old problem remains - they need Linford Christie refs to make the rulings."

Maybe numbers can make up for a lack of refereeing speed.

It is very tempting to call for a major innovation, the introduction of a dual-referee system - as in league - to bring in better policing. Rugby might also give the touch judges extra powers to enforce the offside laws more strongly.

The successful introduction of a second referee would be far harder to achieve in the hurly burly of rugby, compared with the more rigidly structured league where the new dual-referee system has worked seamlessly and superbly. But a second referee in union might still be worth considering.

As for the new interpretation of the old tackle interpretation, even if the rule is open to debate, you sense that referees are taking a new attitude into the season.

The change has come about after consultation between the referees and coaches Todd Blackadder, Rassie Erasmus and David Nucifora.

This suggests that the game is reading the problems and solutions from the same page.

As a result, we can confidently expect the awarding of penalties to tip back in favour of the attacking team. This in turn should encourage and force defenders to be less destructive on the ground.

Best of all, there may be a new mood in the air.

And so, in the finest rugby tradition, let the chaos and arguments commence.