It’s time the sleeping Lions woke up and had some fun
Sport can be boring. There are tennis matches between big servers which you think might as well take the form of the best-of-five tiebreaks and football games when a goal seems so unlikely that it might be a good idea to go straight to a penalty shoot-out. Likewise cricket, likewise rugby; there are days when even the sports you love the best bore you almost to tears.
The Lions-South Africa series provoked more yawns than cheers. If it hadn’t been for seventy minutes of Finn Russell last Saturday, there would have been little to remember happily. Of course, the Covid-related circumstances were unusual; one hopes that they will never be repeated. Then South Africa, the World Champions, have found a way of winning by playing a very limited game based on defence, a powerful and efficient pack, and accurate kicking from hand. They can hardly be blamed for the Lions’ decision to try to beat them at their own game.
This was depressing, and one reflected that the All Blacks, who defeat the Springboks more often than not, don’t collaborate with them in this fashion but play with pace, imagination and adventure. Like many, I think that if there is still a purpose to the Lions other than a nakedly commercial one, the style in which they play is more than important; it is vital. Last week Joe Root told his England team to remember that sport is fun – and went on to make a fine century with a smile on his face. Finn Russell also plays with a smile, and on his good days, cheers us all up.
However, it wasn’t only the limited style in which both teams played that made this Lions series so unsatisfying, even dismal. It wasn’t even the silly and tedious mind-games played by Rassie Erasmus and Warren Gatland. It wasn’t even the reprehensible South African delaying tactics, slowing up the game for minor injuries or to have the studs on their boots attended to. All this contributed to the tedium and the gathering gloom, but there was worse still.
The first half of the Second Test lasted for sixty-three minutes. This was ridiculous. Much of that time, nothing was happening on the field of play. Instead, we were privileged to listen to long discussions between the referee and the TMO (Television Match Official) as they sought to determine what precisely had happened, whether a try had been scored or a heinous penalty offence had been committed. No doubt it’s desirable that the right decision be made, but, in truth, even these lengthy debates rarely settle the matter conclusively. What they do is stem the flow of a match.
Most of us grow up watching amateur rugby and school rugby, many of us have also played the game, even if that was a long time ago. We know that referees have always made decisions based on what they see, and, even today, in amateur and lower-level club rugby, where there are no cameras to offer evidence for a second opinion, referees on the whole, make decisions that are generally acceptable and accepted. In this context, one may note that it is rare for the drawn-out discussions between the referee on the field, his touchline assistants and the TMO to settle matters conclusively, beyond argument.
Rugby is a devilishly complicated game. This is one reason why its laws are so frequently revised and tweaked. Doing this isn’t easy, for there is another unwritten law that repeatedly comes into play. This is the Law of Unintended Consequences. The law still (I think) says that the referee is the sole judge of fact. This means, or should mean, that, first, he decides to invite the TMO’s opinion, and, second, he can override the TMO’s judgement if he disagrees with it. It takes a very strong-minded and self-confident on-field referee to do that.
There have been unintended consequences of introducing a television match official. The first and obvious one is that the game’s rhythm is disturbed; there are long passages when play is interrupted while discussions take place. A sport which by its nature is already a stop-start one becomes one in which stoppages are more prolonged than the play. For how many minutes in that notorious 63-minute first half of the second Test was the ball in play?
Still, it would be wrong to blame the officials or the laws for this dismal series in South Africa. Nor would it be fair to cast the Springboks as the main culprits, despite their tedious delaying antics. They did, after all, score more tries than the Lions, who managed only two in the three games, and both came from forward drives after 5-metre line-outs. The fact is that the Lions let themselves and the game itself by their lack of enterprise.
The game doesn’t have to be as dull as it was in Cape Town. There was a lot of fine rugby played in this Spring’s Six Nations, exhilarating stuff even in empty stadiums. Then, last Saturday too, I found myself remarking to my brother-in-law that “we watched the wrong match today”. Earlier in the first Bledisloe Cup, New Zealand had beaten Australia 33-25. There were eight tries in that game, seven of them scored by backs.
Sport is about fun, the enjoyment that puts a smile on the viewer’s face. It’s more likely to do so if, like Joe Root and Finn Russell, the performers play with a smile themselves. Sometimes at least.
Enjoyed this article? Read more of Allan Massie’s sport column here.