BALL GAMES are an ancient British tradition, still practised in places such as Ashbourne and Atherstone in England, in Jedburgh, in Orkney and in the Wall Game at Eton College. However, at the height of Victorian gentrification, in the glory days of muscular Christianity, the emerging middle classes, initially via the great public schools began to codify these wild mass participation games into smaller, more-organised games.
Thus began Harrow Football, Rugby Football and Charterhouse Football, then, as their old boys took their varying forms of the game to the two great English universities – The Cambridge Rules, agreed at that seat of learning formed the foundations of Association Football, while the disciples of the Rugby form of the game preferred the handling code.W
Over the succeeding century and a half and more, the two most-popular forms of Football have spread across the world. Those initial Cambridge Rules of Football have become Laws, while Rugby – or to be more precise Rugby Union has also seen its Laws being regularly refined.
In the past 30 years, since the game of Rugby Union went Open, and the advance of professionalism at the top end, it has become clear – the Laws of the Game have not kept pace with the thinking of innovative coaches such as Rassie Erasmus of South Africa.
A major rewrite of these Laws is now overdue. Unfortunately, the game's overall ruling body – World Rugby, and in particular the representatives of the more-established Unions have shown them unwilling to do more than indulge in token tinkering around the Laws and in some cases turning a blind eye to blatant law-breaking in every game.
OX NCHE – the Springboks' loose-head prop famously insists: “salads don't win scrums” - watching the manner in which the Ox and his chums Malcolm Marx and Wilco Louw played such a dominant role in his side's wins over the All Blacks, I might add, having a referee who doesn't know the scrum laws also helps.
All game, but particularly at the crucial scrum which won the Bokke the match clinching penalty try, late in the third game, I felt Nika Amuskeli, in a performance some way below his best, let the Saffa front row away with murder. Particularly at that crucial short metres scrum, the home props were both boring-in. Rather than winning a penalty try, I felt that particular scrum should have brought a penalty to the All Blacks. The less said about Karl Dickson's performance in the game in Baltimore, the better.
World Rugby has, over the past decade, got a lot of things wrong, but, their biggest failing in that time has been the manner in which they have refused to sort out the scrum.
The game's problems around what, lest we forget, is a means of re-starting the game following a minor technical infringement, is that, particularly at the professional level, a failure to overhaul the Laws of the Game, the scrum has become a means of winning penalties – penalties which often appear to be awarded on a referee's whim, rather than any reasoned adjudication of what happened.
But, the scrum's problems often start right from phase one, when the referee allows the scrum-half putting the ball in to blatantly feed his own side; indeed, some nines can bend the ball further than the late Shane Warne ever managed with a cricket ball, to ensure their insertion lands at their number eight's feet, somewhere the opposing hooker has no earthly chance of reaching.
Back in the days when television coverage was in black and white, hookers would live or die by the tight-head count – the number of opposition feeds they could, by a combination of their own skill and with the help of a cunning tight-head, steal. Great hookers of those years, men such as Scotland's Norman Mair, Bob McEwen or Norman Bruce, English legends such as Eric Evans, Wales's Bryn Meredith or Ireland's Ronnie Dawson, they kept a separate score. The newspapers might print a result as 14-8, 9-3 or 20-18, but, to the men in the middle of the front rows, the result would be logged as 4-0, 5-2 or however many tight-heads they had stolen or, on a bad day, lost.
Of course, we still get the occasional strike against the head, although, to be more-accurate, these are normally a case of a well-executed eight-man shove, allowing a superior pack to put an inferior one into reverse gear. If, like the Bokke pack in so-many crucial scrums, they are not pushing straight to begin with, the easier it becomes.
I have long called for technology – such as “Spidercam” to be brought into play around the scrums. Locate that camera immediately above the front rows and the TMO immediately knows which Laws are being broken. Or, bring-in specialist scrum or line-out officials to assist the regular three-man team.
I've been saying for years, American Football needs seven officials to police play; Rugby Union is every bit as complex, so sticking with three plus a TMO is short-, changing the fans.
Mind you, modern referees are taught to ignore squint feeds, so, if World Rugby and the various Unions will not insist on the Laws being properly refereed, well we've got a huge problem.
I would also adopt the American sports system of one hour ball in play time. This would sort out the time-wasting and gamesmanship we see, with specialist time-keepers keeping a check on the various specialist timing issues – time it takes to set-up a line-out or scrum, the five second play the ball rules at rucks, etc.
And I would certainly differentiate between Technical Offences, such as a scrum collapsing, and Foul Play Offences. Penalties for foul play could be kicked at goal, or to retain possession at a line-out, technical offences would only be a free kick.
I offer these suggestions to World Rugby, safe in the knowledge – they will be ignored.