British & Irish Lions reveal fixtures for historic 2027 women’s tour

The landmark series will take place in September and feature three Test matches against the Black Ferns, the dominant six-time world champions.

The Lions will also play pre-Test fixtures, though the full schedule is yet to be finalised.

Lions chair and former Wales winger Ieuan Evans hailed the tour as a monumental step, saying it was a

Lions chief executive Ben Calveley reinforced the significance of the move:

The historic announcement followed a January 2024 feasibility study into the potential for a women’s tour — examining everything from brand strength to logistics, commercial value, and spectator interest.

The Lions, traditionally made up of players from England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, have toured since 1888, with the men rotating between New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia every four years. The women now step into that legacy with their own moment to shine.

Hosts New Zealand Rugby were quick to welcome the opportunity.

The 2022 Rugby World Cup saw the Black Ferns edge England in a dramatic final, further cementing their place at the top of the women’s game.

The 2027 tour has already secured sponsorship, adding yet another vote of confidence to this long-anticipated next step for women’s rugby.

After over a century of men’s touring history, the Lions women are ready to write a new chapter.

As the sport grows faster, stronger, and more tactical, certain laws stand out as ripe for reconsideration—not to upend the game, but to make it fairer, safer, and more exciting.

We highlight four specific laws that, with thoughtful updates, could better reflect the way rugby is played today. These ideas come from a deep respect for the game and a desire to see it flourish for players and fans alike.

World Rugby has shown it’s willing to adapt in recent years—these could be the next steps in that evolution.

Rugby has changed significantly over the years, and one of the biggest shifts is how the bench is used. These days, teams often bring on almost an entirely new forward pack late in the game. Big, fresh players crash into tired defenders, making the final 20 minutes less about skill and endurance, and more about brute force. Many fans and former players feel this has turned rugby into a collision sport rather than a contest of stamina and intelligence.

Reducing the number of substitutions would encourage players to pace themselves. Space would open up in the second half, creating more opportunities for creative play rather than endless phases of pick-and-go. It would reward fitness, smart decision-making, and those capable of performing for the full 80 minutes.

Fewer substitutions wouldn’t just make the game more exciting—it would make it fairer, safer, and more in line with the spirit of what rugby has always been about.

With the rise of 6–2 and even 7–1 bench splits, pioneered by Rassie Erasmus, the trend seems to be heading in the opposite direction. That’s all the more reason to act now.

The caterpillar ruck is one of those tactics that, while legal, just doesn’t sit right with many who love the game. It involves players lining up behind a ruck in a queue, giving the scrum-half extra time and space to kick.

It slows the game to a crawl, gives the defence no real chance to compete, and often feels more like a way to kill momentum than build it.

It may be clever, but it’s not entertaining. Fans want to see fast, hard-fought rugby—not box-kick after box-kick with a queue of bodies shielding the kicker. Eliminating or limiting the caterpillar ruck would speed up the game and reintroduce unpredictability at the breakdown.

This isn’t about removing strategy. It’s about keeping the game flowing and true to what makes rugby exciting: dynamic, contested play.

Referees have improved at calling “use it” earlier, which helps speed things up, but more needs to be done. Getting rid of the caterpillar ruck would go a long way toward fixing the issue.

The 20-minute red card was introduced as a middle ground—punishing dangerous play without completely ruining a match. But let’s be honest: it sends the wrong message. If a player commits a reckless or dangerous act, 20 minutes off the field doesn’t always feel like enough—especially for serious offenses, like a high tackle that could end an opponent’s game or season.

Rugby has made major strides in protecting players, especially around the head and neck. Keeping the full red card—where the offending team plays a man down for the rest of the match—reaffirms that commitment. It makes the consequences clear: cross the line, and your team suffers. That’s how you change behaviour.

Yes, it’s tough. Sometimes it may seem harsh. But safety must come first. It’s about respecting the game and the long-term health of every player on the field.

In many ways, the 20-minute red gives officials a cop-out. It’s often seen as the easy option to avoid controversy—even when a full red card is justified.

Few things in rugby divide opinion quite like the driving maul from a lineout. For some, it’s a show of power and coordination. But for many fans, it feels like a loophole — a near-guaranteed way to score that sucks the creativity and unpredictability out of the game.

A well-drilled pack can set up a maul five metres out, trundle forward almost unstoppably, and fall over the line for a try. Where’s the skill in that? It’s become rugby’s cheat code — more about physics and numbers than ingenuity or flair.

Outlawing the maul as a direct scoring weapon would open the game up. Instead of endless rolling rucks towards the try-line, teams would need to find inventive ways to use space, pass under pressure, or outsmart the defence. That’s what gets fans on their feet.

Defenders, too, would benefit. At the moment, they’re often left with little option but to illegally collapse a maul, leading to a penalty or yellow card. Take away the automatic try-machine, and we’d see fewer cynical infringements, less frustration, and a fairer contest.

The maul will always have a place as a tactical tool in the middle of the pitch — but when it’s allowed to dominate the scoreboard, it turns rugby into something it was never meant to be.