The question of what makes rugby a good game keeps coming up. As, to be honest, it should. I'd still watch rugby under most rules but I'd like to watch a good game if I have the chance. The rules of the game need to support the idea of rugby as an entertaining spectacle - that helps get people watching, gets money into the game, helps the game spread itself internationally and for the future.
Rugby is a game with many skills - scrums, rucks, mauls, line outs, tackles, pick and go, running with the ball, passing the ball, kicking from hand, catching kicks and passes and kicking from the tee. Added to that you can see different philosophies of rugby. Do you shut up shop, play tight and defensively, or play more expansively and run the ball at the opposition. Whilst both those philosophies may (particularly the second) have times when you play in the other style (defensive, tight play often stays tight when it should expand and move the ball) because the circumstances demand it - although there are some incredibly memorable tries scored when someone behind their own try line decides to give it a go and run with the ball.
A good game should have skill and intent. Defensive battles tend to be less attractive to me but can make for close games. That's not to say there's not a great level of skill in a defensive battle, but the play is more limited and you don't see the whole range of skills being offered and that's important too.
One thing in there that needs to be made clear is that, for most of the elements it's a team game. Not every player may be in every move, but most players have a role to play most times. And that too is a critical element of rugby.
So, if I was tweaking the rules I'd start from a position of wanting to encourage attacking intent, and emphasise the team aspects of the game. That means discouraging kicking, both from hand and the tee, and encouraging attacking rucks - although it should also encourage turning the ball over in defence ideally.
How might you do that? Well one obvious way is to reduce the points for kicking at goal. Any kick, one point, penalty, drop goal or conversion. Does this reduce the risk if you cheat? Maybe - although it reduces it evenly since both sides will have the same points so it doesn't make it unfair. And actually, it doesn't make you less penalised - sides will change their mind about how they use their penalties. You'll be less likely to waste a minute and kick for goal when you could kick for the corner and go for the line-out and try.
That sort of tweaking we've had before - when I was young, tries were only 4 points, now they're 5. In the 30's (and the origin of the word try supposedly) the scoring was the number of goals scored (each 1 point) and a try let you try to kick a goal. Down to one point seems like a big step but I don't care to watch one guy spending a minute kicking at the goal several times in the 80 minutes... so get reduce how attractive it is.
The law around rucks needs to be cleared up. It's currently a mess and inconsistently applied. Let's get rid of "going off your feet" and "handling in the ruck" and have some slightly simpler rules. Not going in from the side is good. Not sealing the ball off is good. Not playing if you're on the ground is good. But the situation where a player bridges, gets pushed off his feet by his own player and gives a penalty away when both players are trying to do the right thing - that's stupid. I'm not sure how the wording for sealing the ball off should be written - but something like putting your head, torso or legs over the ball so the opposition cannot play it when it is within their reach should do nicely. As the ball moves back in the ruck you don't move, so you're not putting yourself in the way and the ball is moving out of reach... no worries.
Want to get rid of the ping-pong kicking? Several choices - turn marks into penalties would be one. Unless players start kicking goals from the 22, it won't give points up directly but it will punish sides that kick too deeply more significantly and reduce the use of the tactic. Alternatively (or additionally) let players mark the ball out to the 10 metre line or even anywhere in their half. If you're going to change the marks to penalties you might want to have two types of mark... one within the 22 as a penalty and one further out as a free kick. It's not hard to do - we already have lots of laws about different things at different lines after all. There are attacking kicks - the "pass kick" to the winger who runs in and the grubber kick through the line. The former can't be marked unless the attacking side screws up the technique... in which case tough! The latter can't be marked because it's bounced first.
Will these changes change the sport? Of course they will, every change will. There are, almost certainly, unexpected consequences to the changes. Teams will work out ways to use the new rules to their advantage and I can't work out what those changes will be without seeing the game being played. But what they might do is tidy up the breakdown a bit, without radically rewriting the rules; reduce the desire to play dull rugby and take the points from penalties and never attack; and get rid of the ping-pong kicking game. What's not to like?
-
