If any non-rugby supporter had to go through the headlines in the past month or so, they would find it hard to believe it is a sport that is actively looking to grow its base around the world.
And part of that problem is World Rugby’s insistence on being a walking contradiction that, at times, actively campaigns against its own goals and makes the game we all love a lot tougher to sell, while trying to preach the gospel of growing the game.
There are many examples over the past few months of this, and you sometimes wonder if the disconnect is between the board members and those actively working to improve the game, or if it is on purpose to confuse and stutter the attempts to get the game to be loved by all.
MYTHICAL GLOBAL SEASON
For example, possibly the most important part of World Rugby’s task at the moment is that mythical Global Calendar initiative – especially as hemispheres have been blurred by South African teams taking part in the Vodacom United Rugby Championship and Investec Champions’ Cup.
Currently South African players have a 12-month season, something that almost caused a massive split a few months ago when the Currie Cup was moved to a new spot and arbitration was needed to protect player welfare.
The situation isn’t sustainable at the moment – everybody in rugby knows that – but to get anyone in either hemisphere to give up their vested interests and align competitions so that players get a decent break is not happening. And the players suffer.
With that in mind, World Rugby seems to be pushing ahead with a World Test Championship that will see a finals weekend played in London in 2026, Qatar in 2028 and the USA in 2030, despite this having all sorts of problems for the sport.
Other than the argument that middle east nations are involved in “sportwashing” to cover up concerns of Human Rights violations, there isn’t a rugby base in Qatar at all, and other than money, there seems to be no real desire to hold it there from any nation competing.
OLD SCHOOL TOURS ARE COOL
But more than that, with the All Blacks and Springboks resuming the “Greatest Rivalry” tours in 2026 and the fact that the Rugby Championship is under threat because of this, rugby still hasn’t learnt that its greatest asset was the one it threw away – the traditional long rugby tour.
Meaningless internationals are okay, but anyone who has grown up with a big long traditional rugby tour knows the memories those have formed, and the excitement of watching a nation being tested in uncharted parts of the world. That’s why the British and Irish Lions tours are so special, and why the Boks-All Blacks tours will be an instant success again.
Instead of sorting out a world global calendar – which, to be honest, is as mythical at the moment as the Loch Ness Monster – Rugby keeps on piling new competitions and hoping shiny new things will distract fans while driving players to the brink in terms of playing minutes.
Not to mention the message it sends out to anyone outside the top 12 teams that will take part in the Test Championship – rugby wants to grow the game, but only for the elite. How can sides that captivated our hearts at the Rugby World Cup – like Portugal, Georgia, Chile and Uruguay grow if they don’t have regular competition against teams stronger than them?
BEAUMONT’S STRANGE PARTING SHOT
But this is not the only contradiction in World Rugby’s arsenal. Just in these past weeks its outgoing chairman Bill Beaumont said he believed substitutions should be restricted and hoped it would be in the future.
Beaumont mused that in his heyday – the early 1980s – players played for longer, but failed to recollect that the ball in play time was just over half what it is now, so players didn’t get fatigued as much.
What Beaumont also did, was completely contradict World Rugby’s own science – as Professor Ross Tucker confirmed last week – that fatigued players leads to more injuries. That’s what the research says, and it is emphatic. Less substitutes will lead to more injuries. Another case of contradictions galore.
And then there is the red card debate. Rugby’s relentless quest to change behaviour and take head high tackles out of the game is laudable on one front, but lacks a common sense approach in a game of collisions.
Simply put, red cards are being given for innocuous tackles – just as the Vodacom Bulls over the past two weeks – and disciplinary panels are busier than ever. Fans are incensed at games being lopsided and it doesn’t seem to be changing anything but increasing anger among those who love the game.
20-MINUTE RED CARDS
So what does World Rugby do? They introduce law trials for a 20-minute red card, to stop lopsided contests. In the process, they undermine their own arguments of player welfare, because if a tackle is so illegal and dangerous that it deserves a red, then it lessens the sanction to be able to replace a player 20 minutes later.
Instead, a simple solution would be to clarify what a red is, use the bunker system better and give players clarity that accidental head clashes – which happen in a collision sport through nobody’s fault – shouldn’t be seen in the same light as deliberate foul play.
Already World Rugby’s members are split on the concept, with Ireland and France coming out strongly against the law trials and it seems that the New Zealand-driven move is going to split people more and more as it becomes a reality.
And all this, of course, has unintended consequences which we are seeing playing out on the field on a weekly basis.
Players are now following the lead of football and diving and rolling around on the floor when there is a head clash, whether warranted or not, and along with hometown fans are baying for cards at every corner. And it will only get worse.
Referees are under so much pressure to ensure that a head clash isn’t ignored, that they either ignore it completely or go overboard (for reference watch any of the 2 Bulls games these past few weekends).
And as refs get slammed for their part in this, it’s worth remembering that they make over 200 calls in any game, and will make mistakes. Rugby’s own ethos of complicating, tinkering and changing laws every year doesn’t help selling the game, or fans to understand what is going on, on the field, in any game across the world.
Rugby should be simplifying its structure, making it easier for referees, and not trying to “speed up the game” at every turn. Other than ball in play being a terrible measure of entertainment, high speed contests will mean more collisions, which will mean more cards, which in turn brings more frustration.
Beaumont may be retiring, but it is difficult to say his reign has taken rugby forward. As Agustin Pichot, the rugby maverick that he beat in the election several years ago, put it plainly on twitter the other day: “No transparency , political vendettas. No sustainability cost plan, no ownership…. Lack of vision and innovation ; and then we ask why we are where we are now? ….doing the same thing over and over again but expect different results”
Pichot has a point. World Rugby is a walking contradiction for the sport. And it won’t change anytime soon.
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source link
