Graphic: A whole new ball game

The past fortnight of domestic and European rugby has given as much proof as rational people might require that the game is in rude health. Today in Dublin, the IRB council will debate whether to change a variety of laws in an attempt to make it better.

The experimental law variations (ELV) have not suddenly crept up on us, but there is pressure for the efforts of the IRB's Laws Project Group, which has been working away for the past three years, to be given global acceptance over next season. If they do not work, the IRB claims, they will be rescinded, but this is not how life should be in a sport that ought to be feeling confident about itself.

In addition, there are fears that, once accepted, there will be a push to maintain them beyond 2009 because of the rapidly approaching 2011 World Cup, by which time the damaging side of the proposals could be in evidence. However numerous the trials the ELV have been given, they have not been genuinely tested at professional level; even the Super 14 tournament declined to embrace all of them.

But the most telling element of all is the number of occasions on which the IRB, in the description of the ELV, uses the expressions “rigidly applied” and “re-emphasises existing law”. Both speak of a refereeing culture that often chooses not to apply the law anyway. The most obvious example is the requirement to feed the ball into the scrum straight, and when was the last time you saw that happen?

If referees do not apply the laws as they are now, why should they do it any better with a new set? But pluck four games from the past two weekends (which happen to be ones I viewed first hand) and ask how much more you would want for your money. In the Guinness Premiership, London Irish versus Harlequins and Saracens versus London Wasps offered entertainment, excitement and variety, and not necessarily through the scoring of tries. In the first match there was one try, in the second there were 11, and both were wonderful to watch. Both matches had English officials, whereas last weekend's Heineken Cup semi-finals - London Irish versus Toulouse and Saracens versus Munster - were handled by Irish and Welsh referees respectively. There are complexities in the game, but that is, in part, why we enjoy it; rugby does not have the beautiful simplicity of football, but it encourages the team ethos and individuality.

It also allows teams to play to their strengths. The global game does not need uniformity, it wants differing styles and character. That gives teams options. South Africa won the World Cup last year by turning their back on the wide game they were capable of playing and sticking to a basic game, much of which involved kicking.

Who is to say that, given five metres more space behind the scrum, as one of the ELV allows, a fly half will not hoist a more accurate garryowen rather than run the ball. He has the choice to use or abuse the intention of the law and no administrator can tell him to do otherwise.

The voice of the grass roots was raised this week, too, as part of the RFU's survey of opinion on the proposals. The ELV “will only serve to encourage more cynical play as the penalties for infringements are reduced”, Duncan Targett, a former player who referees within the London Society, wrote. “The game will speed up at the expense of key areas [scrummaging and close-contact mauling]. The new laws will lead to lower participation levels in grassroots rugby as disaffected forwards leave and players and referees decide that the new rugby is not the game they wish to be involved with. Safety levels ... will actually be reduced as mauls collapse on a regular basis.”

If the IRB wants to modify anything, it should be the time-wasting pods that pass for mauls but that go nowhere, only using up time when a player is in the sin-bin or when the clock ticks down. It is, Targett acknowledges, an imperfect game, but it caters for all tastes, shapes and sizes, and sponsors love it, so where is the need for change?