Rugby doesn’t need another format
Recent events surrounding Worcester and Wasps, two Premiership clubs on the brink of collapse, have again managed to bait the media into seemingly never-ending suggestions of a new revamped, shorter and supposedly more attractive version of the game. Most recent suggestions have seen journalists, such as Stuart Barnes of the Times, call for the creation of a 50-minute version, a format that will have restrictions on the amount of kicking, mauling, scrummaging and ruck time, a noble idea to speed up the game and create a lucrative version the world can get behind. These assertions even ignore the likes of Rugby X, the World 12s and Rugby Sevens, all of which are hybrids of rugby union.
Firstly, the creation of a new format will put further strain on the sport’s already limited resources. As seen with Worcester and Wasps, rugby has become an expensive operation for franchises, clubs and even countries, and covid has not done anyone any favours. Fewer and fewer volunteers take up refereeing each year and that already has made life difficult for most amateur competitions.
Secondly, this goes against the ethos of rugby being for all shapes and sizes; the fact that a 120 kg Joe Marler can share the same changing room as an 82 kg Marcus Smith in a Premiership winning Harlequins team is part of rugby’s USP. A hybrid 25-minute a side format would ensure that teams can segregate those players of Marler’s mould and put an end to rugby being a game for all shapes and sizes. Just as in rugby sevens, coaches will opt for more nimble, mobile players who are able to play a Fijian style passing game.
Ultimately, the suggestion of new format for rugby looks enticing and fresh at face value, just like most starters on the dinner table. In reality, however, it fails to address the fundamental struggles that rugby already faces.
Rugby faces many issues; player safety, ball in play and financial difficulties to name a few. A new format would not be tackling these but rather would be avoiding them, focusing rugby’s attention elsewhere.
It also undermines the game of rugby sevens. Perry Baker, Colins Injera, Ben Ryan, Aimee Barret-Theron, Jerry Tuwai and Cecil Afrika are all icons of the global game that have been birthed by the game of sevens. Those who seem to need a new funky upbeat version can take a 10-city tour around the world and enjoy the sevens circuit. If that isn’t enough, then this game might not be for you.
Marketing or investing in the established game of sevens into other territories, finding ways to speed up the TMO process or even creating a global calendar are surely more viable options than having to give an already overburdened World Rugby more responsibility.
We don’t want rugby to fall into the same trap as cricket. T20, marketed as an exciting new format, has with time come to take the cricketing world by the throat and corrode the traditional formats. Quinton de Kock and Ben Stokes for example, who have both captained their national sides in some form, have retired from longer versions of the game in order to maximize their earnings.
We all agree that rugby has stagnated in some way. It is dominated by nationalistic self interest rather than progressive discourse and has failed to be the global game for all nations. Rugby as a whole needs a solution sooner rather than later, but the sport does not need a new child to nurture when it has yet to find a sustainable solution to its existing hatchlings.
Rather, rugby needs to focus on the task at hand – making the sport safer for its players, speeding up decision-making and supporting the game at grassroots. Much still needs to happen to improve rugby, but the creation of another format in an already saturated landscape is certainly not the answer.
