Nigel Owens: The 'disaster' rugby law I'd change immediately and the big problem that isn't going away

Wales Online

2 days ago

Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
It may only be five and a half years since I retired, but the game of rugby already looks quite different to when I was refereeing, with a number of changes being made.
Of course, as with anything, some of the changes are good and some are.... let's say, not as good. Actually, I think a couple of them are even bad.
You will always have your traditionalist rugby supporters who want to keep things largely the same. But those at the top of the sport are making efforts to grow it and improve it as a spectacle, while also reflecting a greater awareness of player safety and welfare in the laws of the game - and quite rightly so. Sign up to Inside Welsh rugby on Substack to get exclusive news stories and insight from behind the scenes in Welsh rugby.
Change has been deemed necessary to get more people into stadiums and to simplify the game for those watching for the first time - hence why they brought in the ref's mic many years ago - as well as to keep things safe and ensure that players are adequately protected in the modern game.
Some of the recent changes that we've seen have, in fairness, enhanced the game. Or, at least, they haven't made it worse.
The speeding up of the game - in regard to things like scrum set-ups and shot clocks - has certainly been a positive change. The 50:22 law probably hasn't opened the game up as much as people would have liked it to, but we're certainly seeing far less aimless kicking because of it, and some of the kick attempts are hugely skilful and exciting to see.
There have also been big clampdowns in certain areas over the years, on things like spear tackles and recklessness in the air when competing for the ball. Those have had a real effect, and we certainly see those kinds of incidents much, much less than we used to.
I'm all for law changes, particularly from a safety point of view, and I'd never be against something that actually benefits the game.
Earlier this week it was reported that the British and Irish Lions board is considering a proposal for sudden-death extra time to be introduced, in the event that a deciding third Test against Australia this summer finishes in a draw.
That change would see the first team to score in 'golden point' extra time win the match and it's something that I think would prove to be hugely exciting if it came about.
It is a bit of a disappointment when something as hotly anticipated as a Lions tour ends in a draw, so bringing in that bit of jeopardy and excitement to settle it can only be a good thing, in my opinion.
I will always remember that infamous penalty shootout between Cardiff and Leicester Tigers in the Heineken Cup in 2009 - and poor Martyn Williams' face when he missed his kick at goal. It was nail-biting, but exciting at the same time.
However, while I'm supportive of law changes that enhance the game of rugby, I'm wary of changes being made just for the sake of increasing ball-in-play time.
Rugby is a physical sport and when it's played at its best you certainly question why we need to tinker with it so much.
Just look at the goal line drop-out. To me, that is a total disaster and I would get rid of it tomorrow if I was in charge. It hasn't brought anything positive to the game, you're not seeing any less driving mauls or pick-and-gos.
It has only brought negativity in the sense that the defence can throw bodies underneath a player and if they don't ground the ball, the defending team gets the drop out. It is a total punishment for the attacking team.
Even though it's hugely important that rugby is a fair contest for both teams, when it comes to try scoring, the benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacking side. Look for a reason to give the try, rather than a reason not to, which seems to be the case these days with the endless TMO referrals.
The same can be said for depowering the scrum. Nobody wants to see a scrum-fest, granted, but they are an important part of the game and we never see scrum fives anymore. Having a team that is strong at scrummaging and can push the other team back only adds to the excitement of a game.
Rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes and if the scrum is diminished further then, in two or three years' time, we will be watching rugby union games that may as well as be rugby league.
The change to lineout throwing is another that wasn't needed either. You can now throw a ball in not straight and get away with it, and it's all a bit of a joke.
Then there's the very divisive 20-minute red card, which has just been put through for a global trial. As I've said before in this column, it certainly hasn't changed players' behaviour. It's not a deterrent and I think a red card offence should always be met with a straight, permanent red card. If it's an accident or just unlucky, then it shouldn't be a red card in the first place.
Despite all the changes that are being made, the thing that is still cropping up time and time again is head contact. Even though we've seen a huge increase in red cards, we still haven't really seen a change in player behaviour, in terms of clearing out and trying to make lower tackles.
We saw it with Sam Underhill during Bath's Challenge Cup final win over Lyon - he went high and it was a head-on-head collision. He's now been handed a four-match ban after initially being shown a yellow card, but that should have been a red card from the start.
It's one area that those at the top of the game are really trying to grapple with but we haven't seen much positive change in practice. There has been more emphasis placed on dangerous behaviour and a crackdown on head contact, but why are we still not seeing a change in player behaviour? It is still happening far too often.
For me, there has to be zero tolerance. If you go into a tackle like Underhill did, that should be a straight red card, end of. A lengthy ban should follow too, if we're going to stamp it out of the game effectively. Either that or they need to change the tackle height law, and that certainly will be a hot topic for debate.
So, there have been plenty of changes made to the game and a few more that need to be brought in. As I said, I have no problem with changes if they actually enhance the sport we all love.
But I think, in some areas, they really need to stop and think things over before they bring in something new, just to keep people happy. You can try to make it an 80-minute game of end-to-end action, but that's just not going to happen - that's the nature of rugby.
This is not soccer, where you're just continuously running. There are lineouts, there are scrums, mauls, stoppages. That's what has served rugby well, so those making these decisions need to be very, very careful when they tinker with the laws.
Changing things for the sake of it, quite simply, does not help to grow the game. It may well have the opposite effect.