Brian Moore’s last column for Telegraph Sport was about legislative changes in rugby.
Changes to 50:22 and changes to ruck laws were just some of the ideas he believed could transform rugby.
As you can imagine, this sparked plenty of debate among Telegraph readers in the comments section below the article. That’s why we called on our rugby writer Charles Richardson to check if your suggestions are valid…
Nine that might work
Change in referee attitude
Andrew Cook: Actually, you don’t need to change the laws, it’s all a matter of the referee’s attitude. The main reason why kicking predominates is the risk of tipping over at failure. The main reason for this is the sensitive referees who favor the defenders/coyotes and make the half a no-go area. Attitude needs to change.
You’re on to something here Andrew, but it’s not the attitude of the referees that needs to change, but the attitude of those who manage them – the rugby legislators. Arbitrators are merely enforcers of the law, interpretation and position, not its creators. This is a direct response to your bug about the malfunction. Where referees’ attitudes may change is in the persistent coaching of players.
No need to jump for high balls anymore
Another tactic to stop is jumping for a high kick. One small touch to the head leads to a lot of endless TMO rewinding. Trying to work out whether the player has a ‘reasonable chance of catching the ball’ wastes time and often leads to random cards, which further breaks the game. It is also an activity that carries a high security risk.
Bold and innovative – but I don’t hate it! I’m not sure how much of a material impact it will have on the fabric of rugby, but I agree it can certainly improve as a spectacle. The only problem is that jumping for the ball is a very natural (re)action. So how do you define leapfrogging in law? Maybe keeping one foot on the ground at all times?
Free kicks, not penalties, for offensive violations
Also stop penalties for technical attack violations, only one free kick. Too many teams are securing the ball and holding it for longer than necessary to try to extract a penalty from the referee. Attacking is just a mechanism to put the ball back into play, get the attacking half to use the ball, or lose the ball to the other team… oh, and get them to put the ball in the straight. Measured with a theodolite at youth level/local level (at least in my area), completely ignored at ‘Elite level’… odd.
No debate here. This is an easy tweak that can be applied almost instantly.
No penalty for unsuccessful tackles
John Prodger: I have always thought the penalty for a failed tackle was overly harsh. What’s wrong with a plain old beat?
The definition of failed tackles/deliberate attacks is very vague at the moment, I agree. I think rugby has found a good enough middle ground so that a player reaching out with both hands can get the benefit of the doubt. However, I think intentional attacks are generally treated very harshly. They are rarely “intentional”; Rarely does a player slap the ball sarcastically. Those who do this should of course be punished. I think the law itself makes sense, but the arbitrators haven’t quite found the magic solution interpretation yet. Players are often penalized or even sinned for their actual capture attempts.
Kill caterpillar backs
Liam Melia: Instead of awarding a free kick, let the referee declare the ball out of bounds. This would prevent a stoppage, but also creates a clear and present risk for scrum halves to roll the ball extra forward from the back. If the referee sees a team set up, he says the ball is out. This will soon put an end to this without creating another complicated rule that referees will be reluctant to enforce.
Something definitely needs to be done to neutralize/accelerate the caterpillar piles. But I’m not sure saying the ball is out is the answer. That would be complete mayhem. An easy solution would be for referees to enforce the five-second rule more strictly; and even have World Rugby reduce the number to three.
Simplifying the disciplinary process
Graham Smyth: For red card offenses other than an obvious punch or kick, there is a 10-minute penalty, but a very stiff fine of 50 percent or more of the match fee plus a minimum five-match ban and no mitigation, nor are lawyers allowed. In a few months this will go a long way in solving the head contact issue without spoiling the show with 13v15 matches.
Similar to limiting substitutions (discussed below), there needs to be a fine-tuning in this area too, but rugby has yet to find the magic solution. Removing red cards altogether is a shaky option; allows the commissioner to impose 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. Maybe the answer is that a player who receives a red card is out for the entire match, but after 20 minutes the offending team can replace him with another player? Essentially, rugby administrators and lawmakers should make a show of prioritizing the game of rugby in their New Year’s resolutions. It’s not the be-all and end-all, but it should be a priority when decisions are made.
Stop lifting on line outs
Francis Moran: No, they don’t balance the jumping players by placing their hands on them, they lift them up. Shorten the formation line to the previous rules as this will give the backs more space to run with the ball in hand. The game used to be based on running with the ball in hand. This style must be returned to and the muscular power and big shots that currently prevail must be neutralised.
Again, that would be pretty violent. I personally am not in favor of this, but I would not mind seeing a trial match where professional players are not left out of the squad. It would definitely be fun and complicated. Of course that will never happen but rugby is missing a bit of chaos. It has become routine. Perhaps removing choreographed formations could be the solution. This would also weaken the power of the rammer.
Ways to prevent kicking
LE Thomas: Change the law so that the batsman is the only player who can put his teammates offside after a kick; so everyone in front of the kick will still be offside until the kicker gets upstream of the ball.
Interesting! I understand your point, but the real disadvantage will definitely be the cross-court shots? These are real skills and offer real excitement. This law would effectively make it impossible for their chaser on the touchline to advance towards the ball, as the kicker would need to advance after the kick. And if you’re saying the chasers are offside, they’re behind the batsman but they can’t play the other players in front of them offside, it becomes even more confusing for the umpires.
Reduce the number of allowed subscribers
M Lewis: Two substitutions mean 13 players must play 80 minutes. To do this they would need to be smaller (stages would only train to play for a maximum of 60 minutes) which would reduce the physicality of some tackles and make the game safer to play.
This is more complex than is often thought. I agree that something needs to be done about substitutions in rugby. There are countless options, none of which are perfect. Just injuries? Teams will play with the system. Only two changes allowed? What about the injuries, HIA, blood, and front row (to avoid horrific, unassailable attacks)? A simple solution would be to reduce matchday squads to 22 with three front-row players, given that a 6:2 split on the bench is becoming increasingly fashionable.
Four that won’t work
Provide territory from ball-in-hand play
Mr. Smith: Most other minor defensive offenses are punished by sending the offending team back 10 yards and awarding a hit-and-go free kick to the other side. Penalties are given only for intentional and serious fouls.
Union is already closer than ever to its cousin, the League. This will shorten the gap even further.
Reduce team size to 13 people
James Calhoun: The field is effectively smaller for fitter and faster players, and matchday squads have to be very large, with 15 players on the field plus substitutes. Reducing the number of players to 13 creates more space on the field, allowing revenue per player to increase or costs to decrease over time. It would still be rugby union like Sevens.
Change the ruck rules
Maybe everyone on a team needs to commit to at least two players?
I understand the basic goal – to create more space on the field – but implementing it would be complete chaos (referees are already struggling with the law and its interpretations). But what if there are no two players to connect? The players would have to wait for the others to arrive. The fastball would be consigned to the history books and slow breakdowns would bring rugby union closer to the league once again.
There is no substitute whatsoever
Chris Cotterell: If a team loses a player due to injury, the opposing team loses the player in the same position.
Do all the attacking halves mysteriously leave ‘injured’ when they face France or Toulouse?