The modern game has become boring

Keep working rugger!

Limit the total player's in the ruck. Three for each team not including the tackler or the tackled. It would open up the ruck for the Ref's to be able to see what's going on allowing them to prevent any illegal play.

It's not the refs or the laws, it's the players. Professionalism has increased the pace of the game and raised the stakes meaning teams are well versed in how to bend the rules. You can't expect a ref to be able to pick everything up with 6 or 7 forwards hurtling into a ruck from either side and no rule change in the world is gonna help if the players mindset is to slow the play down.

And that brings us back full circle where the refrees's influence on the outcome might be under the spotlight again. So is it the referees or the laws, chicken or egg?

I'd say a fair bit of the Boks effectiveness to stay clear of the ref's wrath has been the fact that they've not set foot outside of the Republic. Refs tend to favour the home team, especially when in a cauldron.

Yes, I think you're on to something here...getting rid of the flankers is good, plus the scrums involve too many stoppages due to props either unable or unwilling to keep them up, so let's make the scrums uncontested - removes the risk of injury too so the moms out there will like it. Also, lineouts involve too much stoppage time - just scrap the lineout and take a quick tap instead of bothering to throw the ball in...hmmm what else could we do??.....hmmmm... perhaps let's just rename it rugby league and scrap the game and history of rugby union? Hmmm...yes, great idea.......not

I think another dimension to this whole breakdown saga has been the "finding" of Heinrich Brussow. Neither the Wallabies or the All Blacks have historically been bothered by the Boks at the breakdown, they simply never had an answer to either McCaw or Smith for frankly the last 5 years. South Africa's employment of a absolute sabboteur has been a revelation as big as the South African cricket teams's use of effective spin. With Brussow at the helm the jigsaw pieces are falling into place for the Boks. I saw the Bledisloe game as 2 teams who received the shock of their lives similar to a cavalry charge coming face to face with a panzer division. They were just not prepared for it and the effectiveness in the Boks ability to stay clear of the ref's wrath has to point the finger at the All Blacks and Wallabies, not the laws.

I'm thinking maybe a time limit. As soon as the player hits the deck, the ref starts counting, 3 seconds, probably 5. If the ball hasn't been freed in that time, a scrum is awarded to the team going forward. It's bit like the old days except there's a time limit involved. Okay, the reaction to this is that there will be more scrums. Which is a good thing because it will get the forwards out of the backline, but a bad thing because we have a more stop-start game. Shock horror, we could adopt the league play the ball. That is, if the ball hasn't emerged one way or the other after say 5 seconds, attacking team gets a quick tap & run. Okay, that doesn't sound so good either. it's not easy finding the solution, is it.................... ? It's okay coming up with ideas, but then you have to think about the counter reactions.

OK, so, hands in the ruck doesn't work, no hands in the ruck doesn't work - there's only one thing left to do - get rid of the ruck! Make it that the tackled player has to hold onto, rather than release the ball. If the tackle halts the player's forward progress, the ref calls 'held', then the tackler releases, the tackled player gets to his feet, taps the ball and passes and play continues. Plus, if we get rid of flankers to make more space for line breaks ...

But if they eliminate the use of hands in the ruck and this leads to players at the bottom of the ruck being stomped on all over where will they conceal the fake blood capsules?

Talk about throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater! The dimensions of the field are fine. The number of players is fine. Three points for penalties is fine. Use of the cards sytem is generally fine. Reduce penalties to two points, & players will simply offend with more impunity. And frankly, I don't want to watch a game where maybe half a dozen players are off the field regularly because of card related offences. Just fix the breakdown area, & then we might get the game we all hope for. It might mean allowing a more relaxed attitude at the breakdown, instead of the ref looking for every tiny indiscretion. Before anyone goes off half-cocked with new suggestions, try to remember this - for every action, there is an equal & opposite reaction. You want to widen the field? How does this solve the problem of the breakdown area? You want to reduce teams to 13 players? Think how this alters the entire structure of the game. it won't necessarily be an improvement. You want to reduce penalties to 2 points? Think how this will affect players commitments to remaining on the right side of the law. Let me say again, I think most of the game is fine. The breakdown is the problem, has been for a long time. Sort that out & we might be okay. We don't have to change a lot, just a little.

I'd go with Hoy's suggestion plus widen the field to 75 meter's (I think its already 73 for Soccer??), and maybe even drop the number of players down to 13 (no flankers) to have less clutter on the field. As for the article though, rucks have always been messy, even with rucking. Some players can't roll away in time. Rucking cannot be controlled by the spirit of the game. This is why there had to be a law against it. It was too easy to use it vindictively. Best it's gone. I don't think it will solve the line-break issue either.

I dont think it matters how you do it as long as we remember that the guys slowing the game down are the guys giving away the penalty not the ones taking it, so we need to infact get stricter on them it doesn't really matter how just as long as it scares them of.

Lower penalties to 2 points and use more yellow cards to punish cynical play. It shits me to tears seeing all the profesional fouls that get commited and refs allow 2-3 before warning a side. Give em' one chance - then it's a team warning - any more fouls in the red zone and you're gone! A few games like that with sides lossing 1-2 players each would sure open up the attacking oppertunities!!!!

I would be more inclined to say lets lower the value of a penalty given outside a certain range (if the shot is taken) and up the value of a penalty given inside a certain range to say 4. I say this because you still need the ofences in the other areas of the field to scare the possible offender, otherwise they will slow the game down and upping the value in the close courters should result in more treis as teams would chance their arm at defending rather then giving away a soft penalty that will cost them 4 points.

It would be great if that could be trialled in the Shute Shield or other premier comps. I reckon most players would agree with it philosophically.

Best rule suggestion I've heard. Seriously, that one change would go a long way to getting rid of the penalty-fest. Write to the IRB and suggest it.

Sorry - I meant under the article writer's proposed new Laws, not under current Law!

totally agree with this point. a soccer penalty needs to have the transgression take place in the box why do we in rugby feel that we need to have the same rules no matter where you are on the park?

I am all for rucking. I think it would clean the game up automatically. I also think if people are concerned about the penalty fest, don't change any rules, except one. You can't kick a penalty goal until you are in the 22. That means all these poxy 25 metre goals etc, will be kicked to the line, and hopefully once they are in the 22, the attacking team will go for a try.