What does World Rugby need to look at after this World Cup?

I started making this list to flag 3 things that annoyed me during the World Cup and stopped myself when I got to 7 – I am as Will Carling would say obviously an Old Fart.

1. Tackles.  The final was a further example of the problem that rugby has with tackles. Sam Kane gets a red card whilst Siya Kolisi gets a yellow – was there sufficient difference to justify the outcome?

2. Scrums.  They are a shambles taking far too long to get completed and referees seemingly have little idea of who has committed an offence (and often there are offences committed at the same scrum perpetrated by both sides).

3. Breakdown.  The difference in interpretation between referees of what is or isn’t a legal jackle is too great.  A lot of referees need reminding what a ruck is “A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground.  A player cannot put a hand on the ball if it is on the ground”.

4. Backchat to the referees.  I am getting tired of the constant shouting of players at the referee.  I particularly dislike the seemingly organised way some teams get 3 or 4 players to go up to the referee one after the other and ask “have you reviewed that high shot on our winger”.

5. Water carriers coming onto the pitch.  Every time there was the slightest stoppage there seemed to be a flock of water carriers coming onto the pitch.  This is clearly being used by teams to slow the game down and do onfield coaching.

6. TMOs missing obvious offences (Argentina’s forward pass for their first try in the Bronze final), yet trying to get involved too often in events they shouldn’t have (Aaron Smith’s try chalked off in the final).

7. Players feigning injury to stop the game restarting in the hope that the TMO will review some potential indiscretion by the other side.

What got you annoyed and what should World Rugby look at as a priority?

1. There is a massive difference between the two tackles. Cane was upright nd hit Kriel directly on the head. Kolisi was bent over, made direct contact with the arm holding the ball and the whiplash sent the head forward into contact. No comparison.

2. In general I agree, scrums take to long, I do however think in the final there were very few collapsed scrums and the contest was good, I can't recall any scrum penalties.

3. I don't think we will ever sort out the breakdown, the interpretations are inconsistent, some rucks I believe is blatantly being sealed off, no reload taking place and referee stands right next to it and does nothing, next moment a team is playing for time and ruck gets penalised for sealing off. Somtimes players come from the side and gets ignored, other times not, etc.

4. Yep, even the captains these days show little respect to referees.

5. Agree, water carriers should not be allowed on the pitch at all.

6. I have no idea what the solutionis with TMO's

7. I think this one we need to be careful of, it is very difficult to know who is feigning an injury, or who has a legitimate injury.

Agree with a lot of that. I'd throw in trying to wind the opposition up for reactions. England were well away with that really from the quarters onwards and I don't like to see it.

2 - Someone posted a video including a scrum from 30 years ago. Entire thing done in 30 seconds or so. I know we can't turns the clock back and we do need to find a way of ensuring a fair contest (i.e. not a RL style group hug) but what we have now doesn't really work for anyone.

6 - unfortunately there will always be mistakes (and misreadings from refs, armchair or otherwise) All you can ultimately hope for is that the mistakes even out and that communication before and during the game is good.

As for 7 it has been going on forever. I don't want to criticize SA as such because they have excellent game management, and of course 'cheating' or pushing the rules is part of rugby (as long as it doesn't result in injury). All's well unless the referee picks it up. Anyway - that QF vs France. The last quarter was a mess regardless and people were getting hurt. The consequences of this was that SA players were going off and coming back on again, and it kind of felt deliberate at times.

Im not sure I understand why people cant see the difference between Cane's tackle and Kolisi's. They were quite different in my view. Think the ref got those calls right.

Ill never understand why Kriel didnt get a card v Scotland though for his high tackle. That was the oddest incident in my view.

1 - Agree there was quite a significant difference in how Kane and Kolisi approached the tackle. Neither had intent, but Kane was definitely more reckless. Part of the problem though is that for a couple of seasons up to the start of this RWC, Kolisi would have also been red carded for his tackle. The officials definitely went more lenient, but this was not well communicated to the watching public.

2 - Scrums. Look back 30 years, front rows formed up and the remainder of the pack took their places behind. Scrums started with greater stability and completed more cleanly most of the time. Time to go back to this, rather than trying to find means of just depowering the 'hit'

3 - Breakdown: so much is open to the officials interpretation of what is happening and what actually needs to be penalised. Case in point in the Final, where Savea would claim he released the tackled player before trying to jackal, and Barnes said he did not see a sufficiently clear release and gave the penalty (Savea did let go as the ball carrier was going down, but 'clear release' is subjective - I think there was still body contact even if Savea released his grip). I don't think it was obviously wrong on Barnes's part, but I suspect Savea did the same in several other tackles and got away with equally short releases.

4 - Backchat. Lets get back to the captains only (other than e.g. checking with the ref that you are on side), and for the manners to improve.

5 - Water carriers: Only allowed on when the ref says so.

6 - TMOs: They are still human, and still working to the subjective Laws of the game (unless we go back to forward passes being judged relative to the pitch, not to the hands and momentum). OK, some mistakes are ridiculous (the Rees Zammit try against Engalnd a couple of years ago where the TMO totally ignored a massive knock on), but most are trying to do the best job in impossible circumstances. I don't think rugby can currently be officiated perfectly, but I think the TMOs (probably under WR guidance) are trying to do just that, which has led to too much TMO input. Having said that, I didn't actually mind the AB try being brought back because the knock on in the maul was quite obvious.

7 - Feigning injury. Hopefully this isn't a thing, and if it is players should be yellow carded and subject to suspensions.

Backchat to referees has become a growing issue in rugby over the past few years because officials have become softer, and it's now peaked at this World Cup.

It's at a crossroads now. Either World Rugby responds with strength and backs its officials to proactively dish out yellow cards for dissent/constantly asking for penalties, or Rugby Union ends up like Football within a few years. Referees already have a problem with the ignorant scum of the world making abusive comments and worse on social media.

The various penalties for incorrect tackles and the like should focus on action and/or intent, not outcome, which is the opposite of how it currently is. You can have two exact same tip tackles, for example, and in one instance the tackled player sticks an arm out to soften his landing and the perpetrator gets a YC; in the other instance the tackled player doesn't do that and lands on his head, meaning a RC.

Scrums? No idea. Maybe a specialist scrum referee? Or just get rid of it entirely.

Breakdown is up to interpretation and is fiendishly difficult to officiate. The issue is the laws of the game, as originally constructed, were never conceived with the idea that the game would be played at the pace and intensity that it is now.

There needs to be greater clarity on what the TMO gets involved in. Some TMOs you'll barely hear from during the game; others, like Jonker, seem to want to re-referee the entire match. Get rid of the Bunker as well. It's a loss of transparency in the decision-making, leaves those watching without much clarity, and (while waiting for the decision) can effect the tactics of both sides.

The issue with water carriers and the like seems to be much better dealt with since the Lions tour in 2021. Referees are more proactive in keeping the game flowing these days.

1. Rugby has no choice but to be seen to be managing head contacts, as class actions will kill the game stone dead otherwise.
2. At some point over the last twenty years scrums became a penalty magnet, so teams can't be blamed for taking time to manufacture a hit or angle - Genge's knee hit the ground so was given as a penalty but Koch angle on the engagement upset the balance of the scrum and the angle became even more accentuated as Genge regained his balance and by which time it was too late and the ref was obliged to whistle.
3. When you get games with 35 phases, the game has loss the plot, prime reason players not staying on their feet and sealing off the ball.
4&5. should be banned and enforced.
6. TMO's are here to stay, it has simply become too difficult for refs to pick up everything and decide what takes priority in any decisions.
7. It's only going to become more prevalent.

David Campese was interviewed in Paris and bemoaned Australia not playing footy 'you can't win without the ball'. SA have comprehensively proved that wrong - you don't need the ball or to score tries to win RWC finals. Campese also said the treatment of the Pacific sides, Portugal & Georgia was essentially not good enough but forgets that the new forthcoming competition is primarily to generate money for the Unions who have franchise teams to pay for, so they are hardly going to share it with the tier two nations. That's the reality.

I would introduce a new orange card for the Cane/Curry/Ewels/Steward type incidents where this is no malice, but there is poor technique. Player welfare is of paramount importance and the orange should support that without ruining matches as the status quo. The offending player is removed from the game but a sub is allowed on either 15 or 20 minutes later. As we now have refs already using the bunker system then this can easily be incorporated into that (just for the professional game before anyone comments that this is unworkable at amateur level).

Scrums need sorting for sure. Not sure of the answer here. The only people who understand what is going on are current and former front row.

Replacements....I have thought that reverting back to injury replacements would be great as would reduce the size of players as they have to play the full 80. David Flatman proposes that whilst you still have 8 subs on the bench only 3 can be tactical and the rest have to be for injuries only. I like this. Might create more space later on if you don't have 7 or 8 fresh players always on at the end.

There was a time where scrums was set up by the players themselves, the scrum feeding set the tone, the soeed of how long it took to set the scrum was not up to the referee and the non feeding scum had to be ready when the fedding scrum was ready.

Maybe we should go back to those days, if a pack does not comply to the requirements they get a free kick against them, now I know many will say weaker scrums will rather evade scrumming if they are going to be pummeled, but if they repeatedly infringe the free kick becomes a penalty.

I also don't think a free kick should have the option of a scrum, it will just waste more time.

As for scrum penalties, it should only be given when a scrum infringes, if a scrum is dominated it shouldn't be penalised unless it infringes, and scrumhalves should not play for the penalty, if the ball is won, it should be played immediately.

1. Yes. Cane was never in a legal position (nearly upright); Kolisi was in a legal tackle position (bent at the waist) but hit a player who was also bending.

I expect World Rugby will roll out the waist high tackling laws that are already in place at amateur level to the pro game by next summer at the latest. We'll see a flurry of cards at the start of next season, and then teams will adapt.

2 I thought it was actually a pretty good RWC in scrummaging terms. Plenty of teams were prepared to scrummage legally, there were some decent contests and refs seemed prepared not to blow if the ball was coming out so the game continued. The main gripe for me was the differences between NH and SH expectations in the scrum, but it was ever thus.

3. Ditto. I don't know how you fix the difference in interpretation - different refs work mainly in different competitions, and in making split-second decisions they will respond to what they are familiar with seeing, because the human brain learns to respond automatically to patterns of complex stimuli. The best we can do may be to help refs to become more familiar with standards in other competitions - perhaps by reviewing refcam footage of teams they are going to ref.

4. I'm wth you on this. I'll add that the response of some fans to match outcomes they didn't like has been very disappointing.

5. Yes, and the refs were clearly irritated by it. There should be an option to sanction teams that bring them on too much

6. TMOs are always going to miss some things. I think the Smith try got chalked off because the TMO had alerted Barnes during play, so he went back to check it. I was more worried by the way the bunker declined to upgrade any cards between the 2nd round and the SFs.

7. Yes, but hard to know what to do about it. Maybe captains should be allowed to ask for 1 review per half, retained if there is an infringement that warrants a card. That way, they can call out genuine dangerous play, and get one shot at a game-changing knock on or missed pen.

A lot of these points are pretty fair, the one that really gets me is the backchat to the refs.

Not just from players who aren't the captain but certain times when captains who aren't questioning decisions but basically berating the referee and continuing even when they have explained their decision.

Some referees have become far to leniant with it.  It has to change, I hate seeing it go the way of football, the referees need to be told in no uncertain terms the first time within a team its 10 metres, the second onward is a yellow card.

Make it clear now and it will go from the game, take no action and you better turn those ref mics off cos it's only going to get worse

- Celebrating minor wins or opposition errors like American college kids. Man that irritates me.

- Low shoulder type charge knee chopper tackles are career enders in waiting.

The "Caterpillar" for box kicks. The whole thing is a farce and should be immediately banned. The time wasted by scrum halves tapping the ball backwards past the legs of 3 extra forwards on the back of a ruck is awful to watch, especially when an extra player latches on to give the 9 a bit more "protection". The 3 seconds rule is barely enforced either. The amount of time free kicks should have been given to the opposition after the ref shouts "Use It!" is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It is not a spectacle; it makes the game into a staccato event of box kick, lineout, ruck and repeat.

In fact I'd get rid of box kicking altogether. It's so dull and formulaic to watch, and rarely gets the team doing it the distance they require.

Would love to see refs favour the attacking team more at the breakdown. Some are far too whistle happy when a defender gets his hands on the ball. Barnes is case and point. A brilliant ref at enforcing the letter of the law but if he were a hurling ref he would be crucified for not letting the game flow.

Engine#4 wrote:Would love to see refs favour the attacking team more at the breakdown. Some are far too whistle happy when a defender gets his hands on the ball. Barnes is case and point.  A brilliant ref at enforcing the letter of the law but if he were a hurling ref he would be crucified for not letting the game flow.

Considering the number of rucks in a match and mabe half a dozen turnover penalties in a match I don't think it is an issue.

A couple of tangential things.

1. Stop having the World Rugby Awards just after the World Cup.

While the awards are supposed to cover performances over the whole year, the World Cup is the sport's showpiece event, and it makes no sense to have nominations up before the the tournament is over. A player could do very little all year, then put in match-winning displays over a semi-final and final, and deserve the award.

2. Widen free usage of footage, or improve the official offering.

The evening matches started at 4:00am in my time zone. If I missed a game, the official YouTube highlights were usually only three minutes long. For instance, this is the video World Rugby posted for the final:



That's not a highlights package. You can't get any sense of what happened in the game from that video, and yet that's all we had for a day or so. A longer 14 minute selection appeared later but that should have been the first offering, to capture the interest of people who have just seen news of the result, and wonder what the fuss is about.

It's true that allowing fair use of video clips is a double-edged sword. The thoughtful and sympathetic analysis you get from some amateur pundits is often drowned out by Twitter and TikTok clips of supposed foul play, or offences allegedly missed by the officials.

If World Rugby is going to be so protective of footage, to the extent that we often didn't get replays of events during live coverage, then the official offering has to be much more comprehensive.

Engine#4 wrote:Would love to see refs favour the attacking team more at the breakdown. Some are far too whistle happy when a defender gets his hands on the ball. Barnes is case and point.  A brilliant ref at enforcing the letter of the law but if he were a hurling ref he would be crucified for not letting the game flow.

He's absolutely one of the best refs at letting games flow. It may well be down to interpretation but it's not his fault if teams keep on making the same errors

Water carriers 100%. Some teams are taking the Micky big time. It’s making the game a lot more like NFL with those types of stoppages.

Players wincing or grabbing their face to draw attention to foul play is a sad development as well. All teams are guilty of this.

Constant shouting for a possible turnover at the ref. Ref mic is actually pretty annoying it turns out. It also makes the game tougher for the ref which leads to a weaker game over all. Nic Berry had a tough time of it during Eng vs SA.

Coaches slamming decisions by officials during the game in post match conferences.

Mr Bounce wrote:The "Caterpillar" for box kicks. The whole thing is a farce and should be immediately banned. The time wasted by scrum halves tapping the ball backwards past the legs of 3 extra forwards on the back of a ruck is awful to watch, especially when an extra player latches on to give the 9 a bit more "protection". The 3 seconds rule is barely enforced either. The amount of time free kicks should have been given to the opposition after the ref shouts "Use It!" is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It is not a spectacle; it makes the game into a staccato event of box kick, lineout, ruck and repeat.

In fact I'd get rid of box kicking altogether. It's so dull and formulaic to watch, and rarely gets the team doing it the distance they require.

Box kicking would be hard to ban unless you go back to U11 style "scrum half has to pass" type rules. It's the most reliable way for a team to relieve pressure in their own 22, and there's a trade off between distance and contestability that takes a lot of skill to get right.

I'd not miss caterpillar rucks, but the question is how to ensure adequate protection for the scrum half and keep chargedowns as a skill rather than an inevitability. You might be able to do it by having a limit on players joining a ruck once the ball is won, as long as you also properly enforce the offside line at the ruck.

Poorfour wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:The "Caterpillar" for box kicks. The whole thing is a farce and should be immediately banned. The time wasted by scrum halves tapping the ball backwards past the legs of 3 extra forwards on the back of a ruck is awful to watch, especially when an extra player latches on to give the 9 a bit more "protection". The 3 seconds rule is barely enforced either. The amount of time free kicks should have been given to the opposition after the ref shouts "Use It!" is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It is not a spectacle; it makes the game into a staccato event of box kick, lineout, ruck and repeat.

In fact I'd get rid of box kicking altogether. It's so dull and formulaic to watch, and rarely gets the team doing it the distance they require.

Box kicking would be hard to ban unless you go back to U11 style "scrum half has to pass" type rules. It's the most reliable way for a team to relieve pressure in their own 22, and there's a trade off between distance and contestability that takes a lot of skill to get right.

I'd not miss caterpillar rucks, but the question is how to ensure adequate protection for the scrum half and keep chargedowns as a skill rather than an inevitability. You might be able to do it by having a limit on players joining a ruck once the ball is won, as long as you also properly enforce the offside line at the ruck.

There's already a law available to end them, 'When the ball has been clearly won by a team at teh ruck, and is available to be played, the ref calls 'use it'. yadda yadda 5 seconds. So WR could just say to refs once it's been won and as players as starting to join on just call use it and have done.

Poorfour wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:The "Caterpillar" for box kicks. The whole thing is a farce and should be immediately banned. The time wasted by scrum halves tapping the ball backwards past the legs of 3 extra forwards on the back of a ruck is awful to watch, especially when an extra player latches on to give the 9 a bit more "protection". The 3 seconds rule is barely enforced either. The amount of time free kicks should have been given to the opposition after the ref shouts "Use It!" is ridiculous. Get rid of it. It is not a spectacle; it makes the game into a staccato event of box kick, lineout, ruck and repeat.

In fact I'd get rid of box kicking altogether. It's so dull and formulaic to watch, and rarely gets the team doing it the distance they require.

Box kicking would be hard to ban unless you go back to U11 style "scrum half has to pass" type rules. It's the most reliable way for a team to relieve pressure in their own 22, and there's a trade off between distance and contestability that takes a lot of skill to get right.

I'd not miss caterpillar rucks, but the question is how to ensure adequate protection for the scrum half and keep chargedowns as a skill rather than an inevitability. You might be able to do it by having a limit on players joining a ruck once the ball is won, as long as you also properly enforce the offside line at the ruck.

Banning the caterpillar rucks would effectively ban or at least reduce the reliance on box kicking if the risk of a charge down is increased - should still e OK with the kicking to compete 25m up field, as the kick is lifted high, but will remove the use of box kicks to touch and this will revert to being the role of a 10 or 15 kicking from deep.

Free kicks for scrum offences should not have a scrum option. Kick or tap options only, and I would include free kicks and kicks from marks as being able to make a 50-22 (noting that the ball has to bounce into touch).

Off topic but related to the end of the World Cup.

So many TV, radio and podcast pundits waste time telling us how much they are exhausted after a long tournament, and their coverage reflects how tired they feel.

Virtually no viewers or listeners share this experience. Aside from a few hardcore fans, who might follow their team at the venues through the whole tournament, the vast majority watch the World Cup on TV at home. Many don't bother to watch all but a handful of matches. When pundits talk about the World Cup as if it is a hard slog, they show what a narrow world they inhabit.

Almost all these same pundits say they want to grow the game but most don't think about how to pitch what they say to a more general audience.

https://twitter.com/CharlieFelix/status/1719985830406627437?t=XFK6vJ5-KDc6L4kflQr_5g&s=19

Rugby Fan wrote:2. Widen free usage of footage, or improve the official offering.

The evening matches started at 4:00am in my time zone. If I missed a game, the official YouTube highlights were usually only three minutes long. For instance, this is the video World Rugby posted for the final:



That's not a highlights package. You can't get any sense of what happened in the game from that video, and yet that's all we had for a day or so. A longer 14 minute selection appeared later but that should have been the first offering, to capture the interest of people who have just seen news of the result, and wonder what the fuss is about.

It's true that allowing fair use of video clips is a double-edged sword. The thoughtful and sympathetic analysis you get from some amateur pundits is often drowned out by Twitter and TikTok clips of supposed foul play, or offences allegedly missed by the officials.

If World Rugby is going to be so protective of footage, to the extent that we often didn't get replays of events during live coverage, then the official offering has to be much more comprehensive.

Squidge posted a YouTube review of the final. The one he made four years ago is one of the most-watched rugby videos on YouTube. In less than twenty four hours, World Rugby issued a copyright claim, and had the new one taken down.

Some promising initial findings from the ORCHID study released today:
World Rugby press release on ORCHID

The bottom line is that most head acceleration in rugby is within the levels of other activities, and the key cause of head acceleration events that are faster than you'd get on a rollercoaster is bad technique in the tackle and breakdown.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:2. Widen free usage of footage, or improve the official offering.

The evening matches started at 4:00am in my time zone. If I missed a game, the official YouTube highlights were usually only three minutes long. For instance, this is the video World Rugby posted for the final:



That's not a highlights package. You can't get any sense of what happened in the game from that video, and yet that's all we had for a day or so. A longer 14 minute selection appeared later but that should have been the first offering, to capture the interest of people who have just seen news of the result, and wonder what the fuss is about.

It's true that allowing fair use of video clips is a double-edged sword. The thoughtful and sympathetic analysis you get from some amateur pundits is often drowned out by Twitter and TikTok clips of supposed foul play, or offences allegedly missed by the officials.

If World Rugby is going to be so protective of footage, to the extent that we often didn't get replays of events during live coverage, then the official offering has to be much more comprehensive.

Squidge posted a YouTube review of the final. The one he made four years ago is one of the most-watched rugby videos on YouTube. In less than twenty four hours, World Rugby issued a copyright claim, and had the new one taken down.

Luckily I managed to watch it before it was taken down

FerN wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:2. Widen free usage of footage, or improve the official offering.

The evening matches started at 4:00am in my time zone. If I missed a game, the official YouTube highlights were usually only three minutes long. For instance, this is the video World Rugby posted for the final:



That's not a highlights package. You can't get any sense of what happened in the game from that video, and yet that's all we had for a day or so. A longer 14 minute selection appeared later but that should have been the first offering, to capture the interest of people who have just seen news of the result, and wonder what the fuss is about.

It's true that allowing fair use of video clips is a double-edged sword. The thoughtful and sympathetic analysis you get from some amateur pundits is often drowned out by Twitter and TikTok clips of supposed foul play, or offences allegedly missed by the officials.

If World Rugby is going to be so protective of footage, to the extent that we often didn't get replays of events during live coverage, then the official offering has to be much more comprehensive.

Squidge posted a YouTube review of the final. The one he made four years ago is one of the most-watched rugby videos on YouTube. In less than twenty four hours, World Rugby issued a copyright claim, and had the new one taken down.

Luckily I managed to watch it before it was taken down

Can’t believe they’re still doing that four years later after the same complaints in 2019. It must have been incredibly stressful for him and other rugby content creators who had booked tickets and flights specifically to share their experience and analysis of the games.

A couple of devil's advocates have said illegal use of footage threatens the value of future broadcast deals.

Rugby Inside Line tweeted this in response:

This always tends to be a counter-argument.

However, as we’ve said to a number of rugby administrators, “There shouldn’t be a reason for an account like ours. I want YOU to make us redundant.”

There’s such a void in content that the likes of us and Squidge are filling the void.

World Rugby and its broadcasters are producing mediocre content. The most interesting developments in rugby media were podcasts, followed by YouTube channels, and these all started with amateur pundits.

You don't have to love Squidge videos to recognize he found an undeveloped seam and mined it successfully. World Rugby has had years to look at how YouTube pundits cover the game, and make similar offerings. Squidge produced profiles of the Tier 2 teams before the tournament, and accurately predicted excitement from Portugal. That kind of coverage ought to be a no-brainer for an organization trying to promote the tournament.

It blows my mind that world rugby didnt take this feedback on board and either turn to the broadcasters and say "up your game, theres demand that you arent fulfilling" or turn to the more famous youtube pundits and do "partnership" deals. Basically allow specific amateur pundits use of footage to at least test the waters.

I think this is one of the big ramifications we are seeing when WR elected Beaumont ahead of Pichot. Pichot was bang on the money about modernising WR media streams.

There also seems to be a disconnect between WR providing content to a wider casual audience and providing content to Fan(atic)s. Most of us here would have enjoyed proper gameplan breakdown videos by squidge (or squidge equivalent) during the WC in addition to the pre-game/mid-game/post-game casual punditry on ITV. We likely would not have turned the tv off just so we can go twiddle our thumbs for a reaction from squidge. ITV wouldnt have lost any ad revenue therefore tv rights would not have been devalued. ITV and WR being concerned about loss of advertising revenue is archaic thinking, its dumb, we'd like it to be better for next time.

Exactly Tramp, I watched a lot of post match cometary after the World Cup matches and it felt like they were going round and round in circles. Sam Warburton seemed the only pundit to go into any length of detail.

I’m not a mega fan of squidge but I love that he delves into the dynamics of attacking play and peels back the layers. All with some humour to keep your attention.

Given he was around prior to Japan and doing some segments with the bbc during that tournament you’d have expected world rugby or itv to have been in touch about doing something in France. There are thousands of fans who look to his channel weeks after games have been completed for his take on it.

World Rugby has to recognize that, since the World Cup ended, most of the headlines have not been about how wonderful rugby is as a sport.

For all the congratulations to South Africa as champions, and France as hosts, there are a host of other negative takes.

1. "All everyone is talking about is the cards".
Personally, I wasn't thinking much about the cards. And yet, virtually every amateur and professional pundit said that was the main talking point, so perhaps I'm an outlier. That strikes me as a problem for the way rugby fans look at matches and how World Rugby wants to present them.

2. The new "Nations Cup" is a stitch-up.
When you've just held a tournament to showcase the global reach of the sport, it seems incredibly obtuse to make an announcement which appears to stunt the growth of unions outside the established mainstream. World Rugby should at least have shown they recognized that would be that accusation.

3. Officials getting abuse
Shortly after the final whistle, there were reports of Polly Barnes saying good riddance to the tournament, an account of the abuse she personally witnessed, Wayne Barnes was probably always going to retire after the career peak of a World Cup final. Still, it's a terrible look for World Rugby that the retirement of their most senior, and arguably most respected, official, was linked to the abuse he and his family received, and not just celebrating his career.

4. World Rugby on media
The takedown of Squidge got World Rugby trending on Twitter/X. Now, Twitter was never the real rugby world, and X is even less so. Which prompts the question of where rugby exists in the public consciousness. I'm old enough that rugby coverage once meant only the broadsheets, BBC Rugby Special, and the Five Nations broadcasts. It sometimes seems World Rugby is still stuck in that era.

World Rugby doesn't control other major competitions like the Six Nations, Rugby Championship, Super Rugby Pacific, Premiership, URC and Top 14. It has full control of the World Cup, so can lead the way on how it wants the sport to be represented to the world. Where's the multilingual coverage? World Rugby should probably be grateful France didn't win this year, because their French coverage was dismal, despite having years to prepare for a tournament in the country.

There was a graphic recently showing how rugby has one of the largest global audiences in sport but very poor engagement with under 20s. That's a combination of failing to reach the younger audience on media platforms they use, and failing to reach countries with young populations. It's also a reflection of the way professionalism means kids stop playing the game at earlier ages, and fewer people find their way to the sport as young adults.

I think he's great, i know some people dislike his humour and some of his causes that he continues to bat for (promoting womens rugby, continuing to raise awaresness of the all blacks hypocritical approach to their own "no d1ckheads" policy while picking players convicted of domestic assault) BUT his analysis of even various different pod systems and how they work vs how other teams pod formations function is great.

In average football punditry they'll go into depth as to why Team A is playing in a 4-4-2 formation that day. When has any rugby pundit on on ITV or the BBC chatted about the forwards playing in a 1-3-3-1 system? Ever? it takes 2 minutes to explain but for some reason, someone at the studios thinks its too complex on match day to discuss.

Make your content more indepth and more engaging WR, it'll generate interest

Rugby Fan wrote:

1. "All everyone is talking about is the cards".
Personally, I wasn't thinking much about the cards. And yet, virtually every amateur and professional pundit said that was the main talking point, so perhaps I'm an outlier. That strikes me as a problem for the way rugby fans look at matches and how World Rugby wants to present them.

Agreed, I don't understand it. There were some absolutely cracking games. Fiji were a revelation, two of the best quarter final games of all time, the opening fixture was absolute class and more besides (Portugal take a bow). The cards in the final were all correct and it was still an enthralling game.

I felt it was the commentators with no rugby background and those that were perhaps ready to be put out to pasture that kept banging on about cards. Time for the a bit of a pundit clearout really.

Do pundits discuss what they would like to discuss as individuals or do they discuss what the programme manager wants them to discuss?

So, maybe we are being unjust to the pundit because the show manager/editor/exec has the statistics from social media that show "social media interactions related to rugby were up 300% when discussing a red card from Game A", so they feel a need to spend more time on the card than on the actual game because tactical discussions dont generate the same level of social media interactions i.e. discussing pods often doesnt result in online death threats?

Poorfour wrote:1. Yes. Cane was never in a legal position (nearly upright); Kolisi was in a legal tackle position (bent at the waist) but hit a player who was also bending.

I expect World Rugby will roll out the waist high tackling laws that are already in place at amateur level to the pro game by next summer at the latest. We'll see a flurry of cards at the start of next season, and then teams will adapt.

2 I thought it was actually a pretty good RWC in scrummaging terms. Plenty of teams were prepared to scrummage legally, there were some decent contests and refs seemed prepared not to blow if the ball was coming out so the game continued. The main gripe for me was the differences between NH and SH expectations in the scrum, but it was ever thus.

3. Ditto. I don't know how you fix the difference in interpretation - different refs work mainly in different competitions, and in making split-second decisions they will respond to what they are familiar with seeing, because the human brain learns to respond automatically to patterns of complex stimuli. The best we can do may be to help refs to become more familiar with standards in other competitions - perhaps by reviewing refcam footage of teams they are going to ref.

4. I'm wth you on this. I'll add that the response of some fans to match outcomes they didn't like has been very disappointing.

5. Yes, and the refs were clearly irritated by it. There should be an option to sanction teams that bring them on too much

6. TMOs are always going to miss some things. I think the Smith try got chalked off because the TMO had alerted Barnes during play, so he went back to check it. I was more worried by the way the bunker declined to upgrade any cards between the 2nd round and the SFs.

7. Yes, but hard to know what to do about it. Maybe captains should be allowed to ask for 1 review per half, retained if there is an infringement that warrants a card. That way, they can call out genuine dangerous play, and get one shot at a game-changing knock on or missed pen.

We're below the sternum & all local sides struggled, think we gave away about 18-20 pens for high tackles in the first 3 games but last week gave away none.

Oakdene wrote:We're below the sternum & all local sides struggled, think we gave away about 18-20 pens for high tackles in the first 3 games but last week gave away none.

That's consistent with what I've heard elsewhere. The age grade teams I ref have adapted a bit better - I gave a couple of warnings for high tackles in an early game and I've seen a couple of penalisable tackles (though not all refs have got their heads around the changes yet). The key thing is it quickly settles into a safer pattern of tackling and the game and tactics move on

Poorfour wrote:

Oakdene wrote:We're below the sternum & all local sides struggled, think we gave away about 18-20 pens for high tackles in the first 3 games but last week gave away none.

That's consistent with what I've heard elsewhere. The age grade teams I ref have adapted a bit better - I gave a couple of warnings for high tackles in an early game and I've seen a couple of penalisable tackles (though not all refs have got their heads around the changes yet). The key thing is it quickly settles into a safer pattern of tackling and the game and tactics move on

Im bloody 38, takes a lot of getting used to!!

Yeah the ref we had last week said the WRU expected it to take teams 18 months to adjust but the evidence is most teams have adapted well.

For me the single biggest work on for the next world cup will be to increase the viewers into the sport.

This won't be a popular view with most but one of Rugby's failings has been to develop the sport in key markets.

For example the funding projects World Rugby has done with Tonga, Fiji & Samoa are a total waste of money. It's not that they don't have great players. The real issue is they simply don't have the population to grow either pro rugby programs or increase world cup viewing figures. Here are the population stats for all 3 countries:-

Samoa - 197,097
Fiji - 889,953
Tonga - 104,494

For me it makes way more sense to invest World Rugby money into bigger populated markets. I actually think Oceania qualify to many teams to the world cup. There are less than 43 million people if you totaled up all of the Oceania countries (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga etc).

Viewership will determine the long term growth of the sport. Portugal for example are a perfect example of a place rugby funding should be put into. With a population of over 10 million they are 3 times larger than the 3 mentioned above. There are a ton of similar countries that I would be targeting. If World Rugby can grow the amount of European countries involved in World Cups it will make better long term planning as they can develop lesser nations outside of Europe at a later date.

The problem here is any thinking along these lines would be a serious threat to already established nations which is primarily why it will not happen.

But logically what I am saying makes sense. At the end of the day in order for the sport to grow they need to increase the people watching which means introducing the largest wealthy countries with populations makes more sense as that has the bigger chance of increasing advertising money in the sport.