by Brian Moore’s recent column for Telegraph Sport was about the legal changes he would make to rugby.
The tweaks to the 50:22 and amending the ruck laws were just some of the ideas he believes could change rugby.
As you can imagine, it sparked a lot of debate among Telegraph readers in the comments section below his piece. So we caught up with our rugby writer Charles Richardson to see if your own suggestions will surpass…
Nine that might work
A change in the referee’s attitude
Andrew Cook: You don’t really need to change laws, it’s all a matter of the referee’s attitude. The main reason for the kick is the risk of being turned over at the breakdown. The main reason for this is hair trigger referees who favor the defenders/tacklers and leave no room for the breakdown. The attitude needs to change.
You’re on to something here, Andrew, except it’s not the attitudes of referees that need to change, but those who manage them: rugby’s lawmakers. It is only the judges who apply – the law, interpretation, and perception – and not the creators. That is a direct response to your bug of the break. Where the attitude of the referees may change is the continuous training of the players.
No more jumping for high balls
Another tactic that must be stopped is jumping for the high kick. As a result of too many interminable TMO rewinds to see if there was some minor contact with the head. Trying to find out if the player had a ‘reasonable chance of catching the ball’ wastes time and often results in random cards that disrupt the game. It is also a high safety risk activity.
Bold and innovative – but I don’t hate it! I’m not sure how much of a material effect it would have on the fabric of the sport of rugby, but I agree that it would improve as a spectacle. The only issue is that jumping your ball is such a (re)natural action. And how would you define a leap in law? Keeping one foot on the floor at all times, perhaps?
Free ticks, not penalties, for scrum violations
Also stop penalties for technical scrum infringements, just a free kick. Too many teams secure the ball and hold it in for longer than necessary to try and get a penalty for the ref. The scrum is simply a mechanism to get the ball back into play, for the scrum half to use it or to lose possession to the other team… oh, and have them put the ball straight in. Measured with a theodolite at youth/local level (at least in my area), completely ignored at ‘elite level’…strange.
There are no arguments here. This is an easy tweak that could be implemented almost immediately.
There are no penalties for a failed interception
John Prodger: I always thought that a penalty for a failed interception was too harsh. What’s wrong with a plain old knock?
The definition of failed understandings/deliberate crackdowns is too ambiguous at the moment, I agree. I think rugby has found a fairly good ground in the middle, where a player who reaches with two hands would get the benefit of the doubt. However, I think that boys are deliberately treated too harshly on the whole. They are rarely “intentional”; rarely does a player slap the ball down cynically. When they do, that should be punished, of course. I think the law itself is sensible but the judges have yet to find the silver bullet interpretation. Too often players are penalized – even sinned – for genuine attempts at capture.
Kill off caterpillar wrecks
Liam Melia: Rather than awarding a free kick, simply allow the referee to declare that the ball is ‘out’ of the ruck. That would prevent stoppages, but would also present a clear danger to the scrum-halves as they roll the ball forward in addition to the back of the ruck. If the ref sees a team setting up a ball, he simply calls the ball out. That would put an end to it soon without creating another rule that would be reluctant to execute references.
Something should definitely be done to neutralize/remove the caterpillars. I’m not sure that saying the ball is ‘off’ when it isn’t is the answer, though. It would be bedlam. An easy solution would be for the referees to enforce the five second rule more strictly; and even reducing World Rugby to three.
Simplify the disciplinary process
Graham Smith: For red card offences, other than a clear punch or kick, 10 minutes in the bin, but a very heavy fine, 50 per cent or more of their match fee plus a minimum ban of five games, and no mitigation, no lawyers allowed but the amount. . Within a few months that would go a long way to solving the head contact issue, without ruining the show with 13 v 15 matches.
In a similar vein to restricting substitutions (covered below), change is needed in this area, but rugby has yet to find the silver bullet. One swing option is to do away with red cards altogether – allowing the referee to call all penalties after the match; 20 minute red cards have been trialled in the southern hemisphere but were not deemed effective enough for this year’s World Cup. Maybe the answer is that a player with the red card goes away for the whole game, but after 20 minutes the attacking team can replace them? Basically, rugby executives and lawmakers need to prioritize rugby as a New Year’s resolution. Not above all else, but it must be given priority when decisions are made.
Stop raising at line-outs
Francis Moran: No, they don’t stabilize by putting hands on the jumping players, they lift them. Shorten the line out to the previous rules as this would give the goalies more space to run with the ball in hand. The game used to be running with a ball in hand. It should be steered back to that style and reject the muscle power and big hits that currently dominate.
Again, this would be quite drastic. I’m not in favor of it, per se, but I don’t mind seeing a test match with professional players without getting out of line. It would certainly be fun – and messy. It will never happen, of course, but rugby is missing a bit of chaos. It has become routine. Perhaps the answer would be to end choreographed lines. It would destroy the baldness, too.
Ways to discourage kicking
BY Thomas: Change the law so the only player who can put team members on the other side after a kick is the player who kicked the ball.
Amazing! I understand the aim but surely the main drawback is cross-field kicks? They are a real skill and convey excitement. This law would actually make them impossible, as the kicker would have to move forward after the kick so that his chaser on the touchline could move towards the ball. And, if you are saying that the hunters are on the side if they are behind the kicker but they are not able to play other people on the other side in front of them, it would become even more confusing for the officials.
Reduce the number of employees allowed
M Lewis: Two substitutes would mean that 13 players would have to play 80 minutes. To do this they would have to be smaller (gears only go for a maximum of 60 minutes to play) which would reduce the physicality of some of the supports making it a safer game to play.
This is more complicated than it is often given credit for. I agree that something needs to be done about replacement in rugby. There are tons of options, none of which are perfect. Injuries-only? Teams will play the system. Only two replacements allowed? What happens to injuries, HIA, blood – and the front row (to avoid scary uncontested scrums)? One simple solution could be, seeing that it is becoming more fashionable to have a 6:2 split on the bench, to reduce the day’s squad back to 22, but with three players in the front row.
Four that wouldn’t work
Provide territory from ball-in-hand play
Mr Smith: Penalty the majority of other minor offenses as a defense by sending the offending team back 10 yards and awarding a free kick to the opposing side. Penalties for serious intentional fouls only.
The Union is closer to its cousin, the league, than ever before. This would shorten the gap even further.
Reduce teams to 13 men
James Calhoun: In reality the field is smaller than it was with fitter and faster players and match day squads have to be huge with 15 players on the field and new ones. Reducing the number of players to 13 creates more space on the pitch and increases revenue per player over time or reduces costs. It would still be rugby union just like Sevens is.
Change the rules of the road
Maybe everyone in a rack has to connect at least two players?
I understand the main aim – to create more space on the pitch – but implementing it would be complete chaos (with the referees already struggling with the laws and their interpretations). And what if there were no two players to connect? The players would have to wait for others to arrive. Fastball would be consigned to the history books and, once again, rugby would be closer to league due to the slow failures.
Without any representative
Chris Cotterell: If a team loses a player due to injury the opposition loses the player in the same position.
Every scrum-half mysteriously leaving ‘injured’ as they face France or Toulouse?
