Allan Massie: Rugby’s moral corruption must be tackled

This is doubtless a good thing, though not necessarily for everyone. Here in Scotland we already have to run very hard merely to stay where we are. In future we are going to have to run harder not to fall well behind. It’s very likely that we shall not be able to hold on to a top-ten world ranking. We may not fall as far behind as we have in football, but 20 years on we may struggle to be in the top-20 rugby-playing nations. This will certainly be the case if we do not get more state schools playing rugby seriously and if we do not expand and improve the professional game here. Where that is concerned we have wasted 15 years. Time is certainly not on our side.

The IRB will be considering amendments to the laws, now that this World Cup is behind us. Attention will as usual focus on the tackle-point and what may permissibly happen next, and on the set scrum. Regular readers of this column may be tired of me going on about these areas of the game, but one keeps hoping that someday someone in a position to do something will listen.

So: the tackle point. Tackled player must release immediately – fine. Tackler must immediately roll away or get to this feet – fine. Players arriving at the tackle point must come in from their own side of the ball and stay on their feet – fine. So why is there so much confusion? Why so many penalties? Because, as long as you allow the first player up (who may be the tackler back on his feet) to try to get his hands on the ball, other players will go off their feet. Remedy: revert to the old law, which required the ball to be played by the foot after a tackle.

The scrum: the IRB regularly orders referees to insist that the ball be put in straight. It never is, and the offence goes unpunished. Why? One reason: referees used to crouch opposite the tunnel watching this and checking that hookers did not strike early. Squint put-ins and foot-up were the two most common scrum offences. Now the referee stands upright, often at an angle to the tunnel; his attention is fixed on the props’ binding. One consequence is that there are really no hookers now, because with the ball being put in squint, there is no need to strike. Props therefore no longer have to support their hooker; instead they can concentrate on their opposite number.

An absurdity: referees blow up for squint throws at the line-out, but not for squint put-ins at the scrum.

An oddity: why has wheeling the scrum become illegal?

There are other desirable revisions of the laws. It has become common to see the ball sitting like a new-laid egg behind a ruck, while the scrum-half or some other player waves his team-mates into position, and the game comes to a halt for as long as half a minute. Alternatively, it is not quite out of the ruck, nevertheless visible to all while nothing happens. In the first case the other side should be allowed to attack it; in the second the referee should call “use it or lose it”, as he does when a maul is stationary.

Away from the laws, there is reason to be concerned about the Spirit of Rugby. There is happily no suggestion yet of match-fixing or financial corruption, as there is in cricket and some other sports, snooker and tennis for instance. But there is clear evidence of what may be called moral corruption, and this is perhaps even more important.

The worst example was the so-called Bloodgate. Most readers will remember this, but for those who don’t, this is what happened. The occasion was the Heineken Cup quarter-final between Harlequins and Leinster. In the last minutes of the game Harlequins needed a penalty or drop-goal to win. Their fly-half Nick Evans had already been substituted. He could be brought back only as a blood-replacement. So their young winger Tom Williams was sent on to substitute for another player and provided with a blood capsule to enable him to pretend he had been wounded. He left the field and Evans returned. Happily Leinster still won.

This bit of cheating instigated by the management required the collusion of the club doctor and of course Williams. It still shocks me, shocks me more indeed than the so-called “spot-fixing” – deliberate bowling of no-balls in return for payment – for which three Pakistani cricketers have been sent to prison this week.

There were other examples of moral corruption in the World Cup: the attempt by two English coaches to provide Jonny Wilkinson with the ball of his choice to attempt a conversion, contrary to the laws of the game; and the extraordinary revelation from the Welsh coach, Warren Gatland, that, after their prop Adam Jones had gone off injured and their captain Sam Warburton had been sent off in the semi-final against France, they had discussed ordering a prop to feign injury so that the referee would have to order uncontested scrums.

They decided not to do this, but the mere fact that they discussed it shows a wretched disregard for the spirit of the game. One wonders how common such disregard has become. One wonders too if the WRU has reprimanded Gatland. And one suspects it hasn’t.