"You Scots Are A contentious Race" - Principal Seymour Skinner.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the Scotland squad for the Guinness Six Nations clash with France – assuming that match ever takes place, certainly got a few people talking.

In typically Scottish fashion, much of this chat has been negative. The famously single-minded Gregor Townsend has come under some verbal – and written on social media – fire, not so-much for his selection, but, for some of the players he hasn't picked.

Facebook and chat room sites were full of posts from irate Scotland fans, many asking: “What has Rory Hutchinson done to upset Toony?” The Northampton Saints' centre's absence from the squad has certainly got the fans talking, and not always positively.

So-much of sport is opinion. For me, Jim Baxter is the greatest player who ever wore the number six shirt. If you're an Aberdeen fan, you may well disagree, and offer Willie Miller as an alternative. If you're English, you will almost certainly put forward the name of Bobby Moore in the same argument (although, he was never as good as Duncan Edwards).

So, we all have opinions, but, when it comes to who should be in the national squad – our opinions don't matter, it is all down to what Tonny thinks.

Such theoretical selection debates are something new to Scottish rugby. For most of our history, we have suffered from – rather than a surfeit of international-class players – a shortage. We have a lot of guys, who would get nowhere near the squad these days, but in past years picked up a barrow-load of caps, because we had no alternatives.

In the current crop of Scotland players, I believe we have six players who are automatic choices:

1. Stuart Hogg

2. Duhan van der Merwe

3. Finn Russell

4. Zander Fagerson

5. Jonny Gray

6. Hamish Watson

So, that's nine places up for debate, and we all have our personal opinions as to who should fill those places. However, only Toony is paid to fill those places, so, perhaps we ought to have faith in his selections.

What I would like to see, however, is a return to us having a back-up squad, like a Scotland A team. That way we would have a means of keeping those international-class players not in the automatic-choice, or Coach's-choice category involved.

Having an A team playing regularly would also enable the back-up players to the automatic choices to put forward their cases for selection in the match-day 23 of the big team.

I would also like to see us having something like an A team, or an Under-23 team, making regular summer tours to Tier Two nations. Or, why doesn't the SRU initiate an end-of-season tournament, similar to the old Churchill Cup tournament, involving a mix of Tier One nations' shadow squads and Tier Two nations?

We have never been good at keeping our back-up players involved and playing, whether for national sides, or for the two PRO14 teams – we really need to work on this aspect of player development, I feel.

I NOTICED this week, The Guardian's Robert Kitson flying his kite on the subject of an overhaul of the Laws of the Game. His thoughts can be read at:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/feb/23/rugby-union-red-cards-premiership-law-book-refresh

The problem with the current state of the game, to me at any case, is that we have a two-prong problem:

1. Some of today's Laws are not fit for purpose.

2. The way the game is refereed exacerbates rather than cures some of the problems.

Listen to any radio or television coverage of a top flight club or international match today, and the background noise is of a referee cautioning players:

• “Stay 8 or 12,” or whatever, whenever a kick goes up – and you can be sure at least one player is advancing from an offside position.

• “Use it nine,” is the normal instruction to a scrum-half, at every ruck.

• “Hands away,” again heard at every ruck.

• “Out of there,” the general call at every maul.

Don't warn them – penalise them. OK, at first we would have a lot of stop-start games and penalties galore. However, I wager, it would not take too-long for the coaches to realise, if they didn't get their players playing to the Laws, it would prove costly.

I would also like to see, as happens in games such as basketball – team breaches of the laws counted up, and, after a certain number of fouls against a side – every subsequent foul gives the opposition a penalty kick at goal. That would soon, I warrant, improve player discipline.

Then there are the calls which are not made:

• When the scrum-half feeds the ball virtually to his second row's feet.

• When a hooker throws into a line-out from inside the pitch.

• When a kicker uses the penalty mark as the starting point of his run-up, rather than as the mark through which the penalty should be kicked.

• Add your own pet bugbear as you see fit.

In an extreme contact sport such as Rugby Union, safety has to be paramount, and, if you give the players an inch to stretch one law, they will take a mile to stretch any law they can possibly get round.

I have long maintained, modern rugby is too-complex a game to be controlled by one man – with the limited input referees enjoy from their assistants.

American Football, which only has 22 players on the field, has seven officials in action during games. On that basis, rugby, with its 30 players, could certainly use more officials, I feel.

I would also like to see technology used – let's have drones, or those “spider-cams” I think they are called, giving officials a bird's-eye view of the scrums and catching-out those props who cannot or will not push straight.

Additional officials would also catch out those frequent examples of defenders being offside as they stretch their line across the park.

World Rugby needs to do something – carrying on as we are is not an option.