Since its formation in 1886, World Rugby has been active in its attempts to make rugby a more commercially valuable product.

The primary method of doing so has been to take the sport to emerging rugby nations – think, as examples, the 2019 World Cup being staged in Japan from 20 September to 2 November or New Zealand playing Ireland in the USA in 2016.

However, growth can also be reached by making the game more entertaining and therefore more watchable as well as making the game safer and therefore more playable.

With the above two objectives in mind, here is a rule change that World Rugby need to strongly consider implementing for the ‘growth of the game’.

The 2018 rugby year was marred by yet more up-and-unders – a phenomenon that has been tolerated in rugby for far too long now, especially in South Africa.

Bereft of the creativity required to create line-breaks and tries, certain teams, like the Springboks, are able to compete by continuously kicking high balls into the air and creating 50-50, contestable situations.

Should the kicking team regather the ball from the up-and-under, they then either try and force a penalty in order to have a shot at goal or repeat the exercise.

Should they not regather the ball from the up-and-under, they are then content to defend in an improved field position.

The problem created by up-and-unders is two-fold.

Firstly, they make for a dour viewing experience (if you find the contest for an up-and-under more thrilling than a player’s attempt to beat or go round a defender, then we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one).

And secondly, the act of two players (or more) challenging for an up-and-under presents a scenario that is extremely dangerous.

The end result? A sport that is less commercially valuable than it could be because it’s more boring and dangerous than it needs to be.

The solution? Implement a rule change that stipulates that as soon as the team in possession kick the ball away, they lose the right to compete for it until it bounces again – call it a “fair catch” similar to what we see in the USA’s National Football League (NFL).

The catcher, granted he/she gets to the ball on the full, should not have a defender within a three metre radius of him/her at the point in which he/she attempts to secure the ball. Should anyone from the kicking team encroach on his/her “protected precinct”, they would be penalised.

If this rule change, or some version of it, were to be enforced, rugby would become both easier on the eye and considerably safer.

Easier on the eye because teams would be forced to hold onto the ball and develop systems that are conducive to making line-breaks and scoring tries, which is ultimately what most rugby-watchers want to see.

Safer because that nasty contest between two or more players in the air would be eradicated. Literature reveals that the fear of being injured is one of the primary deterrents to participation in rugby. A safer game is a more inviting game to play.

A rule change like this would undoubtedly be a drastic disruption to the status quo and would be unlikely to sit well with rugby purists.

However, a glance toward cricket and the advent and success of the Twenty20 format makes clear what can be achieved when a governing body adapts its sports’ rules to appeal to a wider audience.

Furthermore, in a South African context, the effects of the implementation of the “fair catch”, or something similar, would be fascinating to bear witness to. Traditionally a rugby nation who kick plenty of ball away and who utilise the up-and-under more than most, such a reform might lead to the Springboks, and South African domestic teams, adopting a more expansive approach. And that forcing of the hand could be what the country needs in order to make better use of the abundance of talent that it possesses. DM

 Zac Elkin is a Freelance Sports Writer.