Which laws of rugby union need changing?

None of the laws need changing, some however need to be enforced. Many of the issues with scrums, I feel, could be resolved with an insistence on a straight feed. With regards the TMO / try suggestion - why not take a leaf out of the NFL's book, every try gets a review by the TMO? The fans won't care, they would normally get 3 or 4 replays of the try anyway, it just means anything that stands out gets addressed. None of this 'call has already been made so we've no power to do anything' carry on

Reduce substitutions its not good, could bring concecuenses like injuries and short carreers, as well more effort in the other team players like a domino effect, to reduce the waste of time on scrums we need to take sime incentives in make collapse scrums, granting a tap free kick, taking out huge insentives under minor offences like knock ons, instead reseting the scrums before line 22m. Knock on rule should be check to indentifies what knock ons give adventage to attacking players and which not so we can have more fluency in game and stop doing scrums for any minor situation.

Scrums changed to the long drawn out spectacles that they are today for player safety reasons. The forces are so great, and our appetite for broken necks is rightly so low, that today's players can't use 80's scrums. The scrum's job in the game is to restart play, but tactically its place is to win penalties and if close to the line, pushover tries. You have to prioritise one of these roles over the other to decide what to do. If it is to be a restart, then you 'could' turn them into league scrums by removing the scrum penalties, have second row feeds, etc. I think that approach isn't going to fly. However, the current mode of scrums as a source of points is destroying the watchability of rugby. Its like we have a running sport melded together with something like tug-of-war. The middle way is to keep scrums as contests but reducing their value in generating points. For example, no kicks for goal from scrum penalties. On the flip side, penalise put-ins that aren't bang down the middle so both hookers can win the ball. Make it so the best option for getting points is to win the scrum itself to get possession, not the penalty. The above changes might de-emphasise the scrum, but they'll still take forever due to the safety process. One option to remove some of the forces in the scrum would be to remove the flankers and number 8s. Making scrums 5 man contents should make them quicker to set and easier to police. The fatties are still needed to win the ball because that low body height and strength is still a necessary part of the game. I'd go further and remove the two flankers from the pitch altogether and make union a 13 man game. With fewer players on the park and less down time due to scrum sets and resets, the other issues about crowded mid-fields and offside defensive lines would start to disappear. This wouldn't be League in that the fundamental contest for the ball at the ruck would remain and shape all of the play, but it would modernise rugby and make it safer and more exciting in the process.

Totally agree, Steve Harris.

The first thing to do (and the easiest) is to stop time wasting before scrums and lineouts. Too many times these are used as an unofficial drinks break. Get the refs to tell the players to get to it immediately or it's a free kick.

Not a bad compromise- I would note that under the ELVs there were still two penalty offences - illegal play and dangerous play. Intentionally collapsing could fall under that category. Either way they did work very well and the number of scrums increased. They became more of an attacking weapon. I will concede this was in the Southern Hemisphere where the players may have been playing ‘within in the spirit’ - something some northern teams ie the French or Italians may be less inclined to do.

Corne, for those against change here's a couple of thoughts "There are none so blind as those who will not see" and "Do not institutionise your past mistakes." If you think a slow bogged down game, compounded by the poor performance of Oz teams, entertains these days and will attract supporters and sponsors, then I don't agree. The game needs many, many changes in order to survive at the professional level.

inlaws should be outlawed

If Rugby Union is boring it is time to move on. Find something else that can enetertain at a mile a minute. :silly:

One hopes positive rule changes are brought in, because RU as a commercial product has become very, very boring. This is evidenced by the fact that RA can't negotiate a decent media deal. Instead of media orgs queueing up to bid for the game, RA at present is in the ludicurous situation of just one organisation "bidding" for broadcast rights. Time wasting is killing RU. Track & Field and Swimming had the same problem, with false starts buggering up events and causing a 10 second race to take 5 or 10 minutes. They solved that problem - any false start = disqualification. RU needs to do the same - stop the time wasting, stop killing the ball .......? Specifically for me, scrums are killing the game. Too much time wasting, too many unfathomable refereeing decisions. Scrums need to be reset twice max. If a scrum is not successfully completed on the second feed the ref awards a penalty. If the ref can't see a scrum offence on the second feed, the team feeding the ball gets the penalty. The choice of another scrum should not be allowed for scrum penalties. Defence lines at mauls need to be moved back at least 5 metres. Standing at the "last feet" gives the attack little opportunity. So we're left with mind numbing "pick & drive" rubbish. The article mentions player attitude (and coaches), and this is where much improvement is required. Players & coaches need to understand that smart arsed cheating and "playing on the edge of the rules" is an important factor that turns supporters off the game, as it kills the continuity of the game. Players and coaches need to understand that now, professional Rugby needs to be played to attract supporters, sponsors, boradcasters, future players and ultimately money. Old school cheating just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

I see where you are at but truthfully the offside rules are fine and the line doesn't need to be moved back a meter. It is the policing of it that gives the impression they aren't. The so called"rush" defence is actually generally so offside that it is a joke. Fix that problem and most of the other go away as the game will be faster and more entertaining. I hadn't considered an "offside" specialist referee but I quite like it. The idea of the electronic equivalent during scrums and lineouts being policed from the umpires box also has merit as it would allow the referee to focus on the other issues and forget about offside .

I would like to see: Policing of the halfbacks when putting the ball in the scrum, that it is in straight, this would help with making them more of a contest. If a try is scored via a rolling mall, then it is checked by the TMO before being awarded, a consequence would be that time is taken to check, but the number of trys awarded when people are clearly not joining the maul correctly is crazy. Again the positive outcome (hopefully) would be to make it more of a contest.

I'd say it's to restart play after a dropped ball.

Agree. Marks were put there for a reason - to stop it raining bombs. I would like to see the marker be able to play on quickly if he so desired instead of waiting for his teammates to get behind him.

4. No more kicking it to touch. If you do that, the opposition gets the ball. This is to encourage keeping the ball in play and negative tactics. Doesn't that basically happen already?

That chip’s pretty salty there “ClassAct”?!?! Or are you just desperate for attention?! Pretty sad either way...

So two refs, quicker scrums, fairer result for the defending team after a held up in goal and a Captains challenge TMO of some sort? If only there was a game in Australia that already had these rules in place?

Its easy to improve rugby - reduce the bench to 3. This will force players to significantly de bulk to last the 80 minutes. This will have a number of positive flow on affects. 1) A more open running rugby as players fatigue and gaps appear - especially in the last 20 minutes 2) Less injuries not more as players are less likely to be hit by someone 30-40kg heavier 3) Better scrum stability as less force/ weight 4) Its not rhinos hammering up the middle all game 5) A fairer playing field for minnow nations as many can often only field one set of 15 competitive players - and often get blown away by the bench of the tier one nations. Couple of others - a shot clock for scrums - set in 30 seconds or penalty. 1 reset and if the ref cant determine who collapsed the scrum go straight to a tap. Enforce offside. Penalties inside 30 metres are worth 3 points - outside 30 metres are worth 2 points. Thats about it I reckon.

WR won’t bring back rucking, safety issues.

Scrum is a fundamental part of rugby union. De emphasizing the scrum takes away from what rugby union is. Firstly there are two scenarios when a player is caught behind his goal line, one, the attacking team kicked it through, that can be a 22 drop out. Two, defending team runs the ball in and can’t exit from there, Attacking team is rewarded a 5 meter scrum, I see no issue with making it a ten meter scrum. As for the stats on how many scrums are won and lost isn’t the real issue here. Scrums are part of physical domination, weak packs will mostly be the culprits for collapsing scrums as they want to negate the physical/technical dominance against them. You take that away you remove a big part of rugby union’s dominance. Stop the clock, it is simple, if you don’t want to award penalties, fine make it free kicks, but devaluating the impact a scrum has on rugby is nonsense in my view. knock ons must be rewarded by a scrum, no change there, otherwise again you remove the impact of physical dominance. As for the offside line, second referee is a good option. As far as substitutes go. Meh, you have a full front row to retain competitive scrums, look at the RWC final, had that turned into uncontested scrums the spectacle would be ruined, half the effect of scrums is what it does psychologically to the opponent, hence you must retain a full front row as subs. Perhaps the solution is to make a compromise. you can still keep 8 subs, but only three can be tactical substitutes, the other can only be used for injury. I know there is a call for making everything boo hah exciting 0-100 in six seconds exciting, but this remains rugby union, it is a sport of physical dominance, high ball skills, athletes that can turn on a dime and side step a troop of buffalo. You remove one of those aspects, you are killing the game.