“Goodbye, caterpillar ruck” – Four more law changes for the 2027 Rugby World Cup

Laws can have a huge impact on the quality of a match, and there are several areas where changes could improve the game for players, officials and supporters alike.

With that in mind, here are four things World Rugby should look at changing before the tournament gets underway in Australia.

World Rugby currently has a five-year residency requirement, alongside a three-year stand-down period for players who have represented another nation.

However, the current regulations have still resulted in players changing international allegiances more frequently than many believe should be possible.

If a player has made the decision to represent one nation, there should arguably be much stronger restrictions on allowing them to switch later in their career.

Simply living in a country for five years as a professional rugby player should not automatically make someone eligible to represent it.

There are obvious exceptions. If a player grew up in a country, spent a significant part of their life there and developed a genuine connection to it, then representing that nation makes sense.

However, cases such as Benhard Janse van Rensburg highlight where the current rules can feel questionable. He was born and raised in South Africa before moving to England as an adult.

Players should not be able to change international allegiance purely to further their careers. There should be a genuine and established connection between a player and the country they represent.

The caterpillar ruck is one of those tactics that may be perfectly legal, but still does not sit comfortably with many rugby supporters.

The tactic involves players forming a queue behind the ruck, creating additional protection for the scrum-half and giving them more time and space to execute a box kick.

The result can be a game that slows to a crawl. It removes much of the opportunity for the defence to compete at the breakdown and can often feel more like a method of killing momentum than creating attacking opportunities.

It may be tactically effective, but it is hardly the most entertaining aspect of the sport.

Supporters want to see fast, physical and competitive rugby. Watching box-kick after box-kick while a line of players shields the scrum-half does little to provide that.

Removing or significantly limiting the caterpillar ruck could help increase the speed of the game while bringing more unpredictability back to the breakdown.

This would not mean removing strategy from rugby. Instead, it would be about encouraging the flowing, contested style of play that makes the sport so exciting.

Referees have already become better at calling "use it" earlier, which has helped address the issue, but more could still be done. Removing the caterpillar ruck altogether would go a long way towards improving the situation.

The 20-minute red card was introduced as something of a compromise, allowing officials to punish dangerous play without completely changing the outcome of a match.

However, it can also send the wrong message.

If a player commits a reckless or dangerous act, 20 minutes off the pitch does not always feel like an adequate punishment, particularly in serious cases such as high tackles that have the potential to end an opponent's match or even their season.

Rugby has made significant progress in recent years when it comes to player welfare, particularly around head and neck injuries.

Maintaining the traditional red card, where the offending team is forced to play with 14 players for the remainder of the match, would reinforce that commitment. The message would be simple. Cross the line and your team will face the consequences.

That may be harsh in some circumstances, but player safety has to come first. The consequences need to be strong enough to encourage players to change their behaviour and respect the long-term health of their opponents.

There is also an argument that the 20-minute red card gives officials an easier alternative in difficult situations. It can be viewed as a way of avoiding the controversy that often comes with sending a player off permanently, even when a full red card may be justified.

That could become particularly important at a World Cup, where every decision is placed under an enormous spotlight.

This rule is largely aimed at one man: Rassie Erasmus.

During the Rugby's Greatest Rivalry tour, Erasmus has already attracted controversy by naming his teams well in advance before making late changes, with the apparent intention of creating uncertainty for his opponents.

There are, of course, legitimate reasons for changing a team after it has been announced. Injuries are an obvious example, and coaches should always be able to respond to genuine changes in circumstances.

However, when late changes appear to be made purely as a tactical attempt to confuse the opposition, there is an argument that the practice needs to be more heavily regulated.

World Rugby could introduce a standardised deadline for teams to be officially confirmed, while allowing exceptions for genuine injuries or other unforeseen circumstances.

Another option would be to require an independent medical assessment when a player is withdrawn because of injury shortly before kick-off, ensuring the stated reason is legitimate.

Deliberate mind games are part of professional sport, but there should arguably be a line when it comes to the integrity of team selection.

There is currently little to prevent coaches from using late changes as a tactic, and without clearer regulations, it could become increasingly common. World Rugby should consider addressing the issue before it becomes a bigger problem at the 2027 World Cup.