Suggested Law Changes

The theory is that laws will be changed only every four years, after the World Cup. It has not worked that way in the last four years with many adaptations/interpretations/clarifications/emphases/variations in the intervening four years. That's a pity as it confused an already confused situation for players, referees and bemused spectators.

Clarifications, which have the force of law, tell of the tale of law changes between laws. In the four years before the 2007 World Cup there were 29 clarifications; before the 2011, there were 21 and before this one 18. That is 68 changes in 12 years – apart from law changes. And that is apart from the change of emphasis before the start of each competition – each Six Nations, each Super Rugby, each Rugby Championship which started life as the TriNations, each Currie Cup.

It is no wonder that not long ago the most capped international of all time publicly rued the folly of his infringement which the top referee in the world punished – when in fact it turned out that there had not been an infringement at all. There is something radically wrong if the best players and the best referees are so unsure of themselves.

In addition to the clarifications, there is further confusion caused by 'variations', World Rugby-approved variations from the laws. It has happened, for example, in South Africa's Varsity Cup and it is happening now in Australia's National Rugby Cup which follows on a sort of plebiscite which changed the laws to make the game more attractive.

The most obvious problem areas are the tackle, the scrum and the maul. It would be surprising if there were not some law changes in these three facets of play.

Then there is the predictability of the game – not just line-outs and scrums but also the much-lauded but boring 'phase' play where each phase consists of one pass and one tackle as scrumhalves wait patiently and then pass to a forward who runs straight into an opponent who cannot fail to tackle him, a game where much-recommended patience replaces excitement and flair.

Here are some suggestions borne on the wind and perhaps insubstantial, unless of course they bring rain to a parched land.

One must always remember in changing laws that rugby is not only the game on television, played on posh stadiums. It is also a game played in clubs and schools and just for fun.

NB It is important to bear in mind that these suggestions are sheer speculation and are not law and may or may not become law in some form or another.  THEY ARE SPECULATIONS, NOT RUGBY LAW.

1. Scrums

a. The suggestion is that there be no hit on 'Set'. Instead the front rows fold in.

This harks back to the 'good, old days', when scrums did not collapse and there were no resets or guesswork penalties.

b. There be no sign from the referee to put the ball in but that the scrumhalf of the team putting in the ball does so when he feels ready.

Now the scrumhalf waits for the referee's signal, then he dabs the ball onto his hooker's arm and then he puts the ball in – skew.

c. That the ball be put in straight. Straight = along an imaginary line on the ground below the joining of the two front-rows' shoulders. That the whole ball should travel along this line, not just part of the ball touching part of this line.

That could be quite revolutionary! It could also go some way to making scrums more manageable as a tighthead now becomes possible, especially if 'foot-up' again becomes sanctionable.

2. Tackle

a. There be an offside line at the tackle.

The referee then does not have to shout 'Tackle only'. He does not have to decide whether a ruck was formed or not. That would get closer to 'what looks the same is treated the same'. It was tried some years ago and jettisoned in a short time.

The downside of such a law is that it makes life easier for the ball-carrier's side and does not reward the tackler's side though it was his tackle that beat the attack.

b. Tackler Law – remove the tackler's unique options and ensure the tackler must 'enter through the gate'. This would mean that the tackler is not allowed to play the ball from the opponents' side of the tackle.

Again it increases the reward to the ball-carrier's side and reduces the tackler's enjoyment of the fruits of his victory.

It is just possible that it will increase the incidence of monotonous one-pass phases, which are in effect not new phases but the same phase repeated over and over.

c. 'Stapling' be penalised.

Stapling is an elevated form of sealing off. In sealing off the arriving team-mate of the ball-carrier falls down onto the ball-carrier. In the case of stapling he is low but not lying on the ball-carrier. He does also not play the ball but is there only to ward off opponents who seek to grab the ball.

The purpose here would be to eliminate the low clean-out and create more height in the subsequent ruck with the advantage of fewer players off their feet. over the ball carrier” without actually lifting the ball.

d. That hands may be used in a ruck – not just the fumbling man before the ruck started and not just the scrumhalf digging for the ball.

e. That when the ball is out of the ruck it is out for both sides, not just when the scrumhalf picks up the ball.

f. If, after a kick, the catcher is swamped it would always be his side's ball or always the other side's ball, making no distinction whether a maul is formed or whether the kick has been a kick-off or a drop-out.

3. Maul

a. There is a suggestion that it become illegal for the ball to be moved to the back of the maul.

There are people who find the maul monotonous and predictable. There are also people who find the maul a skilful phases and arousing excitement in the game.

Such a change would make the law easier to referee, which may not be the law-makers' primary concern.

b. Ensure players do not join ahead of the last player in the maul.

This is current law but treated with non-application as is foot-up in a scrum.

c. If shearing off occurs, there is no longer a 'same maul' situation.

c.i. If the attacking team by its own action and without 'changing lanes' the matter of 'same maul' no longer still exists. The ball must be in the possession of the front player or the ball must break away, thus exposing himself to be tackled.

c.ii. If the defending team leaves the maul of its own volition, the maul could continue only if, subject to advantage, the ball is at the front of the maul. If there is no advantage, the defending team is to be penalised.

4. Penalty

If a penalty kick is kicked into touch, the other team, i.e. the team penalised, throws in at the line-out.

This may lead to more tap kicks or more kicks at goal. It would lead to far fewer mauls from five-metre line-outs.

5. Colour cards

There is a suggestion that teams not be reduced in numbers for red and yellow cards. The offender would be punished, not the team, nor would the match be spoilt as it would remain 15 vs 15. This could be achieved by allowing a replacement for the man sent off

6. One last suggestion

That all non-law terms be discoiurage4d an eliminated – things like sealing off, stapling, running around, swimming, the gate, lazy runners, tackler assist, choke tackle, tip tackle – that sort of thing..