Since the Rugby World Cup final I have had many conversations with rugby people from across the globe regarding the state of the game.
All are lifelong rugby lovers and have played for leading clubs, provinces and at international level. These conversations have been with men and women players, from both hemispheres, including Six Nations winners and a multiple World Cup medal winner.
Every person I spoke with expressed grave concerns for the future of the game.
They all agreed that the game’s laws and how they are being refereed are the root cause of rugby’s on-field problems. Laws that actively disadvantage attacking rugby and reduce the amount of time the ball is in play.
One former international player posed a string of questions.
- Why is world Rugby not fighting to create more ball-in-play time, to simply give us more rugby? We all want to be entertained and see more play. Can they not see the huge amount of time being wasted at scrums and lineouts? Only two of the seven playoff games at the World Cup had more than 40 minutes where the ball was in play. That means half of almost every match had no rugby being played. Nothing!
- Can they not see that scrum penalties have created a bias towards forward play that has hugely diminished the role of backlines in the game, to the point that they have become part-time contributors to matches?
- The current laws, especially those surrounding the maul, unjustly and disproportionately empower forwards to dominate possession. International hookers now score far more tries than international centres.
- These laws allow coaches to tactically plan to win games without possession. Defence has become king, while attack is the jester. With a 7-1 split on their bench, the World Cup winners selected 15 forwards across their 23 to empower scrummaging forwards. And the laws rewarded them for that selection. We all know this is an abuse of the safety laws, which defeats the intended purpose of the substitute bench. Why is World Rugby allowing coaches to stack their bench with forwards and disadvantage backline players’ participation in the game?
- Why are referees not keeping the defending teams onside? So many times in every match we see defenders repeatedly in front of the hindmost portion of the ruck? Is it because the referees have so many things to evaluate that they are missing many offsides? Again this disadvantages attacking play and favours defences. Why is World Rugby not trialling two on-field referees, one specifically for the offside line, like rugby league did for many years?
This year’s World Cup produced 950 penalties, yet defensive offside play remains exceptionally common. This is because rugby has far too many laws and asking one individual to adjudicate on them all with any hope of accuracy is to set an impossible task. The same former international described this situation as “absolute madness”.
“Referees require more technology to help them and not only with offside. In the Rugby World Cup final referee Wayne Barnes made a wrong call at a tackle contest and awarded a penalty that untimely delivered the trophy to South Africa.
“Barnes saw the reply on the big screen and immediately realised he had made an error. He apologised to Ardie Savea [the New Zealand player he had wrongly penalised]. Even though he saw the replay, Barnes could not change his decision. Absolute madness.”
Barnes retired after that match. Finishing a career of dedicated service to the game, he spoke of the completely unacceptable abuse that he and other officials are constantly being subjected to. We know that referee Ben O’Keeffe also suffered serious online abuse after France lost their quarter-final.
World Rugby has burdened our officials with a stupendous number of laws, on which they are forced to make split-second decisions with little technical support. It’s an environment that sets our referees up for failure and often leads to them being attacked online by morons for making human errors in a broken system. It’s a toxic combination for our officials.
I know the rugby community stands in support of O’Keeffe, Barnes and their families in condemning the cowardly threats they received but that is not enough. We have to find a way to do far more to protect those who serve the game.
World Rugby employs a highly dedicated full-time staff who work exceptionally hard and perform great work across the globe. I deeply respect the passion and effort they bring to our game.
None of this is in any way a criticism of this dedicated group, to whom I offer my gratitude and support to keep fighting the good fight. This is about the deeply flawed system of politically appointed positions within the labyrinth of committees and boards dwelling within the institution. The realpolitik in the shadows of power stifles debate and any mention of reform.
[ Matt Williams: Future of rugby at stake unless we learn from past scrum horrorsOpens in new window ]
If World Rugby is acting to reform any of these issues, then they are doing so in a wall of silence.
The facts regarding the existential problems that threaten the game’s viability are undeniable. The overwhelming majority within the community demand substantial reform and change, while those who control the legislature are unwilling to acknowledge those grave concerns.
We have not even mentioned the financial hardship facing the lower levels of the game, the collapse of leading English clubs, the catastrophic decline of the sport in Australia and the reduction of participation numbers in New Zealand. Then there is the undeniable panic surrounding the issues of concussion and brain injury.
And what do we hear from our leadership?
Crickets.
