We Don't Do Brain Farts In Ayrshire - We Follow Through

WE STAUNCH YEOMEN, living in God's County of Ayrshire suffer from a local phenomenon – first identified, as I understand it, by weel-kent local farmer and authority on Rugby Union football: Auld Auchlin. This is what he termed: “A rush o' shite to the brain.” I was struck by one, about five minutes ago.

In my case, I was reflecting on what rugby might look like in ten years' time, always assuming someone among Sir Bill Beaumont, Bernard Laporte, John Jeffrey and the rest of World Rugby's high heid yins might lay-off the gin and tonics long enough to realise – our game has serious problems, then decide to do something about these.

I would like to think they might put in place processes to mitigate against the effects of head injuries on players – before some former player actually sues and takes the game for millions, in the process precipitating a whole raft of such cases which, just might get the game either stopped, or so-altered on safety grounds as to have no similarity to the game we grew up loving.

Much of our game's appeal comes from its confrontational nature, as it allows young men and women to test their physical prowess, in a controlled manner, against their peers. As such, there is an in-built element of danger in playing the game, the question going forward seems to be, how better do we control the danger element than we have in the past, and can we do this without fatally neutering our sport?

Other sports – American Football, baseball, cricket, ice and field hockey, lacrosse, hurling/shinty, Tai Kwan Do, to name but a few, have an element of protective equipment involved in play. Amateur boxing involves the use of head guards, while in both amateur and professional boxing, the gloves are padded.

Might rugby in a decade's time involve players wearing a great deal more padding than we see today?

I have recently seen suggestions that helmets, akin to those used in American Football, could be introduced into rugby. It might work, however, American Football is even further down the road towards litigation in respect of former players suffering brain injuries than rugby is. So, helmets may not be the answer, while there are also suggestions that some players, being helmeted, believe they cannot be hurt and use their helmets as weapons, by leading with them.

It's not garlic bread - but it might be the future

However, helmets are expensive, and when you add-on the other items of padding: shoulder and back pads, girdles, etc. the cost of equipping a team becomes astronomical. The cheapest helmet will cost at least £75 – that's a minimum of £1725 to kit-out a 23-man squad, add body padding and suddenly, the game has got an awful lot more-expensive – with no guarantee of an increase in player safety to offset the increased costs.

So, we are then looking at either – a much-more expensive game to play, or, making the game safer by taking away much of its physicality.

World Rugby could make a start by grasping the nettle and making changes to the Laws. They could start by lowering the tackle height from the current nipple line to the waist – however, this will not eliminate injuries from poor technique. Even at international level, we occasionally see full-time professionals, getting their head in the wrong place when making an otherwise text-book below the waist tackle.

I would also hope to see better officiating at the breakdown. Let's outlaw what I call the Munster torpedo take-out – when a player launches himself horizontally to take-out an opponent at the breakdown.

It is also way past time something was done about the scrum. Might there be, as I have ruminated on in past blog posts, a case for bringing-in more match officials? American Football at the elite level calls for seven match officials, when there is a maximum of 22 players on the park at any one time – might more officials on the pitch catch more of the nefarious actions of the 30 rugby players on the field?

How about specialist scrum officials – or, the cheap option at elite level which I have highlighted before: place that aerial camera directly over the two hookers at a scrum, lense pointing downwards and the TMO would instantly be able to notice when a prop or props wasn't pushing straight.

And FFS, finally, make the scrum-halves put the ball in straight down the middle of the tunnel, and have the hookers striking for the ball. Or even, the ultimate answer, do what they do in other games such as basketball and ice hockey, and have the match official feed the ball in to re-start play.

A good start might be to properly enforce and police the existing Laws. I appreciate, in the short term, this would make for staccato, broken-up games in which the referee's whistle would be the constant sound track. However, assuming the powers-that-be refused to go easy and stuck to their guns, the players and coaches would quickly adapt.

Let's start with strict enforcement of the existing Laws, then, if it was clear that wasn't working properly, perhaps World Rugby might embark on the wholesale overhaul of the Laws some of us feel is necessary.

Another thought which I had as regards high tackles: might there be a case for enforcing an offside zone either side of the breakdown. As things stand, defenders are right up at the back of each pile of bodies, so, when we get the near-inevitable first option of the pick and go, the first contacts will almost certainly be at least chest to chest.

Make the offside line a metre back and the defenders will have the time to set themselves for a proper below the waist tackle – much safer.

And, while we are at it, sort out the driving maul, which seems to me to be an excuse for blatant obstruction. By all means allow it from a line-out, but, bar the catcher from transferring the ball back to the hooker; make it that the ball-carrier has to be “on point”. This will make for a much-fairer aspect of the game.