The SRU Is Not Properly Promoting Rugby Union

WHEN I WAS a boy, we had our choice of many different weekly magazines, aimed at youngsters. Most were comics, but others had a bit more substance. Probably the best of these was The Eagle, which mixed tales of comic-book characters such as the guy on the cover: Dan Dare Pilot of the Future, with intelligent features such as the legendary centrefold cutaway drawing of a railway engine, a jet aircraft or an aircraft carrier.

The Eagle also had a Readers Club and one of the perks of membership was free entry to Second XI and Minor Counties cricket matches. Not much use to Scottish members such as my big brother and me, but, still handy if you lived in England and were into cricket.

Why do I mention this now? Well, this afternoon the A teams of Glasgow and Edinburgh will meet at Scotstoun. If a magazine of the 1950s could arrange for young fans to see young cricket talent, with the odd internationalist playing, on a regular basis, why is it the SRU is making today's match a “Closed Doors” event and not doing likewise?

A lot of Scottish schools are currently enjoying the October mid-term break, here is a chance for the clubs (if not the rugby-playing schools) to take youngsters to see professional players strutting their stuff, with free entry. Letting kids in free would encourage them to take more interest in the game – to me it's a no-brainer.

The way the SRU does (or should I perhaps say doesn't) promote the two professional sides is a long-standing and continuing disgrace. They appear to be arranging games for the two A teams on a basis of making it up as they go along.

For instance, Edinburgh A were in the South West of England on Saturday, facing Bath United. The game finished 41-24 to Bath United. I gleaned this news from the official Bath RFC website, you will have to do a bit of digging to find the game mentioned on the Edinburgh website. Yes, the result is up, but no details are published of the scorers, or the order of scoring.

This is simploy unacceptable. We have to sell Rugby Union in Scotland much better than we currently do. It's not a game for: “The right crowd and no crowding”, the SRU is failing in one of its core duties.

Some commenters in The Offside Line reckon the reason for these games being closed doors affairs is to save money. OK, so it costs Glasgow and Edinburgh to hold them at Scotstoun or The Hive, so, why not take them to some of the top club grounds, get the clubs to p[tovidfe the volunteer steweaards etc, buyt have the chance to make some money off perhaps a very low admission charge, or, more likely, from bar income – plus, they are taking the pro teams round the country and it could generate more regular fans. I thin this would be worth a punt.

The next bit of text is a direct copy and paste lift from the top of the “About Scottish Rugby” section of the Union's official website:

“Scottish Rugby is the governing body for rugby union in Scotland. We work hard to grow the game and inspire Scotland through rugby.

We are proud to represent the nation and the sport on the global stage,sharing and upholding our values of respect, leadership, achievement, engagement and enjoyment.”

To a Scot,there is only one response to pish like that - “Aye right!!”

DEAR OLD Bill Beaumont, as he enters the home stretch of his journey from young lock forward to El Presidente of World Rugby, is perhaps looking towards any legacy he might leave. It is not for us to say if Sir Bill left the game in a better or worse condition in which he found it – I will leave that verdict to some, perhaps as yet unborn historian of the game, who will have more evidence and the value of time passed, to deliver a lasting impression.

However, it is interesting to see Fylde's finest ruminating on the controversial subject of how many substitutes we ought to allow during a game. The South Africans, for instance, are taking Bill's questioning of the current protacols on replacements as an attack on their beloved “Bomb Squad”, but, there has always been an element of “Us against the world” in Boer culture.

We have been playing Rugby Union Football for 150 years or more, but, replacement players were not allowed prior to 1969 – roughly 100 years after the game began to be formally constructed. From Ian “Spivvy” McCrae's introduction for the injured Gordon Connell, during the France v Scotland match, at Colombes stadium in 1969, we have got to the stage of eight of the starting XV being regularly replaced in international and club matches today.

Tactical substitutions have gradually been allowed to become common-place in the game – perhaps overly so to we older guys. It doesn't seem right that after two-thirds or three-quarters of a game has been played, one or both sides can take off more than half of their starting XV and replace them.

Perhaps it is time for a reboot of the replacement law. When McCrae made his historic entrance those 55 years ago,it was as an injury replacement, sanctioned by an independent Doctor. That was ok then, and is still ok today; but, can we really justify wholesale tactical changes – sending on fresh players, whether or not these players constitute a “Bomb Squad”?

This blog has long called for root and branch reform of the law book, but, there appears to be no appetite for such action in the game's corridors of power. World Rugby is always slow to move on laws reform, yes, they are shuffling the deck chairs at the moment, but, it really is time they took the future of the game seriously and got down to making the required changes.

If this happens, some time soon, it may well be Bill Beaumont's lasting legacy.