INTERNATIONAL rugby is the peak of our sport, and World Rugby has to act on the questions that were raised by the 2021 Lions tour – or watch its showcase events lose their sparkle and have the audience reach for the off button.
I really enjoyed the 2019 World Cup. It was a great competition which allowed teams like Japan and Fiji to play some brilliant attacking rugby, and also produced one of the great semi-final performances when England beat New Zealand. By comparison, the other semi-final between South Africa and Wales was a bit of a damp squib.
However, even though I'm an England supporter through and through, I'm also a supporter of rugby in general, and I like to see the other side's point of view. My conclusion on the outcome in the final was that the Springboks stuck to their game plan, lifted their power game, and were worthy winners.
Two years on, the Lions tour of South Africa was not such a good showcase. In the Second Test, if you were a neutral, it was just so boring that you would have switched channels or turned it off.
Instead of watching an event that highlighted the best Rugby Union has to offer, we watched it degenerate into a farce because of the way in which the TMO was used.
The last thing you want is a referee saying to the TMO, “What do you think?”. That is what happened, and, as a result, the officiating in the Second Test was a mess.
The TMO is there to provide the referee with a good view of the main camera angles, especially any that he has not seen, so that the referee can make the most accurate ruling. The TMO is not there to make the decision for the referee, but to give him the clearest impartial information possible on which to make it.
What unfolded in this series was that the referees were being heavily influenced by the TMO, which was not right. It is the referee who should be making the big calls not the TMO.
As for the outcome of the series, I have never been heavily critical of a side that wins just because it has not been a great spectacle. I thought South Africa worked out their winning strategy, and overall they narrowly deserved to beat the Lions – although Finn Russell coming on in the final Test made it much more interesting than it was before.
The Springboks chose a strategy based on the most efficient way to win, and while it may have been short on style, my view is that with runners as dangerous as Damian de Allende, Lukhanyo Am, Cheslin Kolbe and Makazole Mapimpi, the South African backline is one of the best in the world – if not the best.
The only criticism I would make is that while the 2021 Lions result was a great one for South Africa, there was too much kicking. It might have been better to watch if it hadn't highlighted how poor the catching was from both sides. The back threes embarrassed themselves with their lack of technique, which is not good enough in a professional sport in which you can practise skills to perfection.
The Lions tour was played under last season's laws, but we are now in a new era of player welfare and in an attempt to make the game safer and reduce the risk of injury World Rugby has brought in a package of law amendments which will be trialled globally after August 1.
The most significant of these are the Goal Line Drop-Out, and the 50:22 kick reward.
World Rugby says that the main reason behind the goal line drop-out is to encourage attacking play from the defending side in its own 22.
“The back threes embarrassed themselves with their lack of technique”
However, my reading is that its main purpose is to discourage pick-anddrives close to the line, and get the ball moved wider, by increasing the sanctions for being held up, i.e. you concede a drop-out turnover as opposed to getting a scrum 5 put-in. The new law sees the drop-out awarded when attacking ball is held up in-goal, or there is a knock-on from an attacking player in-goal, or an attacking kick is grounded by defenders in-goal.
Will it make for fewer collisions? It's hoped so, and it might make some sense, but I doubt it will prevent teams like Exeter battering their way over from pick-and-drives.
The main intention of the 50:22 kick – where a team kicks the ball from inside its own half, and if it finds touch on the bounce in the opposing 22 is rewarded with a lineout throw – is to break up flat-line defences. Supposedly, it reduces defensive line speed and creates more attacking space by encouraging the defensive team to put more players in the back field to cover the kick.
It is intended that the openside winger will drop back to defend the kick, as well as the full-back hedging more towards protecting the touchline. However, under the normal laws, the openside defending winger is already dropping back to defend a possible kick by the attacking team from their own 10 metre line. So, I'm not sure the 50:22 rule change will make any big tactical difference to the way teams approach the game, or reduce collisions.
My main issue for a long time has been that World Rugby can address reducing collisions and opening up space simply and effectively by cutting the number of replacements.
I was delighted to see no lesser figure than Sir Ian McGeechan has written to World Rugby chairman Sir Bill Beaumont saying that reducing subs to four will prevent the real danger of someone getting killed on the pitch,
I am certain players will be protected and the game made more entertaining by the reduction in the number of replacements being introduced.
Fewer substitutes are not going to hinder the best sides. In the past teams like South Africa and New Zealand had players who are strong enough, or athletic enough, to ensure they were as successful without substitutions as they have been since the replacements bench was increased to eight in the professional era.
Coaches resist a reduction because it gives them fewer tactical options.
However, the game is bigger than all of this. It is an awesome sport – but the way it is going, with endless numbers of phases and breakdowns, is turning me off. Most people love seeing tries and attacking play, but so many coaches seem to struggle to make attack the focus of the game.
I'm getting to the point when I see 20 phases of pick-and-go stalemates, which then turn into kick-tennis, and I turn the TV off. I don't want to watch non-stop box kicks, especially when you could turn the game on its head by cutting the number of subs.
World Rugby should do it immediately – or otherwise give us a good medical reason why not.
You should be allowed to bring on subs only for injuries. You could have a replacements bench of five to eight players, but, outside the front row, you would be limited to two substitutes, and all of them for injury only.
JEREMY GUSCOTT
