World Rugby changes fail to address rolling mauls which remain a blight on the game - Paul Lewis

The Ireland pack atempt to roll a maul. Photo / Getty Images

OPINION

If you’ve ever wondered what sound a dinosaur makes when it wakes up, just listen to World Rugby’s conditional pronouncements on the changes it may bring (note the conditional) to the game.

We shouldn’t be too harsh; the intent of many of the changes being investigated have been much advocated in this part of the world and are designed to speed up the game, have the ball in play more and reduce “dead time”.

It’s just that calls for this have been around for years already.

The major changes (and others) are up for discussion. They are not done and dusted. From this week, the only changes that will apply in world rugby are: refs will call “use it” faster at rucks and mauls; hookers are expected to use a “brake foot” to stabilise the scrum; and strict enforcement to keep “water carriers” (aka proxy coaches) from continually entering the field of play.

The changes being mooted occur in five stages, those taking effect this week are Stage One. The other four are yet to be ratified, with Stage Two coming in May. Sigh. World Rugby’s mandate spreads across the entire planet, yes, yet you can’t help but compare this glacial progress with the NRL (whose range admittedly extends only across Australia).

NRL changes are discussed, proposed and then implemented with a speed that shames rugby. That said, World Rugby is clearly trying to liven up the game – but will all these changes have the desired effect or even go too far?

Three really caught the eye: the potential reduction of tackle height to below the sternum; scrums and lineouts being put on the clock; and a look into adjusting the rules regarding replacements from the bench.

Tackle height: A logical progression from the current, rather fuzzy rules (no head contact). If the height is lowered to below the sternum, it will have a signal effect on the elite game. It brings the offload more into play.

Ball carriers will know they will be more able to free the arms to link with support players. The spectacle will theoretically be enhanced for fans but, in the absence of any balancing act regarding defences, some games could blow out with basketball-style scores. Like Friday night’s 54-28 win by the Hurricanes over the Rebels – 82 points scored in 80 minutes yet it wasn’t very entertaining. Tension levels? You could have cut the air with a pillow.

Defences may have held too much sway to this point but there also must be a balance. Opportunity is one thing, inability to prevent opportunity quite another. That said, technique plays a real role. Watch just about any tackle from All Blacks and Hurricanes prop Tyrel Lomax – maximum impact without coming close to yellow or red cards.

Part of this move by World Rugby is also designed to reduce head injuries and enhance player welfare (with lawsuits looming) – and fair enough. But studies have shown head knocks are about 30 per cent suffered by the ball carrier and about 70 per cent by tacklers – so it remains to be seen whether this move will make any difference (head contact with knees and hips being a major villain).

Scrums and lineouts put on the clock: Great idea. Goodbye to tedious site meetings held before lineouts. Perhaps the most interesting – and woolly – topic mooted for change is the potential reduction of the numbers of players on the bench to “determine options that might create more space on the field while improving injury rates”.

The modern game is heavily coloured by the fact that about half a team of bulked-up, power athletes come onto the field after halftime. Many players need to be able to play only 50-60 minutes a game instead of the full 80. Surely it is far preferable to reduce that number and allow the effects of fatigue to create space and exciting finishes.

It may also be an open door for small players – those with the nimbleness and speed to exploit such a time. Damian McKenzie is a perfect example and those who enjoy watching him (that is to say, all of us) can see the potential. Rugby’s old saw that it is a game “for all shapes and sizes” would have renewed credibility.

However, missing from all these suggested changes are any to the rolling maul (other than the ball may have to be shifted after one halt, not two) – still a blight on rugby, a boring eyesore in contradiction to rugby’s essential rule that players cannot play in an offside position.

There are other excellent ideas – the potential abolition of the “croc roll”, the act of clearing out a player at a ruck by rolling his upper body aside. The problem is that if the player being rolled has a foot planted or caught in the ruck, serious injury can and does follow – knees have often been blown out.

Also compelling is the idea that a crooked throw-in does not attract a stoppage if the other team do not contest the lineout – another incentive to contesting, but it unfortunately allows the attacking side more advantage in setting a, ugh, rolling maul.