Great WC, where next for the rules?

Firstly, well done NZ, very deserved champions and thanks to France for a worthy final and for proving many of us wrong. France could easily have won the game but in the end NZ were too good.

I've been playing and watching rugby for more than 40 years and I thought this WC was the best yet. There were some great games, real improvement in the tier 2 countries and from what I could tell (from my arm chair) NZ was a great host.

So why am I worried about the game I love and questioning where it goes from here? I watched a couple of classic matches from the 80s and 90s over the weekend and I have to say there were more differences than similarities with today's game. I'm no statistician and I'm sure someone on here will correct me but it looked to me that just about every rule has changed or been modified. It also appears that the degree of interpretation by officials that the rules demand is much higher today. I can't think of another sport where such a degree of interpretation is part of the game.

Now I'm not advocating we turn the clocks back - much of the amateur game would not work in the modern professional era and this sport should continue to evolve. However, when at almost every breakdown the official can justify a penalty to either team something needs to change. Also, although I'm sure the scrummage is safer today, I don't like to see games decided by a guess but frankly many scrum penalties are exactly that.

When we see rules change they are often brought about in the mistaken belief that fans must be given fast flowing rugby at all costs. Sundays final proved you don't need a 40 point try fest to have an absorbing entertaining match. I would like the IRB to consider rule changes that reduce the ambiguity and degree of interpretation at set piece and breakdown. In a full contact sport like rugby I suppose some level of interpretation which always be there (without it fans would have nothing to argue about!) but I'm interested to know how many on here think the rules about right today or whether we need modest or radical change in some areas?

Personally, i would love to see the scrums reviewed. It takes too much time and i dont like the engage. Someone said a few days ago that the srum can angage and settle but the shove should only come when the ball is fed. I kind of like this option.

eirebilly wrote:Personally, i would love to see the scrums reviewed. It takes too much time and i dont like the engage. Someone said a few days ago that the srum can angage and settle but the shove should only come when the ball is fed. I kind of like this option.

This is exactly how the scrum is supposed to happen according to the book. Shoving before the ball is put in is a penalty offence. It's just that some refs ignore it.

Having done a little bit of reffing, I can say that one of the problems is that at the breakdown, both teams will almost certainly be commiting an offence... someone will be joining, from both teams, from a position less than the back foot, someone will always be lazy in getting out of the way, someone is always trying to slow it down. But a lot of these will be incidental offences that won't change the outcome of the breakdown contest.... it's the ones that do illegally change the contest that the refs will pick up on.

But Refs are only human and can be hoodwinked... For example: Joe Worsley (Wasps) was an absolute b*stard at the breakdowns for holding players down to prevent them from rolling away. The refs always fell for it.

The RWC was an excellent example of how the rules need looking at.

Forgetting that Richie McCaw can do what he likes anyway, the breakdown is a mess, refs have no clue what is going on and are left to guess so many time, and thus get it wrong ofter, as was seen yesterday.

Also the same is with the scrummage, France were penalised so many times, when it looked to me as though they were getting the upperhand, but again it was left to the ref to guess (most of the time he just gave to NZ)

These both need looking at, and hopefuly it will lead to a fairer breakdown and scrummage

The main thing for me would be to reduce the amount of interpretation introduced in preference of actual law changes.

Far too many things in rugby are subjective.

It is not only the players I sympathise with but the referees too.

They have been getting a bad rap recently from fans and pundits who are not privy to the announcements of re interpretations issued only to coaches.

The laws need a decent review, as in all sports every four years, for the good of the progression of a sport.

Olympics sports review after the Olympics, our Olympics is the RWC so we have to use that as our barrier for review.

I expect that similar to previous world cups the IRB will spend the next two years tinkering with the laws, then have two years respite until the next RWC in 2015.

What I do dislike is once the laws are frozen that the IRB wish to tamper further but do so by re-writing interpretations of current laws, not changing them for the better.

All adds to much confusion.

It is a thankless task but currently we do have a predominantly free flowing, entertaining and successful game. There aren't too many laws I would change or reinvent.

Previous issues at the breakdown and the scrum see to have been resolved by current interpretations. Let's turn those interpretations into decisive laws.

The only things I would look at in the scrum is e binding laws, I would put a ban on props binding under the opposing props arm pit. This prevents the opposing prop from getting a good bind as a prop binding under his oppositions arm pit can control the other props arm, he can also pressurise their pressure point and cause them a weakness.

Maybe the laws on a prop touching the ground to stabilise the self could be far more lenient.

And finally they should be stricter on the ball not being entered until the scrum is stable, stricter on not pushing before the ball is entered and cut out the law stating that the scrum half must put the ball in immediately.