It's Time Rugby's Dublin Murphyia Laid Down The Law Properly And Consistently

OF LATE, I have been devoting what I feel is too-much time to the imperfections of the current World Rugby Laws of the Game. I fear I, and the various other philosophers on the game around the globe, have been drawn into this activity because the paid and more-sadly the elected officials, into whose hands we have placed the guardianship of the game, have perhaps been too-busy feathering their own nests.

Let me say, straight away, the current Laws of the game are not perfect – they could do with deep and serious re-writing, an exercise for which I currently see no appetite within the corridors of power at WR's Dublin headquarters. But, before we embark on what would be both a lengthy and expensive re-drafting exercise, should we not perhaps start by trying a full season in which the current Laws are rigidly and properly enforced?

This, I feel, would, certainly in the early stages lead to stop-start games, unduly influenced by the referee's whistle. However, if the players and the coaches learned the lessons of this, I feel sure they would adapt and the game would be better for this.

I also accept, since leading members of the refereeing community have repeatedly told me this is the case, too-many decisions are influenced by – and you will not find this single, crucially-important word anywhere in the Lawbook: “MATERIALITY.”

What is materiality? The explanation I got, from a leading referee manager is: “at every breakdown – ruck or maul, and at every set piece – scrum or line out, at any one time, several of the laws are being broken, so, you penalise the one you feel has the most material effect on the game.”

Who'd be a referee? The poor man or woman with the whistle is expected to police the Laws of the game, which are being breached on an industrial scale by the players. His or her every decision is being second-guessed by the fans on the sidelines and by the coaches, who have maybe spent a considerable part of the previous week teaching their players how to cheat effectively.

Let's look at your average ruck, and please feel free to inform me of any potential infringements I have missed out.

• The ball carrier is tackled – forming the ruck:

1. Was the tackle legal?

2. Did the tackled player, on going to ground, attempt an additional roll?

3. Did the tackler release and get to his feet before “jackalling” for the ball?

4. Did he go straight to the ball, or did he go hands to ground first, before coming back onto the ball?

5. If the tackler did not immediately get back to his feet, was he guilty of “sealing-off” to prevent a fair contest for the ball?

6. Did the tackler immediately roll away?

7. Was he perhaps held in by an arriving team mate of the tackled player, preventing a fair contest?

8. Did the players subsequent to the ball carrier and tackler arrive “through the gate” or was there “side entry”?

9. Did the ball carrier release the ball when tackled, or did he or she hold onto possession?

10. Was there an illegal clear-out of a supporting player in the ruck?

11. Was there a knock-on during the carnage?

12. When the ball was eventually played back to the scrum-half, did he use the ball within the designated five seconds?

There we have it, one ruck, 12 questions for the referee to answer, in one sighting, in real time – then think how many rucks there are in a game, in which the poor official has to go through the same analysis.

Dinosaur that I am, I would go back to the days of real rucking, where the ball had to be played by a player's foot following a tackle, and, if you were on the ground you were out of the game and fair game to be stood-on.

Yes, I know someone being rucked out of a breakdown doesn't look good, but, provided the head kickers are weeded-out, and this shouldn't take too-long if they are jumped upon from a great height by the powers that be, we would soon be seeing a more-dynamic and exciting game, with a lot more space on the park.

Take the scrum. Let's get back to making the scrum what it is supposed to be. A scrum is a means of restarting a game following a break-down in play. It was never supposed to be what it has become – a means of winning penalties.

So, let's go back to the good old days, when penalties at scrum time were only awarded following a bout of fisticuffs involving the two packs. If one player or side offends, if he's from the side having the put-in – give the put-in to the opposition; if he's from the side which doesn't have the put-in, they concede a free-kick.

Let's sort-out the most-often-broken Law in the book, and INSIST on the scrum being formed within 30 seconds of being awarded. If either side isn't ready, and the onus here is mainly on the side with the put-in, then the opposition gets a free-kick.

At the top level – internationals and the leading leagues of full-time players, where TV coverage is normal, at scrum time, place either the drone camera or the camera on the wire directly above the front rows – so the TMO can advise the referee that all four props are pushing straight.

Of course, it goes without saying, we go back to INSISTING the scrum-halves feed the ball down the middle of the tunnel. [A wee aside here, might we consider adopting what happens in other sports: dropped pucks in ice hockey, throw-ups in basketball, that great Scottish stand-by, the fitba stoat-up, and have the referee feed the ball into scrums? After all these other set pieces I have mentioned are other sports' equivalent of a scrum.]

I would also consider prohibiting teams from holding the ball in the scrum and pushing the opposition backwards – other than within five metres of the opposition's try line. Pushover tries should still be an attacking weapon and celebrated; pushing on to win a penalty – no way.

We have also, over the years, not guarded the purity of the Laws of the game as seriously as other sports – such as golf.

Back in the day, I had a kidney removed, aged 19 and was advised to stop playing rugby. Well, for the first two or three years, I voluntarily dropped down to become my club's full-time first-team touch judge. In this role I learned a Law which was rigidly enforced, the thrower-in at a line-out had to have all his feet outside the touchline.

Fast forward half a century and hookers today more often than not, throw-in from at least one metre inside the touchline. They are nowadays allowed to have their feet on the line – since the actual line is deemed to be outside the pitch – but, you watch the next televised game. The hooker's heels will be on the inside edge of the touchline, so, when he throws, he lifts his heel and he is, in reality, inside the pitch.

It's not much, but, you try replacing your golf ball in the wrong spot before putting, and you'd better be ready for dog's abuse. Throwing-in from inside the pitch is cheating, and it isn't even very good cheating.

Another thing referees were red-hot on in my day was, kicking through the mark at a penalty. If you didn't do this, you lost possession. Today, the ref marks the spot where the penalty was conceded, which immediately becomes the starting point for the kicker's run-up, if he is kicking to touch. For some strange reason, the same liberties are seldom sought, nor taken with attempts at goal.

Of late, there have been infrequent sightings of referees saying: “enough” and punishing dissent by invoking Rugby's ten metres back protocol – about time too. Let's cut the back-chat and give the officials a modicum of respect.

So, let's try a season of properly policing and implementing the Laws. If that doesn't work, then we should adopt harsher measures and properly overhaul those Laws we find still aren't working.