by Brian Moore’s recent column for Telegraph Sport was about the legal changes he would make to rugby.
Adjustments to 50:22 and changing ruck laws were just some of the ideas he believes could transform rugby.
As you can imagine, it sparked a lot of debate among Telegraph readers in the comments section below his article. So we asked our rugby writer, Charles Richardson, to see if his own suggestions hold water…
Nine that could work
A change in the attitude of the referees
Andrew Cook: It is really not necessary to change the laws, it is all a matter of refereeing attitude. The main reason for the preponderance of kicks is the risk of tipping over in the event of a breakdown. The main cause of this is referees favoring defenders/jackallers and making the break a no-go area. The attitude needs to change.
You’re right, Andrew, except it’s not the attitude of the referees that needs to change, but those who manage them: rugby’s legislators. The arbitrators are only those who enforce the law, interpretation and attitude, and not the creators. That is a direct answer to your breakdown problem. Where referees’ attitudes could change is in the persistent training of players.
No more jumping for high balls
The other tactic to stop is jumping for the high kick. It leads to too many endless rewinds of TMO to see if there was any little touching on the head. Trying to figure out whether the player had a “reasonable chance of catching the ball” is a waste of time and often leads to random cards that further disrupt the game. It is also a high security risk activity.
Bold and innovative, but I don’t hate it! I’m not sure how much material effect it would have on the sporting fabric of rugby, but I agree it could certainly improve as a spectacle. The only problem is that jumping for a ball is such a natural (re)action. And how would you define a jump in law? Always keeping one foot on the ground, perhaps?
Free kicks, not penalties, for scrum infringements
Also stop penalties for technical scrum violations, just a free kick. Too many teams secure the ball and then hold it for longer than necessary to try to get a penalty from the referee. The scrum is simply a mechanism to get the ball back into play, get the scrum half to use it or lose possession to the other team… oh, and get them to put the ball straight. Measured with a theodolite at youth/local level (at least in my area), totally ignored at ‘Elite’ level… weird.
There are no arguments here. This is a simple adjustment that could be implemented almost immediately.
No penalties for failed interceptions
John Proger: I have always thought that a penalty for a failed interception is excessively harsh. What’s wrong with a simple, plain swipe?
I agree that the definition of missed interceptions/deliberate hits is too ambiguous at this point. I think rugby has found a pretty decent middle ground, where a player holding out both hands would get the benefit of the doubt. However, I think that, in general, deliberate repercussions are treated too harshly. They are rarely “deliberate”; Rarely does a player cynically hit the ball. When they do, that should be penalized, of course. I think the law itself is sensible, but the arbitrators have not yet found the definitive interpretation. Too often, players are penalized (even condemned to the trash) for genuine catch attempts.
Kill the caterpillars
Liam Meliá: Instead of giving a free kick, simply allow the referee to declare the ball “out” of the ruck. That would prevent a stoppage, but would also present a clear and present risk to the scrum-halves rolling the ball past the extra forwards at the end of the ruck. If the referee sees a team preparing a caterpillar, he simply says that the ball is out. That would soon put an end to this without creating another complicated rule that referees will be reluctant to enforce.
Certainly something must be done to neutralize/accelerate the movements of the tracks. However, I’m not sure saying the ball is “out” when it isn’t is the answer. It would be chaos. An easy solution would be for referees to enforce the five-second rule more strictly; and even that World Rugby reduces it to three.
Simplifying the disciplinary process
Graham Smith: For red card offences, other than a flagrant punch or kick, 10 minutes in the bin, but with a very severe fine, 50 per cent or more of the match fee plus a minimum five-match ban, and no mitigation, lawyers are not allowed either. . In a few months this would go a long way toward solving the head contact problem, without ruining the show with 13-on-15 matches.
Somewhat similar to limiting replacements (discussed below), an adjustment needs to be made in this domain, but rugby has yet to find the silver bullet. Abolishing red cards entirely is a risky option: allowing the commissioner who summons the person to administer all punishments after the game; 20-minute red cards have been tried in the southern hemisphere, but were not considered effective enough for this year’s World Cup. Perhaps the answer is that a player who receives a red card leaves for the entire match, but after 20 minutes the offending team can bring in a replacement in his place. Fundamentally, rugby executives and policymakers must prioritize rugby as a spectacle as their New Year’s resolution. Above all, but it must be a priority when making decisions.
Stop lifting in the line-outs
Francisco Morán: No, they are not stabilized by putting their hands on the jumping players, they lift them up. Shorten the lineout to the previous rules as this would give the backs more space to run with the ball in hand. The game used to consist of running with the ball in hand. He should go back to that style and nullify the muscle power and big shots that currently dominate.
Again, this would be quite drastic. I’m not in favor of it, per se, but I wouldn’t mind seeing a test match with professional players who don’t lift in the line-outs. It would certainly be fun… and complicated. That will never happen, of course, but rugby is missing a bit of chaos. It has become routine. Perhaps the answer is to abolish choreographed line-outs. It would also take power away from the deck.
Ways to discourage kicking
LE Tomas: Change the law so that the only player who can put his teammates in play after a kick is the player who kicked the ball, so that until the kicker has reached the field of the ball, everyone in front of the kick kick will remain offside.
Intriguing! I understand the goal, but the main drawback would surely be the cross kicks. They are a real skill and provide real excitement. This law would make them effectively impossible, as the kicker would have to advance after kicking so that his pursuer on the sideline could advance toward the ball. And, if you say that chasers are in play if they are behind the kicker but can’t put others in play in front of them, it would be even more confusing for referees.
Reduce the number of subs allowed
M Lewis: Two substitutions would mean 13 players would have to play 80 minutes. To do this, they would have to be smaller (props only train to play a maximum of 60 minutes), which would reduce the physicality of some of the tackles, making it a safer game.
This is more complicated than is often believed. I agree that something needs to be done about replacements in rugby. There are countless options, none of which are perfect. Just injuries? The teams will play the system. Are only two replacements allowed? What about injuries, HIA, blood and the front row (to avoid the dreaded uncontested scrums)? A simple solution could be, given that it is increasingly fashionable to have a 6:2 split on the bench, reduce the matchday squads to 22, but with three first-line players.
Four that wouldn’t work
Provide territory through ball-in-hand play.
Mr. Smith: Most other minor infractions on defense will be punished by sending the offending team back 10 yards and giving the other side a tap-and-go free throw. Sanctions only for deliberate and serious offenses.
Unión is now closer than ever to its cousin, the League. This would narrow the gap even further.
Reduce teams to 13 men.
James Calhoun: The field is effectively smaller than it was, with fitter and faster players, and the match day teams have to be huge, with 15 players on the field and replacements. Reducing the number of players to 13 creates more space on the field and increases revenue per player over time or reduces costs. It would still be rugby like Sevens is.
Change ruck rules
Maybe everyone in a ruck has to be joined by at least two players?
I understand the main goal – to create more space on the field – but enforcing that would be total chaos (with referees already dealing with the laws and their interpretations). What if there weren’t two players to join? Players would have to wait for others to arrive. The fast ruck would go down in the history books and once again the slow breakdowns would bring rugby closer and closer to the league.
There are no substitutes at all
Chris Cotterell: If a team loses a player due to injury, the opponent loses the player in the same position.
Do all scrum-halves mysteriously come out “injured” when facing France or Toulouse?
