A Long Read - But, It's A Big Subject

IN A RECENT blog post, I mentioned my intention to have a closer look at the current Law Book, and how we might improve it for the betterment of the overall game. Well – here we go. I am not suggesting I have all the answers, but, in the spirit of encouraging debate, I hope the following will get people thinking and talking.

Let's begin with Rugby Union's problem child – The Scrum. Straight away, let's accept, a lot of what goes on at the scrum is a mystery to many; indeed, when you find television “talking heads” such as David Flatman – (8 England caps at prop, over 250 Premiership appearances) and Brian Moore – (64 England caps, 2 Lions Tours: 5 Lions Test caps, over 250 Premiership appearances as a hooker) admitting ignorance as to why a scrum penalty was awarded, then the officiating of the scrum at the elite level is clearly a problem.

The definition of the scrum is: “It is a means of restarting play after a stoppage which has been caused by a minor infringement of the laws” - (such as a forward pass or knock-on) or the ball becoming unplayable in a ruck or maul. The scrum serves to concentrate all the forwards and the scrum-halves in one place on the field, providing the opportunity for the backs to mount an attack using the space created elsewhere.

That last paragraph was copied and pasted verbatim from the official World Rugby Law Book. It couldn't be simpler, so, how did it become a means of generating penalties?

Perhaps if we de-criminalised scrum offences, it would make for a better spectacle. However, props being props and with the “Dark Arts” of the scrum being such a long-established part of the game's folklore, there has to be some kind of penalty for misbehaviour at the scrum.

So. how about this:

• Penalties can be awarded at scrums; however, they cannot be kicked at goal unless, in the referee's opinion, the offending player's actions can be considered "dangerous play” or, the offence comes under the umbrella of “repeated offending”, with the Law Book indicating at which stage repeated offending. comes into play.

• I would also again voice my support for – at the elite level, where most of the scrum controversies occur – use of 'Spider Cam' or any similar device to assist in officiating. Place the camera directly above the two hookers' heads, so the TMO would be aware which if any of the props was pushing at an angle. At the same time, the Ars would, as at the moment, be watching events on their side of the scrum.

• It goes without saying, the officiating of the scrum would be greatly improved by a zero tolerance approach to regularly-ignored offences such as squint feeds.

Of course, decriminalisation of thee scrum would also have to be accompanied by World Rugby instructing referees to clamp down on the other repeated infractions of the scrum laws, such as squint feeds, and, the most-abused Law in the book, the requirement for the scrum to be formed within 30 seconds of it being awarded. Zero tolerance of abuses of these Laws would greatly improve the game.

A lot of scrum penalties are awarded when the side which has won possession (ok – had the ball conveniently placed in their second row by their scrum half), goes for a secondary shove. You can see it unfold: the ball goes in, it sticks in the second row, there is a pause, then on comes the second shove, followed quickly by the blast on the referee's whistle.

So, let's get back to basics – de-power the scrum; I have no problem with an attempted pushover try from a five metre scrum, that's a long-established part of rugby, but, the use of the secondary shove to win a penalty – no that's against the whole ethos of the scrum, so, let's (other than at five metre scrums) do away with this and insist, the ball goes in and out as speedily as possible.

This I know is not a popular suggestion with some scrum nuts. I have been told it would turn the Union scrum into “a Rugby League scrum,” perhaps, but, why not give it a try any way?

Now – let's turn to the game's other flash point, the scrum's “younger brother” - the Breakdown. There are several legends around how we arrived at the current Law around this part of the game, in particular:

Apparently, back in the Amateur Era, England were being regularly done over when play broke down. The big English forwards of the day could maul with the best, but, when sides such as the Irish, the Scots and in particular the guys who invented it – the All Blacks – got their dynamic rucking game going – England were being swept aside.

Apparently, Cynthia, Cassandra and the other gels who sat in the posh seats at Twickenham didn't like seeing their sturdy English yeoman gentlemen being trampled underfoot by Colonials, Paddies and Sweaties. Something had to be done.

So, as the legend has it, as the port came round at the end of one of the fine meals which ended what was then the International Rugby Board's annual get-together in the East India Club in London, the subject of the ruck was raised.

Off came the dinner jackets and one or two of the IRB delegates, long past their prime as forwards, worked through several possible scenarios. Changes were pushed through and, in time we arrived at where we are today.

OK, back in the amateur era, of “anything goes” in the ruck, there were occasional cases where “Over-vigorous rucking” led to serious cuts. Yes, we in Scotland all remember the not-entirely-serious mantra of a Glasgow Under-19 XV, coached by John Beattie. According to hooker Kelvin McKenzie, this mantra was: “kick ahead – any head.”

That we cannot have. However, another side effect of real rucking was the players coming off the park at no side with “tram tracks” on their backs – the scars and weals where they had been stood on, or rucked out of the way. But, these scars healed and the game went on.

What we didn't see back then; and admittedly I had never heard of such injuries, until Cumnockian George Burley sustained one in the mid-1980s, were cruciate knee injuries. Nowadays, given the ferocity of the collisions at the breakdown - “Jackallers” seem particularly-susceptible to this knock.

It is accepted, back in the bad old days, there were players who went beyond the pale at the ruck. However, “frontier justice” applied, disagreements were sorted-out on the pitch.

We don't want to go back to those days, however, at the elite level, with the presence of the all-seeing television camera, most-notably with a TMO in-situ, the scope for nefarious conduct at rucks is considerably reduced.

Mind you, in saying that, we should perhaps take cognisance of another effect of the current application of the Laws at the Breakdown – penalties for: “not rolling away” after the tackle.

There was a classic case of this in Saturday's Bath v Leicester game in the Gallagher Premiereship. Leicester took the lead when Bath's Miles Reid was penalised for not rolling away following a tackle. TV pictures showed, he clearly did the classic “East to West” roll away from the breakdown, however, an arriving Leicester player clearly cocked a leg over Reid, momentarily tying him in, whereupon the referee awarded Leicester the penalty.

OK, it was perhaps bad refereeing by a match official, relatively-inexperienced at this level. It was smart thinking by the Tigers' forward who tied him in – but, it was wrong.

A return to real rucking would speed-up the game, it would tie-in more forwards around the breakdown, freeing-up space for running rugby. Real rucking would also, I suspect, end the nonsense – too-often not penalised, of players being taken out of the game beyond the breakdown.

It would also focus players' minds more on staying on their feet, which would surely have the added bonus of fewer head-on-head collisions: which would mean fewer yellow and red cards.

I feel a return to real rucking, initially on a trial basis, is worth the risk.

THEN – there is the third serious source of discord today – The Tackle Height. In the grass roots 'Amateur' game, tackling above the sternum is prohibited, yet, this Law does not apply in the elite game, either semi- or full-time professional.

Yet, anybody who pays even passing attention to Social Media is surely aware of how much of a cause celebré this single issue is currently. It is surely past time that the game's High Heid Yins in Dublin grasped the bullet and also insisted on the sternum line being drawn too in the elite game.

I fear, initially this will see a spike in yellow cards and referrals to the bunker, but, surely the players at this level would adapt as speedily as the players in the club game clearly have.

Rugby Union is a contact sport – therefore, it can never be made totally safe, however, actions such as lowering the tackle height will surely help make it safer.

Before we leave events around match officiating behind, can I again say, there ae, as I see it, two points to consider:

Making the game watchable:

• Am I the only person who thinks, referees are being coached/instructed to ignore minor breaches of the Laws:

1. Ignore squint scrum feeds

2. Ignore hookers throwing-in to lines-out from within the playing area

3. Ignore kicks to touch being taken from beyond the mark

• Referees “coaching” players to avoid breaches of the Laws

1. At every breakdown, you will see/hear the referee instructing the players to “leave it” : “hands off” : “out of there”

We are repeatedly told, this is to ensure the game flows, because if the referees were instructed to adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to breaches of the Laws, they would be stopping play every 30 seconds or so for a scrum or a penalty, so-frequently are the Laws breached.

We are told this would make the game unplayable and unwatchable. So, what can we do about this? I would say there are two options:

1. Adopt the zero tolerance approach and put up with the flak, in the hope the players would quickly learn the lessons and change their behaviour.

2. Rewrite the Law Book, by which I mean a serious root and branch reform, rather than, as tends to happen, the deckchairs are swapped around, while the iceberg looms up on the starboard bow.

On the point, which I highlighted there, of players stealing metres when kicking to touch – as I call it, after the master of this ploy – 'The Dan Biggar Dispensation' – it was good to see, during Saturday's Ulster v Bulls match in the United Rugby Championship, Italian official Gianluca Gnecchi pinging Ulster's Nathan Doak, after he tried the Dan Biggar metres-stealing trick. Not as funny, however, as the pro-Ulster commentary team attempting to justify Doak's actions.

FINALLY – while we are focussing on match officials and their impact on the game, a couple of points which were emphasised during the World Cup:

1. The duration of “advantage” during the game

2. The use of TMOs (Television Match Officials) and their effect on the game.

The tricky question of how long an advantage should last, and, indirectly on the role of TMOs came up in the World Cup final, in the incident of the disallowed Aaron Smith try, one which, if it had stood, might have seen the trophy heading for New Zealand rather than South Africa.

To recap: off line-out ball, New Zealand attacked through the backs; they went through five phases, before Smith crashed over for the try. Then, as the All Blacks prepared for the conversion, TMO Tom Foley drew referee Wayne Barnes' attention to the line-out, and it was noticed that Eben Etzebeth had been guilty of interference in the air, which caused the ABs to knock-on, so play was brought back, the “try” was chalked-off but New Zealand were awarded a penalty.

Mr Barnes clearly missed the original interference penalty and the knock-on – then, the Five phases were played, before the TMO brought-up the subject of the original penalty and the knock-on.

We expect the referees to adjudicate on events, the Law Book says (Law 6 – 5. “Within the playing enclosure, the referee is the sole judge of fact and Law during the match. The referee must apply the Laws fairly in every match.”

Mr Barnes clearly applied these structures in this instance, HOWEVER, World Rugby's protocols around how and where a TMO can intervene limit such interventions – when they apply to whether or not a try has been scored, stating: “after a try has been scored, but a review is called, the TMO may only draw the referee's attention to events in the last two phases of play prior to the try.” In denying the All Blacks that try, Mr Foley referred to an incident, Five phases prior to the try.

So, given the on-field officiating team all missed the original penalty and the subsequent knock-on, and play lasted five phases – the Smith try should have stood.

This brings us back to the matter of how long an advantage should last. There is no general rule – advantage for a knock-on generally lasts two or three phases – advantage from a penalty can and does last a lot longer. I have seen it said the five phases leading to the Smith try took a minute and a half to play out. Suppose the All Blacks had been playing on under advantage for the line-out interference, that does not seem an unreasonably long time.

Perhaps, for reasons of clarity, there should be a set advantage period for both knock-on and penalty advantage? Over to you World Rugby.

Memory being occasionally fallible – don't take this as gospel, but, I seem to recall, about 50 years ago, when law amendments were being discussed, the great Alan Hosie opined that if it was up to him – there would be fewer penalties from which a team could attempt a kick at goal.

He did suggest the introduction of a football-style “Penalty Kick” , for “Serious Foul Play” only. This kick would be taken from a mark, straight in front of the posts, on the 22-metre line, but such a kick could be invoked for an offence anywhere on the park. Alan also felt that penalty kick should be worth ten points.

Mind you, he was speaking back in the days when virtually anything went in the forward exchanges – when real punches were thrown and occasionally, heads were kicked – a far cry from the shirt-pulling, snarling,“handbags” and posturing which characterise disagreements among the forwards these days.

Among the fifty-plus different sports which I have covered over the years, one I particularly enjoyed writing about was Ice Hockey.

Ice Hockey, like Rugby Union, is a game in which one-on-one confrontation is part of the appeal. Both games have “Enforcers” - genuine hard men, part of whose remit is to ensure, the more-talented players are left alone to showcase their talent. Unlike Rugby Union, however, Ice Hockey allows, indeed promotes the occasional bout of fisticuffs as a means of settling on-ice disputes.

Minor punch-ups are classed as “Roughing” - the sparring partners are sent to the sin bin for generally two minutes, before they return to the ice and occasionally, resuming hostilities. In this case the “Roughing” call is upgraded to a “Fighting” call, which can lead to penalties from five minutes upwards to (depending on the severity) a “Game Exclusion” penalty.

I think Rugby Union might benefit from the introduction of differential penalties. There would still have to be some offences, so-serious the only proper sanction for which would be a kick-at-goal: cynical off-the-ball fouls, serious foul play etc, but, fewer kicks at goal might make for a brighter game.

To discourage, and don't say this couldn't happen – coaches enabling 'Enforcers' to thrive, we could maybe bring in, as they have in Basketball for instance, the concept of 'Personal Fouls.' Here, breaches of the Laws are called against the individual perpetrator, but, since in the heat of the moment players will act without thinking of the consequences, these are totted-up.

We already have the unwritten protocol in the modern game, whereby a team which concedes more than ten penalties per game is considered to have a discipline problem. OK, allow each team ten non-kickable 'technical penalties' but, once they pass that total, any such penalty is punished by a kick at goal, perhaps to be taken from a penalty spot midway between the 22 and the ten-metre line. I warrant, this would surely bring repeatd offenders into line.

There might be a case too for introducing Basketball's five personal fouls rule – after the fifth foul, you're out of the game, but can be replaced.

The World Cup Final was, to an extent, spoiled by the red card flashed at All Blacks Captain Sam Cane. Yes, we have to have the red card sanction, but, I do feel a combination of applying something like Basketball's personal fouls rule – whereby any player who concedes five personal fouls is out of the game, and the proposed “Orange Card” law, whereby after a team has a man red carded, they play a man down for 20 minutes, then he is replaced, is worth considering.

At this juncture, regarding yellow or red cards, might we not consider something like ice hockey's “Power Play” rule, whereby, if the short-handed team concedes a certain number of points – say two tries – while short-handed, but, before the power play time has expired, that cancels-out the remainder of the power play and they get back to full-strength.

Given the cost of tickets for elite level games these days, surely the paying customer is entitled to see full-strength sides for as long as possible. On that same subject of customer value for money – I again call for the introduction of a set “Ball in Play” time.

The cheapest adult Murrayfield ticket for the 2023 Six Nations was £56.50, for the game v Italy. Over the entire Six Nations tournament, the ball was in-play for an average of 38 minutes. A breakdown of each nation showed that when Scotland is playing, the ball is in-play for an average of 38.25 minutes – so just about the average. The game where it was in-play longest was in the game between Ireland and France, where it was in-play for 46 of the 80 minutes.

So, if you pay even the cheapest price for a Six Nations ticket, you are going to spend half your time watching place kicks being taken, scrums being set, lines-out being organised (with the usual committee meeting before teams even line up) or any of the other distractions.

Why not:

• Change the duration of the match from 80 minutes to something like 60 minutes ball-in-play time.

• However, to encourage teams to get on with things, enforce re-start times – 30 seconds from the whistle going to indicate the ball is out of play for the line-out or scrum to be taken. Failure to comply, a “delaying the game” penalty and loss of possession.

• This would probably mean the introduction of an official time-keeper and further use of the shot clock, but, it could speed-up the game and it would certainly give the paying customer better value for money.

AND FINALLY – American Football, with a maximum of 22 players on the field at any one time, has a team of SEVEN match officials involved. OK, initially we would have to have a concerted recruitment and training programme, but, isn't there a case for having larger officiating teams at the elite level?

Keeping a closer eye on the contact phases of the game, having guys policing the offside line better for instance, might give us the more-dynamic, running game we all apparently want Rugby Union to be.

And, one last point; we don't want to go down the Gridiron route of having specialist offensive and defensive units in any team, but, perhaps we should be looking at reducing the number of available substitutes for each team. Do we really need to have more than half a team of potential replacements sitting on the bench each week?

Rugby Union is supposedly “a players' game” so, let's get them playing rather than watching.

 

Not A Tournament For The Ages

THE RUGBY WORLD CUP is over and it's back to pairritch and auld claes for a week or ten, before International Rugby cranks up again with the start of the Guinness Six Nations. By the way – prediction: the most-used phrase throughout the tournament will be: “Rugby World Cup bronze medallists England:” the Master Race's cheer leaders will take every opportunity to remind the “Boyos, Eyeties, Frogs, Sweaties and Paddies” just which of the Six Nations went furthest in France.

Given the talent they have available to them, those bronze medals will surely be some sort of comfort blanker as England struggle at the foot of the Six Nations table.

Any way, that's for next year, how will we remember Rugby World Cup 2023? Not with much affection I warrant. The over-riding theme of this flawed event has been Criticism:

1. Of the draw – made far-too-early

2. Of the referees

3. Of the Television Match Officials – who seemed to be involved too much

4. Of the preferred tactics of some teams

Host nation France came out of the tournament rather well. They put on a great show and, until La France Profounde rather lost interest when Les Bleus went out, they provided a stirring chorus to the travelling fans. As ever, there were complaints about the tickets, the pricing and the attitude of the French, but, c'est la vie; they will give a nonchalant Gallic shrug and move one.

From a Scottish perspective, it was pretty much what we feared; we tend to go into these sort of tournaments more with hope than expectations, this time round, ranked fifth in the world but drawn against Number One-ranked Ireland and Defending Champions South Africa, we were expected to finish third in our group, and that's what happened.

So, the reality is: The Best Scotland Squad ever wasn't good enough to make any impact on the world stage. That's something for the great brains at EH12 to sort out and, from past expectations, I don't expect things to improve any time soon.

We might actually be better-placed than the likes of England, Italy, Wales and perhaps Ireland going into Six Nations 2024, we have fewer top players retiring, we have a game plan and we will not be bedding-in a new coach, but, as ever, a top three finish is perhaps the extent of our ambition for this coming tournament; while if we have a long-term plan towards RWC 2027, it's still a secret.

But, before we consign RWC 2023 to the dustbin of history, let's have a last look at those four takeaways from above:

That controversial draw

Obviously, organising global sports tournaments isn't a job which can be accomplished successfully in a couple of weeks. However, the three-year lead-in to this year's tournament was clearly flawed, World Rugby has to get it right this time round, when, don't forget, they are hell-bent on an even bigger tournament – with 24 rather than 20 nations participating.

Personally, I would like to see FEWER rather than MORE nations being involved – one-sided hidings, handed out by a Tier One Nation to a Tier Two or Three Nation does nothing for the game's image.

Referee Criticism

I make no apologies for banging this old drum again, but, I reckon the Game, at elite professional level, is nowadays well nigh unrefable. We need to look seriously at the whole landscape of refereeing – and that's a massive one, and certainly worthy of a “long read” blog post.

I had my doubts about the fitness of some of the nominated officials – referees whose week-in, week-out performances in their respective domestic leagues did not fill me with confidence regarding their fitness to officiate at the very-top level. Sadly, in some cases, these fears were realised.

However, no way were all the referees shite. As I have repeatedly said, back in the amateur days of the “home team referees” - you knew you were going to be stuffed if you were with the away team. These days are long past; of course referees, even the very-best, make mistakes, but, on the whole, they do a terrific job, in often near-impossible conditions.

Wayne Barnes, who as (by common consent) “The Best Referee in the World” got the final, wasn't perfect – but, he was unbiased and to suggest referees at this level went onto the park under instruction to ensure that Team A or Team B won. That's a nonsense.

Television Match Officials

OK, Rugby Union is further down the road than Association Football when it comes to having someone in the television production truck with an overview of events on the field. The handling game's protocols in this activity is probably superior – as witness the weekly controversies in football. However, I reckon World Rugby should perhaps send somebody to the USA on a fact-finding mission, to see how the National Football League, which admittedly has a much-larger budget with which to work, works its Television overview of games. And, some fans in North America have doubts about even their system.

Team Tactics

It's an obvious comment, but, you can only pish with the equipment you are given, and, if you don't have Finn Russell, or the depth of talent for running rugby of the French or the All Blacks – well, unless you are England Coach – in which case whatever you do will be seen as wrong by a high proportion of your constituency, well you have to find a way to win which best suits the players you have.

Rugby Union used to be a game of speed and evasion, today, in the profession (actually Open Era, it has become to some extent an arm wrestle. We haven't quite gone down the American Football route of having separate Offensive and Defensive units, but, I fear we may be headed that way. The “Tactical Genius” of RWC 2023 appears to be Rassie Erasmus, with his 7-1 bench split. If that's the future, then I fear Private James Frazer is up there with Nostradamus.

I want to see normal-sized humans running at other normal-sized humans, not Orcs on Steroids grappling. I want to see games won by breath-taking tries, not 80 minute penalty shoot-outs. However, I may have to wait for that Law Book overhaul happening.

To sum-up, this was not one of the great Rugby World Cups. It will not linger long in the memory. South Africa's limited game plan triumphed, which is not I fear good for the game going forward.

In the wake of this tournament, we are left looking for more, and Rugby Union is the poorer in the wake of a flawed, over-long event, which ended with the team which tried play the more attractive rugby losing the final to a limited team, who put defensive excellence and sticking to a limited game plan ahead of trying to win by playing entertaining rugby.

And, that cannot be good for the future of the game.

 

Few Good Men - Very True In The Case Of The RFU

MANY YEARS ago, I chanced upon a book which chronicled the cock-ups and failures of the expansion of the British Empire. As Captain Edmund Blackadder stressed in one of his more-memorable rants, the British Army has a great record against mobs of “Fuzzy-Wuzzies” and “Towel-Heads”, armed only with clubs and spears; however, now and then, things would go wrong, which generally meant sending-in a battalion of 'Jocks' to sort out the opposition, and, in extreme cases, a Brigadier being shot: pour encouragé less autres, as our French neighbours say.

The thing is, all those centuries of turning the globe pink has meant, to paraphrase another ranting military man: Colonel Nathan R Jessup, United States Marine Corps: “They cant handle failure.”

Hence the reaction to England only reaching the bronze final, rather than the real one of the 2023 Rugby World Cup. The team, which required an awfully-kind draw and some dubious refereeing decisions to get out of their group, before promptly crashing and burning against the first Tier One nation they faced, has apparently performed heroically.

Hell, if South Africa had played in the first 70 minutes, they way they played in the final 10, England's rugby team would have lost as comprehensively as their cricket team did against the same opponents. The truth is, South Africa chose that game to give their worst performance in years – but, they still found a way to get the job done and reach the final.

It will make little difference, their media cheer-leaders will still insist, against most available evidence, to pronounce the failing Gallagher Premiership is: “The best league in the world,” and billionaires with more money than sense will still pay stellar talents such as oor ain Finn Russell, £1 million per season, on an average home attendance of just over 13,000 per game. Or, to put it another way – at least the first £5 of every match-.day ticket sold goes straight into the Gallus One's bank account. Gaun yersel Finn boy!

That's unsustainable, but, don't tell them; because the longer it takes the English to realise they are going downhill faster than Joe Marler on a skeleton sled, the better it is for us on the Celtic fringes.

THE PROPOSED revamp of the international calendar does contain some solid proposals for refreshing the international game, but, as with so much which eminates from Rugby House in Dublin, it is deeply flawed. World Rugby moves with the fleetness of the Titanic in the ice field, and while we will have to hope it can dodge some of the approaching icebergs – such as a possible class action by former professional players now suffering from Dementia and other head trauma, remember, it's Bill Beaumont and not Jason Robinson or Gerald Davies who is carrying the ball.

We will not see any major changes this side of 2030, which gives Rugby's Establishment plenty of time to derail things, should they so choose. I don't agree either with the decision to expand the Rugby World Cup to 24 nations. I feel we should be looking to have fewer rather than more nations qualifying – quality trumps quantity every day for me.

At least, World Rugby got one thing right this week, when they tried to draw a line under the “White Cunt” storm in a glass. Perhaps we can now move on. Mind you, I find it strange that the RFU, as an English institution an organisation long suspected of institutionalised racism and bigotry is the outfit getting upset in this case. Next thing you know, they'll be complaining about Owen Farrell getting hit by a head shot.

Twickenham seems intent on acting all-affronted and not letting it go. The “lost in translation” line made sense to me – they should have let it lie there, but, the current management at Twickenham does the image of English Rugby no favours.

REGULAR READERS will know, I've got a wee bit of a stake in the retrospective capping of Scottish internationalists, so I am delighted to see a further 18 players picking-up that wee blue bonnet.

To cherry-pick one or two, I am chuffed to bits for the Kilmarnock pair, Hughie McHardy and Johnny Robertson; over the moon for Richie Dixon and Bob Haldane too. The capping of Wat Davies rights a considerable wrong, but for injury he would have been capped in his own right. The late Gordon Strachan always rated Wat extremely highly.

There are other good stories in the list and I have to again thank those “Bufties” who made it happen. Ed Crozier was always supportive, but, it has been the Three Musketeers to whom I feel most-credit should go: Iain Barr, Colin Rigby and Keith Wallace, not forgetting the rest of the SRU Council, made it happen, and the next time we are mis-calling the Murrayfield Junta, we must remember this is one time when the good guys at the top won the day and got it right.

It is good too, to know our international referees are also to receive caps. Officials such as Alan Hosie, Jim Fleming, Hollie Davidson and the rest work just as hard on their game as the players. Good too, to see Ian Kenny getting his first United Rugby Championship gig this week-end, another Scot at the top table.

 

I Ask Again - Is The Moderen Game Becoming Unrefable?

I AM IN a distinct minority in Scotland – I had few complaints with referee Craig Evans' display in the Glasgow Warriors v Leinster match on Saturday. OK, he wasn't perfect, but no referee, not even “The Blessed Nigel” ever has produced the perfect performance.

When the Celtic League was first formed, the Scottish sides knew, even as they got on the coach for those tedious trips down the M6 to some God-forsaken place in the South Wales Valleys, once they got there, they would be royally shafted by match officials whose home town decisions would have shocked even the boxing public in Boston, Mass., where sporting history tells us, the visitor has to kill their home-town opponent to get a draw. Then the Irish RFU and the league high heid yins decided to inflict John Lacey and George Clancy on us.

Still today, visiting clubs to Wales, take the field, well-aware, they might be on top form, have a first-class referee and a really sharp TMO on-duty, but, they are still facing 17 men, because the Welsh touch judges will jump on every minor indiscretion by the visiting side, but, be struck blind when the home team commits the same felony.

So, leave good, young referees such as Evans alone – concentrate your righteous indignation and anger at the correct target – Bill Beaumont, John Jeffrey and The Old Farts of World Rugby.

Recent incidents at the Rugby World Cup and elsewhere have strengthened my long-held belief:

RUGBY UNION'S LAW BOOK NEED A REWRITE

I don't mean a cursory browse through the existing book, followed by a quick switch around of the legal deckchairs; I am talking here of root and branch reform,with some old favourites needing to go, and most, if not all of the Laws requiring some degree of updating. However, right at the start, we – the wider Rugby Union Community – MUST INSIST, on the same respect for the Laws and their application as we see in Golf. Let's start with the basics:

1. Get the tackle line in the professional game down to where it is in the club game.

2. Make putting the ball down the middle of the scrum tunnel obligatory, squint scrum feeding has become a plague we need to obliterate.

3. Eradicate the growing problem of squint lines-out feeds.

4. And while we are at it, insist on hookers standing behind the touchline to throw-in.

These four steps could be taken without making any other changes, an easy win for the Old Farts. The problems might come when they moved-on to other difficult topics, such as:

• When did the scrums become a means of winning penalties rather than a means of restarting play after I breaks down?

Answering that single question and making certain it is never asked again would go a long way towards speeding-up the game and making it more entertaining. The scrum, particularly at the top end, really is the Game's bastard child. The difficulty with how to change the scrum is, when a scrum does go down, quite often Grand Masters of the Dark Arts such as Brian Moore and David Flatman are left perplexed as to how or why a scrum was not completed.

If they are scratching their heads, pity the poor old referee. Very few at the top end have ever been in a scrum, far-less in the front row, so, let's be honest, sometimes, they are guessing as to what just happened – we need to try to take the guesswork out of scrum adjudication.

I have, for instance, long felt – at the top end of the game, each match has a 'spider-cam' in operation. I accept, Health and Safety might not like it, but:

• Why not position the spider-cam directly above the two hookers' heads at each scrum? That way, the TMO would at least be able to decide if the props were pushing straight – which is a good place to start.

That's maybe enough about the scrum for now – but, I will return to it later. Now for the scrum's unloved brother: “The Breakdown.”

Back in the 1980s, the “Ruperts and Nigels” watching events on “Billy Williams' Cabbage Patch” not forgetting the Cassandras and Joan Hunter-Dunnes” on their arms, would get terribly upset as sheep shearers from Taranaki and Otago, not forgetting sheep shaggers from all parts of Ireland, the Welsh valleys and across the Scottish Borders, clambered all over stout English yeomen in the anything went world of real rucking.

So over time, Britannia once again waived the rules, they got real rucking outlawed and the day of the jackal arrived – to the detriment of Rugby Union.

Nothing will do more to save rugby from itself than a return to real rucking. If a player is on the ground he's out of the game. I warrant, nothing will keep them on their feet and in the game than a return to real rucking.

Real rucking will ensure faster ruck ball, and a faster game, with ball carriers running at less-structured defences. It will also do away with a wee tactic which our Irish friends have become particularly talented at in recent seasons – sealing-off to deny the opposition the chance of a fair contest at the breakdown.

Of course, a return to real rucking aint gonna happen any time soon. With governing bodies' primal fear of “Health and Safety” the game's high heid yins are shiting themselves at what they perceive as a free-for-all for M'Learned Friends to get involved and take their percentage. I can, sadly, see no way whereby we will see real rucking any time soon – more's the pity for the future of the game.

Still on the subject of the breakdown. Even if we accept, we are not going to see a return to real rucking and play the ball with the foot; might World Rugby at least consider a definitive offside line being (figuratively) drawn at the breakdown? And while they are at it, get the Assistant Referees to take a leaf out of their footballing cousins' book and adjudicate on ruck offside. If they are supposed to do this today, not a lot of them pay attention to the instruction, from what I see.

That will do for starters, but, believe me – there's more, a lot more, we could sort-out.

Give It A Rest England - You're Oot, Because You Weren't Good Enough

HEAR THAT WHINE? No, it's not “white noise” - merely the predictable aftermath of England losing a match they feel they won. The Master Race does not take defeat well. Bad enough to have the cricket team taken apart by the South African cricket team, but, when, after they gave what their media cheer-leaders are rating as the team's best performance since 2003, England proceeded to lose to a distinctly off-colour Springboks outfit – the decibel level of the whining passed pain threshold.

Then, Tom Curry, from whom – given his performances in France – a period of silence might be appreciated, cranked up the nonsense level even further when he accused South African hooker Bongi Mbonambi of calling him “A White Cunt.”

Being old school, I feel that slur best answered by a well-delivered “Glesca Kiss,” or a right foot to the goolies. In the old days, next ruck, the entire England pack would have danced a quick Paso Doble on Mbonambi's chest and life would have gone on.

But, in this 21^st century, World Rugby will come flying in with enquiries etc, lawyers will flying-in, the mainstream media will opine at length and, before we know it – the third/fourth match and the final will be here and we will get back to reality.

Verbals has been part of sport for the 150 years or so, since organised games began back in the Victorian era. Now the Curry – Mbonambi exchange comes nowhere close to some of the classic Cricket sledges, such as my favourite – the way Rodney Marsh greeted Ian Botham when the future Noble Lord came in to bat:

Marsh: “Beefy – how's your wife and my kids?”

Botham: “The wife's fine – the kids are retards.”

Or my second favourite:

Australia's Mark Waugh – to England's James Ormond: “What are you doing out here, you're too-shit to play for England.”

Ormond: “Maybe so, but, I'm the best player in my family.”

If/when World Rugby gets involved, and he is called to answer for his alleged slur, Mbonambi should do no more than use the old mitigation of: “Veritas,” that Curry is indeed white, and a Cunt.

Perhaps the whole kerfuffle might have been avoided, had Curry followed the lead of former Cambridge University, Harlequins, Barbarians, England and British Lions' lock RWD Marques. David Marques was the epitome of the English gentleman, given to wearing a bowler hat and, post-rugby, a company director, magistrate, public school governor, church warden America's Cup crew member.

On the 1959 Lions Tour of Australasia he struck-up a legendary friendship with Pontypool bulldozer driver Ray Prosser, who would chide Marques, for: “using big words like marmalade and however.” He also flummoxed fiery Irish lock Bill Mulcachy, when, after being kicked in the face by New Zealander Albie Pryor, in an off-the-ball incident.

To the amazement of Mulcachy, Marques got up and shook Pryor's hand, telling Mulcachy: You wouldn't understand Bill, but, I wanted to make him feel like a cad.”

There's something to be said for the Marques approach. Mind you, he did have the insurance of knowing, team mates like Mulcachy, Hughie McLeod or several other 1959 Lions were all capable of serving-up to Pryor the retaliation he deserved. In today's game, where “handbags” have replaced the all-in “99” calls of the past, perhaps Rugby Union should import Australian experts from Cricket and up their level of sledging competence.

Since the whole “scandal” erupted, it has emerged that it may all have been a case of “lost in translation” - with claims that Mbonambi had actually spoken Afrikaans to Curry and what he said was by no means a racial slur. We await developments with interest.

BACK TO the Rugby, and an absolute cracker between Glasgow Warriors and Leinster. This was the URC at its best, and proof of what a good club they are in Dublin. Even without their big names, and Leinster probably had more big names missing than Glasgow, they still made their hosts battle for the points.

The key point was the disallowed try by Leinster – a score at that point and the visitors had all the impetus at a crucial time. The tackle by Stafford McDowall was sensational; the care and attention given in the adjudication was equally-impressive; but, the killer moment was the way referee Craig Evans – who had another impressive outing – stood-up for one of the game's pivotal principles: “The referee is the sole judge of fact,” and overruled his TMO, who was intent on awarding the try.

The officials also did well, later-on, when they correctly awarded the Dubliners a try when the home fans were insisting the scorer had lost control.

And, some other coaches could learn from Leo Cullen's acceptance of the decision on the disallowed try.

Some of the BTL (Below the Line) comments on The Offside Line were very anti- Evans. It now appears to be the default setting, if you're commenting on Rugby Union, to criticise the referee. It is well past the time for World Rugby to sort out a law book which is well-nigh unworkable. Glasgow fans criticising Evans have short memories. He's a far-better referee than some who have harmed Glasgow in the past: John Lacey, George Clancy, Andrew Brace, Ben Whitehouse, to name but a few, or, going further back – just about every Welsh referee you care to mention from the days before Nigel Owens came along.

Even today, when either of the Scottish sides plays in Wales, they know, they may have a first-class referee, at the top of his game, and an equally-competent TMO, but, they will still have to thole two Welsh touch judges who will spot every minor indiscretion by the visiting team, but, see nothing amiss with anything done by the home team.

The truth is, refereeing at this level is almost impossible because of a Law book which is not fit for purpose and the unwillingness of the game's high heid yins to do something about this, or even to adopt a zero tolerance approach to the “professional” efforts to by-pass laws such as those involving scrum and lines-out feeds, or the offside line.

But, let's end on a positive note. Highpoint of the day was the inter-play on the touchline between Ryan Wilson and Mike McCarthy. Unlike most of the TNT Sport or ITV sport, they aren't up their own erses, trying to be serious and intelligent – they've realised they are there to entertain and good on them for this.