Brian Moore’s recent column for Telegraph Sport was about the legal changes he would make to rugby.
Adjustments to 50:22 and changes to ruck laws were just some of the ideas he believes could transform rugby.
As you can imagine, this sparked a lot of discussion among Telegraph readers in the comments section below his piece. So we asked our rugby writer Charles Richardson to see if your own suggestions work…
Nine, that might work
A change in the referee’s attitude
Andreas Kok: You don’t really need to change the laws, it’s all a matter of refereeing attitude. The main reason for the dominance of spades is the risk of being turned over in the event of a breakdown. The main cause of this is referees favoring the defenders/jackallers and turning the interference into a no-go area. The attitude must change.
You’re onto something here, Andrew, except that it’s not the attitude of the referees that needs to change, but those who manage them: rugby’s legislators. Referees are merely the enforcers – of the law, the interpretation and the attitude – and not the creators. That is a direct response to your fear of the failure. Where the attitude of referees could change is in the continued coaching of players.
No more jumping for high balls
Andreas Kok: The other tactic that needs to be stopped is jumping for the high kick. Leads to too many endless TMO rewinds, looking to see if there was a little touch to the head. Trying to decipher whether the player had a ‘reasonable chance of catching the ball’ wastes time and often randomly produces cards that further disrupt the game. It is also an activity with a high safety risk.
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 that it could certainly improve as a spectacle. The only problem is that jumping for a ball is such a natural (reaction) action. And how would you define a leap in law? Maybe always keep one foot on the ground?
Free kicks, not penalties, for scrum infringements
Andreas Kok: Also stop punishing technical scrum violations, only a free kick. Too many teams secure the ball and then hold onto it for far longer than necessary to try to milk a penalty from the referee. The scrum is just a mechanism to get the ball back into play, get the scrum half to make use of it or lose possession to the other team… oh, and get them to put the ball straight in. Measured with a theodolite at youth level/local (at least in my area), completely ignored at ‘Elite level’… weird.
No arguments here. This is a simple adjustment that can be implemented almost immediately.
No penalties for failed interceptions
John Prodger: I’ve always thought that a penalty for a failed interception was extremely severe. What’s wrong with a plain old knock on?
The definition of failed interceptions/intentional attacks is too ambiguous at the moment, I agree. I think rugby has found a pretty good middle ground, where a player who reaches with both hands gets the benefit of the doubt. However, I believe that intentional downers are generally treated too harshly. They are rarely ‘intentional’; rarely does a player hit the ball cynically. If they do, they should of course be punished. I think the law itself is sensible, but the referees haven’t quite found the silver bullet interpretation yet. Too often, players are penalized – even if they commit a sin – for actual catch attempts.
Kill caterpillars
Liam Melia: Instead of awarding a free kick, you can simply allow the referee to declare that the ball is ‘out’ of the ruck. That would avoid a stoppage, but would also pose a clear and present risk to scrum halves rolling the ball past extra forwards at the back of the track. If the referee sees a team setting up a crawler, he simply calls that the ball is out of bounds. That would put an end to it quickly, without creating another messy rule that the referees are reluctant to enforce.
Something definitely needs to be done to neutralize/accelerate caterpillars. However, I’m not sure that saying the ball is ‘out’ when it isn’t is the answer. It would be bedlam. An easy solution would be for referees to enforce the five-second rule more strictly; and even have World Rugby reduce this to three.
Simplifying the disciplinary process
Graham Smith: For red card offences, other than a blatant punch or kick, 10 minutes in the bin, but fined very severely, 50 percent or more of their match fee plus a minimum ban of five matches, and no mitigation, including no lawyers allowed. Within a few months, that would go a long way toward solving the head contact problem without ruining the 13-on-15 match spectacle.
Somewhat similar to limiting substitutions (discussed below), an adjustment needs to be made in this area, but rugby has yet to find the solution. Abolishing red cards completely is a smart option – allowing the citing commissioner to hand out all penalties after the match; 20-minute red cards have been tried in the southern hemisphere but were not deemed effective enough for this year’s World Cup. Perhaps the answer is that a player with a red card leaves for the entire match, but the offending team can put a replacement in his place after twenty minutes? Basically, rugby executives and lawmakers should make prioritizing rugby as a spectacle their New Year’s resolution. Not above all, but it should be a priority when making decisions.
Stop lifting at lineouts
Francis Moran: No, they don’t stabilize by putting their hands on the jumping players, they lift them up. Shorten the lineout compared to previous rules, as this would give the backs more space to run with the ball in hand. It used to be about running with the ball in hand. It should be returned to that style and negate the muscle and big hits 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 trial match with professional players not standing up at lineouts. It sure would be fun – and messy. Of course that will never happen, but rugby lacks a bit of chaos. It has become routine. Perhaps doing away with choreographed lineouts is the answer. It would also negate the maul.
Ways to discourage kicking
LE Thomas: Change the law so that the only player who can put teammates onside after a kick is the player who kicked the ball. Until the kicker on the field gets to the ball, anyone standing in front of the kick is still offside.
Fascinating! I understand the purpose, but surely the main drawback would be cross-field kicks? They are a real skill and provide real excitement. This law would in fact make them impossible, because the kicker would have to move up after kicking so that his pursuer on the sideline could move towards the ball. And if you say that the chasers are onside when they are behind the kicker, but are unable to play others onside in front of them, it would become even more confusing for the referees.
Reduce the number of subs allowed
M Lewis: Two substitutions would mean that thirteen players would have to play 80 minutes. To do this they would have to be smaller (props only train to play for a maximum of 60 minutes), which would reduce the physicality of some tackles, making it a safer game to play.
This is more complicated than is often assumed. I agree that something needs to be done regarding substitutions in rugby. There are countless options, and none are perfect. Only injuries? Teams play the system. Only two substitutions allowed? What happens to injuries, HIA, blood – and front row (to avoid the dreaded uncontested scrums)? A simple solution could be, as it is becoming increasingly popular to have a 6:2 split on the bench, to reduce the number of matchday selections to 22, but with three players in the front row.
Four that wouldn’t work
Offer territory in ball-in-hand play
Mr. Smith: Most other minor defensive violations are punished by sending the offending team back 10 meters and awarding the other side a free kick. Penalties only for intentional and serious violations.
Union is already closer to its cousin, the league, than ever. This would narrow the gap even further.
Reduce the teams to 13 people
James Calhoun: The field is actually smaller than it was with fitter and faster players, and the matchday squads should be huge, with fifteen players on the field and substitutes. Reducing the number of players to 13 creates more space on the field and in the long term increases income per player or reduces costs. It would still be rugby union, just like Sevens.
Change the ruck rules
James Calhoun: Maybe everyone in a ruck should commit to at least two players?
I understand the primary goal – to create more space on the pitch – but enforcing it would be total chaos (with referees already struggling with the laws and their interpretations). And what if there weren’t two players to commit to? The players had to wait for others to arrive. The fast ruck ball would be consigned to the history books and once again the slow failures would push rugby union ever closer to competition.
There are no substitutes at all
Chris Cotterell: If a team loses a player to injury, the opponent loses the player in the same position.
All the scrum halves mysteriously leaving ‘injured’ when facing France or Toulouse?