For its most ardent supporters the complexity of rugby union’s laws sets it apart from other sports and is something in which to delight. It was always said that, first and foremost, rugby was a game for its players, with the experiences of officials and fans a secondary concern.

All this was fine when there was no professional game and rugby was not trying to compete globally with other sports for viewing figures and sponsors’ dollars. In today’s world, it is this complexity that will restrict its widespread appeal and there is very little World Rugby can do about this, without threatening its most loyal base.

To illustrate this, it is worth looking at a few areas which demonstrate this conundrum. In doing so we will also be visiting another connected, but non-rugby law, that of unintended consequences.

Maul tweaks open door to inconsistency

Take what has wrongly been labelled by some as the new law on driving mauls. It is, in fact, not a new law but a different interpretation of an existing one. The complaint was made that too many driving mauls were being ruined by defenders changing their positions and coming round the side of mauls and stopping drives. There was no peer-reviewed evidence of these claims, but the World Rugby clarification is that “players who drift to the ‘wrong side’ of a maul and are no longer in a position to push or contest the ball must immediately remove themselves from the contest or face a penalty”.

All of which has led to a surfeit of driving-maul tries this season, a fact only now being acknowledged as it is playing out in international rugby as well as at club level, where a wider audience is involved. Four of South Africa’s six first-half tries against Italy originated in the maul; Scotland and New Zealand scored four tries from the maul between them in the opening 40 minutes at Murrayfield.

Then, at Twickenham, Jamie George kicked off England’s impressive win over Australia by dotting down from a driving line-out.

In fact, so many of these tries are being registered that sides are declining relatively easy kicks at goal and kicking for the corner in the expectation that they can score from any point that is less than 10 metres out from the try-line. Good, I hear most people say. Rugby needs more tries and who wants to watch a kicker take a full minute to successfully kick a simple penalty? Has North American sport not shown that more scores equal more popularity? Yes, it has, but rugby should be careful about what it wishes for in this regard.

Rightly or wrongly, fans will eventually rebel against any situation where there is a virtual certainty of the outcome. It might be right that the attacking side are favoured over the defensive side, but what happened to rugby’s much-trumpeted value of ensuring a fair contest at every phase?

Additionally, you can examine the role of some attacking players in these mauls. Once jumpers have transferred the ball to supporting players who then, in turn, smuggle the ball to the very back of the maul, are they not obstructing defenders who are legitimately trying to contest possession? Technically they must be and so should be making similar moves as demanded of defenders to rejoin the maul from behind the back foot and alongside the hindmost player.

Any forward will tell you that this is almost impossible, so referees, players and lawmakers just accept this obstruction and ignore the principle. Good luck explaining this inconsistency to new or casual viewers.

Officials need to apply laws as written

Next, let’s take the not-straight line-out throw. The law is that if the ball is not contested by the opposition, the throw can be not straight and still allowed, on the basis that there has been no contest for possession. However, what happens if a single, unsupported player jumps against a lifted jumper? The singular jumping player could be nearly a metre below where the ball is caught by the lifted jumper, with absolutely no chance of winning the ball, yet this counts as a contest. Does this make sense? Is it intellectually consistent? How can it be called a genuine contest for possession? Suggestion: if you want to have a law that makes sense, is simple and does not confuse people, demand the throw is straight.

Finally, the new scrum directive. The following is no longer allowed: “Walking around the corner” in a rugby scrum, when a prop (typically the loosehead) deliberately steps out sideways and whips around the blind side of the opposing tighthead, creating an artificial wheel to milk a penalty.

This is already illegal. It is the failure of referees to apply the law properly that has unfortunately led to every watching fan, most of whom have never been anywhere near a front row, demanding a penalty when “walking” occurs. Further, this has been encouraged by coaches who claim that their scrum was dominant because this trick is successfully played. What this goes to show is that officials and World Rugby should apply laws as written and listen less to coaches, who are never impartial.