Super Rugby 2012: All you need to know

It’s finally here. The 2012 Vodacom Super Rugby season is about to kick off, and for once the competition is wide open.

We’ve moved on from the World Cup and for several squads it's rebuilding time. The tournament is in year two of the new format, with Sanzar not looking to expand it quite yet, meaning that relegation may be a factor for one South African franchise in the future.

Still, there are many minor changes that Sanzar hope will contribute to a fairer system and more entertainment both on and off the field. Our two senior rugby correspondents Brenden Nel (BN) and Gavin Rich (GR) take us through some of these.

Changes in regulations

GR: The key change is the introduction of the on-field referee referral to citing commissioners. This new regulation enables referees to consult during the game with citing commissioners when they believe there has been foul play but they are unsure as to whether a red card is warranted or are unsure of the identity of the player. This seems fair, and appears to further the cause of justice, as onfield misdemeanours and the sanctions they net will then impact on the perpetrator’s team during the game in question.

I do have a problem with it though as there are already too many hold-ups in play, and modern rugby is becoming a bit like modern cricket in the sense that spectators appear to spend inordinate amounts of time waiting for an unseen official to adjudicate on something they themselves may not have the benefit of seeing on a replay. How long are the television match officials going to replay each incident before making a decision? Get your biltong ready folks, because you might need to find something else to do while all this is going on and you wait for the match to resume.

In a sense it also gives referees extra power, and thus another avenue to interfere with the game and influence it. Before this regulation was introduced a referee would say “I didn’t see it, we will see about it afterwards” and the game would continue. There is potential now for overly officious referees to consult on just about every marginal instance where there might have been an act of foul play, and we all know how much a sending off in the interests of keeping to the letter of the law can impact on a game. I sat through one of those last year when Wales and France played in the World Cup final and the whole experience was underwhelming.

BN: There are already too many hold-ups in play and I have to agree with Gavin if it does go that way. But Sanzar have been rather open about this, saying a white card would be used, where the incident will be viewed afterwards. Often citing commissioners are not reachable or take their time and we’ve seen a number of transgressors get away with foul play because administrators aren’t up to the jobs they’re given.

This will certainly clean up the game, and if you add the guilty plea – a player has four hours after being cited to admit guilt and get a lighter sentence, or take his chances with the judiciary – players will be a lot more circumspect about committing foul play.

To me it is simple – if the refs feel it is a red card, then do something. If they’re not sure then flash a white card and we’ll see afterwards. If it is handled properly it can be a good thing for our rugby.

Also, don’t forget that players can be given a yellow card by the judiciary after the fact as well and that for the first time we will have a centralised judiciary, stopping the lopsided verdicts that we’ve seen over the years.

In essence Sanzar have done a good thing here, but as Gavin points out, if they allow it to disrupt the game, it will have defeated its purpose.

Changes in format

BN: There certainly is little favour to be found in the format of the competition. For one South Africa wants it changed to accommodate the Kings, while the players apparently can't stand the idea of never-ending derbies.

For the fans, to see teams clash over and again in derbies can’t be a great thing, and the three-week enforced break for tests hardly adds to the glamour.

The only country that has done well is Australia, who have seen a 40 per cent increase in viewing figures (and they said we were conspiracy theorists to say the entire competition had been engineered in their favour, right down to Sanzar’s office in Sydney).

To me, it makes little sense to have a break in the middle, and even less sense to be subjected to never-ending derbies. The Currie Cup will become more devalued and that won’t help anyone.

GR: Starting a tournament in February and ending it in August seems stupid. If the three-week break entailed rest for the players and a chance for coaches to reassess where they are in terms of fit personnel and possibly implement some strategy changes, then it might make some sense. But they are not taking a break so the players can rest as the top players will be playing every weekend during that break. It means that the international season will impact more on Super Rugby than it has in the past as coaches are going to have to be careful about managing the players they think will be engaged in international action during the three weeks off.

Schalk Burger for instance can probably expect to go straight from Super Rugby into three weeks of test match rugby in the series against England. He then returns to the Stormers for a sequence of three matches at the end of the league season when his team could well be jockeying for a place in the semifinals or home ground advantage in the playoffs. His coach may not be able to afford to rest him at such a critical stage.

Then there is also the not insignificant point that the players, when they go away to play for the Springboks, may be utilised differently there to how they are being used in Super Rugby, leaving coaches with the problem of having to readjust their players to team strategy when they return. To me the old system where the Super Rugby season was concluded in four months and then we switched over to international and domestic rugby was the best, not least for the players. The schedule is one of the main reasons Fourie du Preez is now in Japan and not in Pretoria.

Differing referee interpretations

GR: An edict has been issued to referees to more strictly enforce the tackle area in a bid to make the ball available more quickly, and any attempt to speed up the game has to be welcomed. Last year there did appear to be too much slowing the ball down and defending teams tended to have the advantage over the attacking teams. “Tackled players with the ball must be allowed to release the ball” – that should have been a given already.

But of course as clever as the rule makers are, so some of the coaches are even cleverer. It will only be a matter of time before the strategists figure out a way to approach the tackled ball to suit their strengths and whatever end they have in mind. That in a way is the beauty of rugby, it’s a constantly evolving sport. At the same time it’s also frustrating as it requires students of the game to go back to school at the start of each season and you never know before it starts how any changes are really going to impact.

BN: It was interesting to hear that the refs were told in pre-season to be strict on ensuring a contest by blowing up the attacking team going to ground.

The tackle area remains a problem, but there will be a massive concentration on the three-second rule – ie that the attacking side must be able to play the ball within three seconds of it going to ground. What we don’t want is a never ending series of rucks and infringements.

To me another big bugbear is the offside line, which is policed less and less by officials these days. Sanzar refs boss Lyndon Bray has given the undertaking that special emphasis will be put on this and that can only be a good thing, as space creates attacking play and that leads to tries.

What we will see more of this year is the reffing trio, ie ref and two assistants, working more as a team, and thereby focusing on the IRB’s five pivotal points, and looking to get those right rather than be strict in every letter of the law. Refs aren’t perfect, and we should realise that, but consistency is what anyone can ask, and teams will need to adapt. If only it was a perfect world…

Conference Predictions

BN: It’s a difficult one to predict this year because the South African conference is so wide open. While I reckon the Sharks have all the experience (16 Springboks) to win it, I wouldn’t be surprised to see another blowout as we have become accustomed to from the Durban side. There seems to be some mental block as they lose critical games they should win.

The Stormers have just as much talent, but for some reason are being written off by their own folk. A lack of a top class front row may be their ultimate downfall, as well as the uncertainty around 10.

The Bulls are rebuilding and will probably surprise a lot of people with the talent they’ve got. But do they have enough to win the conference? Perhaps, but that’s a big call. Some players will need to mature quickly if that is the case.

The Lions and Cheetahs both will win here and there, but to be honest, a few key injuries will see their campaigns fade.

To me the Sharks are odds-on favourites to win in South Africa, the Crusaders will be pushed by the Blues in New Zealand and the Reds should walk the Aussie conference quite easily.

GR: I got the conferences right last year, with one exception, which was the South African conference, where I tipped the Sharks to win it and the Stormers prevailed. I am going with the Sharks again, and the same prediction for the other two conferences (Blues to win New Zealand and Reds to prevail in Australia). But I am a lot less certain about the outcome of the SA conference than the other two.

My confidence in the Sharks boils down to the impact that the change of culture at the Durban franchise could have on their performances. With Keegan Daniel taking charge as the appointed captain and the young players who have come through in the years of John Plumtree now leading the team, the Sharks could be a different proposition to the one that made the playoffs but finished outside of the top four in 2011.

The key area where they have been strengthened is the one where they struggled last year – at the back. Frenchman Frederic Michalak only played a few games last season towards the end, and yet he made a massive impact, certainly in the great win against the Bulls in the final league match, surely the Sharks’ performance of the season by some distance. In that game Michalak played flyhalf with Patrick Lambie at fullback, and although that is not the way they are starting the season this time, the Sharks do have that mouth-watering option.

The Stormers will be the main challengers to the Sharks’ quest for conference honours, but I am hedging my bets on the basis of the ructions that I know are happening behind the scenes at an administrative level at Western Province. I know everything seems okay from the outside and the players appear happy, but some insiders have described the set-up as a pack of cards that could collapse at any second. The litmus test is going to come when a crisis point is reached during the season and it has to be confronted without Rassie Erasmus’s influential presence behind the scenes.

From a playing perspective it would appear that there is no reason the Stormers shouldn’t win the conference again, as they have only lost Jaque Fourie and Francois Louw from last week’s first choice team. But those are two extremely influential players, while it is the whole tier of back-up players that have either been released from contract or have headed to greener pastures that is the real concern. The Stormers did grow their depth in last year’s Currie Cup, but after watching the pre-season games how many of those newcomers are really top Super Rugby standard? We’re talking about a very different level of rugby here. That said, it will be the same for the other franchises, and in particular the Bulls, who go into the season as an unknown quantity.