Something needs to be done to neutralize the track impacts. Photo: Patrick Hachfe/Getty Images
Brian Moore's recent column for Telegraph Sport included changes to the law he would make in rugby.
Amendments to 50:22 and amendments to cancer laws are just a few of ideas that he believes could change rugby.
As you can imagine, this caused a lot of controversy among Telegraph readers in the comments section below his article. So we asked our rugby writer Charles Richardson to see if your suggestions would be taken on board…
Nine that could work. Changing the attitude of judges
Andrew Cook:The laws don't really need to be changed, it's all a question of the attitude of judges. The main reason for the predominance of kicks is the risk of turning over during a fall. The main reason for this is harsh referees who favor defenders/backers and make breaking a no-go zone. Attitudes need to change.
You're kind of right, Andrew, except that what needs to change is not the attitude of the referees, but those who run them: rugby's legislators. Judges are only executors of the law, its interpretations and attitudes, and not creators. This is a direct response to your fear of relapse. The attitude of the referees can change due to constant training of the players.
No more jumping for high balls
Andrew Cook: Another tactic that needs to be avoided is high kick jumping. Leads to too many endless TMO rewinds to see if there was any slight touch to the head. Trying to figure out whether a player had a “reasonable chance of catching the ball” is time-consuming and often accidentally results in cards, further disrupting the game. This is also a high security risk activity.
Bold and innovative – but I don't hate it! I'm not sure how much of an impact this will have on the sporting structure of rugby, but I agree the spectacle could definitely improve. The only problem is that jumping for the ball is such a natural (re)action. How would you define a leap in law? Maybe keep one foot on the floor at all times?
Free kicks, not penalties, for scrum infringements
Andrew Cook: Also, penalties for technical violations in a fight will be cancelled, just a free kick. Too many teams grab the ball and then hold onto it longer than necessary to try to squeeze a penalty out of the referee. A scrum is just a mechanism to get the ball back into play, force the scrum half to use it, or pass the ball to the other team… oh, and force them to kick the ball in straight. Measured by theodolite at the youth/local level (at least in my area), completely ignored at the “elite” level… strange.
No arguments here. This is a simple setup that can be implemented almost immediately.
No penalties for failed interception
John Prodger:I have always believed that the penalty given for a failed interception is overly harsh. What's wrong with a good old post?
I agree that the definition of failed interception/intentional attack is currently too ambiguous. I think rugby has found a decent enough middle ground whereby a player reaching with two hands will get the benefit of the doubt. However, I believe that in general deliberate fraud is treated too harshly. They are rarely “intentional”; Rarely does a player cynically slap the ball. When they do this, it should of course be punished. I believe that the law itself is reasonable, but judges have not yet found a universal interpretation of it. Too often players are penalized (even fined) for actually trying to catch the ball.
Destroy the caterpillars
Liam Melia:Instead of awarding a free kick, simply allow the referee to declare that the ball is outside the ruck. This will prevent a stoppage, but will also create a clear and present risk for the scrum-half to roll the ball past the extra forwards at the back of the ruck. If the referee sees a team setting up a track, he simply calls the ball out. This will soon put an end to this without creating yet another confusing rule that judges won't want to follow.
Something should definitely be done to neutralize/speed up the movement of the 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 ask World Rugby to reduce this number to three.
Simplification of the disciplinary process
Graham Smith:For offenses involving a red card other than a clear punch or kick, 10 minutes in the bin, but a very severe fine: 50 percent or more of the fee for match plus a suspension of at least five matches, without any mitigation, lawyers are also not allowed. . Over the course of a few months, this will go a long way toward solving the head contact problem without ruining the spectacle of 13v15 matches.
Much like limiting substitutions (discussed below), changes need to be made in this area, but rugby has not yet found a silver bullet. A complete abolition of red cards is one option, allowing the citation commissioner to administer all penalties after the match; 20-minute red cards were tried in the southern hemisphere but were not effective enough for this year's World Cup. Perhaps the answer is that a player who receives a red card is out for the entire match, but can be replaced by a substitute after 20 minutes by the offending team? Essentially, rugby leaders and legislators should make prioritizing rugby as a spectacle their New Year's resolution. Not above all else, but it should be a priority when making decisions.
Stop climbing in the hallways
Francis Moran: No, they do not stabilize by placing their hands on jumping players, but lift them up. Shorten the lineout as per the previous rules as this will give the defenders more space to run with the ball in their hand. The game used to be about running with a ball in your hand. He should be brought back to this style and eliminate the muscle power and big punches that currently dominate.
Again, this would be quite radical. I'm not a fan of this per se, but I wouldn't mind seeing a trial match with professional players not lifting the ball in the corridors. It would certainly be fun—and messy. Of course that will never happen, but rugby needs a little chaos. It became a routine. Perhaps the answer could be to abolish choreographic corridors. This would also render the mace ineffective.
Ways to prevent kicking
L.E. Thomas:Change the law so that the only player who can put teammates into play after a kick is the player who kicked the ball, so until the kicker gets to the ball, everyone who is in front of the kicker are still offside.
Intriguing! I understand the purpose, but the main disadvantage would surely be kicking across the field? They are a true master and provide real excitement. This law would effectively make them impossible, since the kicker would have to move forward after the kick to allow his pursuer on the touchline to proceed to the ball. And if you say the chasers are in play if they are behind the kicker but can't play with the other players in front of them, it confuses the referees even more.
Reduce the number of allowed substitutions.
M. Lewis:Two changes mean 13 players will have to play 80 minutes. To do this, they must be smaller (the props are trained to play for no more than 60 minutes), which will reduce the physical strain on some equipment, which will make the game safer.
This is more difficult than is often thought. I agree that something needs to be done about substitutions in rugby. There are a lot of options, and none of them are ideal. Only injuries? Teams will play according to the system. Are only two substitutions allowed? What will happen to injuries, injuries, blood and the first line (to avoid terrible uncontested fights)? One simple solution could be to reduce matchday squads to 22, but with three front row players, as the 6:2 bench ratio is becoming increasingly fashionable.
Four that won't work. Ensure territory when playing with the ball in your hands
Mr. Smith:Most other minor defensive infractions are punished by sending the offending team 10 yards back and awarding the other side a penalty kick. Fines are only for willful and serious violations.
The Union is already closer to its cousin, the league, than ever. This will further reduce the gap.
Reduce the number of people to 13 people
James Calhoun: The field is actually smaller than it used to be, with fitter and faster players, and matchday lineups are expected to be huge, with 15 players on the field and subs. Reducing the number of players to 13 creates more space on the field and, over time, increases revenue per player or reduces costs. It will still be rugby union, just like Sevens.
Ibid. See above.
Change ruck rules
James Calhoun: Maybe everyone in the ruck should stick to at least two players?
I understand the main goal – to create more space on the field – but enforcing this would be complete chaos (since the judges are already struggling with the laws and their interpretations). What if there weren't two players to get attached to? Players will have to wait for others to arrive. The fast ruck ball will be consigned to the history books and, again, the slow destruction will bring rugby union ever closer to league.
No substitutions.
Chris Cotterell: If a team loses a player to injury, the opposition loses a player in the same position.
Do all scrum-halves mysteriously go “injured” when facing France or Toulouse?
Recent Comments