User:DarthMaulRugby/sandbox

= The Willemse Law =

World Rugby Law 20.3, known informally as the 'Willemse Law' is a law in Rugby Union Football that removed the option of choosing a scrum from the award of a free kick. The Law is controversial for its purpose to lessen the occurrence of scrums in matches (which are considered to be a key part of Rugby Union’s identity), and the belief that the law was introduced to deliberately target South Africa’s national team after an incident where South African player, Damian Willemse, opted to take a scrum after calling for a mark in a Rugby World Cup 2023 match against France, an unconventional option at the time.

Background
The scrum has long been an integral part of Rugby Union from the codification of the laws of the game. The significance of this set-piece is evident in naming conventions for positions of each player, as the names of positions are taken from where they are set on the field when a scrum is in progress. However, the amount of time spent setting and resetting scrums prompted criticism about the pace of the game and concerns about the set-piece being an inhibitor to spectator enjoyment of the game.

The laws of the scrum have been continually amended for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of reset scrums and thus having more ball-in-play time per game. The introduction of Law 20.3 aims at reducing opportunities for attacking teams to opt for a scrum, thus aiming at reducing the number of scrums contested per game with the goal of having more ball-in-play time. The Law officially came into effect on 1 July 2024.

Rugby World Cup 2023 Quaterfinal 4
Some of the controversy over the law stems from a widely held belief that an incident in the fourth quarterfinal of the Rugby World Cup 2023 was a primary motivator for the law’s introduction. Hosts France faced South Africa in what is now regarded as one of the greatest rugby union tests of all-time. The first half started at a frenetic pace, with both sides playing at a high intensity and a lot of play with ball in-hand. Inside half an hour, each team had already scored three tries, with the scores level on 19-19. Late into the half, French winger, Louis Bielle-Biarrey, kicked long down field, which was fielded by South African fullback, Damian Willemse, inside his 22 metre line. As is allowed by the rules, Willemse called for a mark, which resulted in the award of a free kick for South Africa. In what became an iconic image of the tournament, the player, after setting the ball on the ground, made a joint-fisted gesture, indicating the intention to opt for a scrum.

The decision surprised many as common convention was to opt to punt to ball from a mark due to the nature of the field position in which a mark is called. It being deep in one’s own territory, opting for a scrum is generally considered inopportune. After the game, many pundits commented that they had never seen the option of a scrum taken from a mark and no records of it ever having been done in professional rugby prior to the game are evident. South Africa ultimately won the game, 28-29.

The reason for the decision was explained by then South African Director of Rugby, Rassie Erasmus, after the game. Upon confirmation that France would be South Africa’s opponent in the quarterfinals, the Springbok coaching staff set about analysing the team’s previous matches against France, the most recent of which was in 2022. Upon discovering that South Africa had only one attacking scrum against France in that match, the coaching staff anticipated that the French team would seek to avoid scrumming against the Springboks as much as possible in the quarterfinal.

In addition to this, the coaching staff were aware of the ‘Dupont Law’, a loophole in the offside law commonly exploited by French scrumhalf, Antoine Dupont. Upon kicking a ball where team members were in front of the kick, and therefore offside, the offside players would be played onside once the opposition player fielding the ball had travelled five metres. This meant that players, usually forwards, did not have to retreat past the offside line, or be played onside by one of their own players, allowing them more rest, and staving off the onset of fatigue. The South African coaching staff therefore realized that by calling for a scrum, the Springboks could both deny the French forwards time to rest by forcing them to engage in a scrum and could potentially gain a penalty from the ensuing scrum due to their proficiency in this aspect of the game.

As a free kick was awarded from a mark at the time, the option to take a scrum was available. After consultation within the team, South Africa resolved to call for a scrum from a mark should the opportunity arise, and the situation be opportune. As it happened, the Springboks won a penalty from the scrum in question. The option was repeated in the semi-final against England, but to less success.

Various criticisms
The law is controversial given its overt purpose to reduce the number of scrums per game. As some teams, whether at club or international level, traditionally have strong scrums, which work to their advantage, the law is perceived by some as being prejudicial to these teams while benefitting teams that are less scrum-oriented.

Various pundits expressed concern over World Rugby’s seeming disregard for the significance of the set-piece. Tim Cocker, from Eggchasers Rugby Podcast, decried the decision in an episode title ‘World Rugby Hates Scrums’. Among other criticisms, he highlighted how the nature of the game makes it conducive to various different sizes and skillsets and that scrums are essential to this inclusivity aspect, fewer scrums meaning that front row forwards in particular become less significant. Pundits on the podcast Props and Whingers echoed this sentiment, also expressing concern at the frequency of law changes, many of which were not lobbied for, making the game more confusing and difficult to follow, especially amongst prospective fans.

Another concern was the loophole the law creates whereby a free kick awarded for an offence at a scrum means that the team that has the put-in to that scrum cannot call for another scrum, thus prejudicing the team that might be in an advantageous field position. Concerns focus on how a team with a weaker scrum might use this loophole to commit an offence that gives away a free kick to avoid scrumming against a superior pack, which could open the door to abuse of this loophole and negative play to become common.