ON RUGBY:By enforcing the present laws and trying out some new ones, the IRB can help avoid some of the negative tactics that were prevalent at the recent World Cup, writes GERRY THORNLEY

WORLD CUPS are landmarks. They are supposed to showcase the sport. By rights, they should constitute a four-yearly peak, showing off all that’s best about the game. And while the great global gathering just gone undoubtedly showcased New Zealand in all its glory, it cannot be said to have glorified rugby.

The All Blacks and Wales were good to watch in the 2011 World Cup, and if you were absorbed by their progress, or indeed Ireland’s, there was plenty to enjoy. As noted previously, there were no classics a la the France-All Blacks knock-out clashes of 1999 and 2007, nor even the thrills and spills which the likes of Wales and Fiji provided four years ago when seeking space, offloading and running from everywhere, notably in their 38-34 nine-try feast.

Instead, everybody appears to have mutated into something similar, with an overt emphasis on crash-test dummy rugby as players collide, with little space for the speedsters or the tricksters with dancing feet.

Try scoring averages can be a misleading barometer, not least because the tier two countries improved so significantly at the recent World Cup. Even so, the average of 5.5 tries per game at the 2011 World Cup was the second lowest of the seven competitions to date, only eclipsing the 4.6 tries per game of 1991.

Following on from the all-time high average of seven tries per game at the inaugural 1987 World Cup, the average had steadily increased from that 4.6 in 1991 to 5.8 in 1995, 5.9 in 1999 and then 6.9 in 2003 in Australia.

The first of three World Cups under the existing 48-game format, alas the overall total of 332 tries in 2003 has steadily decreased to 296 in 2007 and 262 in 2011. Nor can this be attributed purely to improved showings from the tier two countries, for the tallies have again fallen sharply in the knock-out stages, from 30 to 28 to just 20 in the eight games in New Zealand.

Never mind that individual referees have too much influence on games, most obviously Craig Joubert’s performance in the final (when, as an aside, the IRB’s idea of the world’s best referee again allowed the law of the jungle at the breakdown, as he had for Ireland’s opener against the USA). Once again the IRB have some more badly-needed tinkering to do.

For starters, we could begin where the World Cup ended, as it were, and the way so many games end nowadays as winning teams gain possession and deliberately run down the clock with pedantic pick-and-go tactics. At one point Richie McCaw looked at a stationary ball for fully 16 seconds.

Munster were pilloried for the way they did this in the 2008 Heineken Cup final against Toulouse in Cardiff, and the game responded by becoming harsher on players going to ground. But rugby is back at square one, and it is a form of legalised cheating, for it denies the opposition any chance of competing for the ball or the crowd from enjoying a fair end-of-game spectacle.

It is a blight on the game. Soon rugby’s endgames will become like some endgames in American football, with the losing team – knowing they cannot regain possession – don’t contest the line of scrimmage and the opposing team take the snap and the quarterback sinks down on one knee as the final seconds are counted down and celebrations begin.

Ironically, rugby could take a leaf out of American Football and emulate its four “downs” for every 10 yards, with failure to gain 10 yards from four attempts resulting in possession being turned over. Say, for example, five metres for every five pick-and-go, with failure to do so resulting in a scrum for the defending team. Okay, so the pitch might have to be gridded with further lines to assist officials.

Also, referees are empowered to employ a “use it or lose it” law at maul time, so why not at ruck time?

By contrast, indeed, the maul has been neutered too much and as a result has also lost its power to suck in opposition defenders and therefore create more space out wide.

While the return of the scrum is to be welcomed, in the game’s craze to avoid re-sets with swiftly decreed full or tap penalties, it has arguably assumed too much power.

There’s something wrong with the game when a relatively minor technicality such as a player briefly slipping his bind or letting his hand slip onto the ground can result in a score which is only two points inferior to a brilliantly worked try.

This is all the more so due to the frequently heard complaints from frontrowers that the new skin-tight jerseys offer reduced chance to properly grip an opponent. They are essentially trying to grip flesh, and not even all frontrows are shaped like, say, Steve Thompson.

There isn’t enough space on the pitch but let’s not consider that hoary old chestnut of reducing the teams to 13-a-side. Mind you, union could take a leaf out of the league manual when you consider how defending players are obliged to retreat five metres behind the tackle area. The hindmost foot/offside line is constantly infringed. Failing that, why isn’t more use made of the touch judges in this regard?

In another way too, union needs to take a leaf out of league’s manual, and other sports, by empowering television match officials to adjudicate on more than they do. It’s faintly ridiculous that say, Tommy Bowe could be impeded short of the line against Italy but because it wasn’t in the in-goal area the TMO could not decree a penalty try.

Reflect too, on the legitimate “try” he scored in the first half against Italy from Seán O’Brien’s offload. League referees and TMOs can go back to the origins of a scoring move and also adjudicate on forward passes. To help in this, perhaps union could also adopt limited use of a “challenger” system, a la cricket and tennis (and leave Sepp Blatter and his Fifa Luddites further behind). As those sports have shown, it adds to both the drama and the number of correct decisions.

Ideas, ideas, ideas. But the IRB need to get radical (if that isn’t an oxymoron), because something needs to be done. And quickly.