Modern-day revolutionaries? Seriously?

I've written in the past about some of Peter de Villiers' outrageous statements but if he really thinks the tactics South Africa showed so effectively against the All Blacks in the republic are revolutionary then he really has gone off the deep-end.

I first remember watching rugby in the late 1980s, just before Scotland's best ever team won the Grand Slam in 1990. And the tactics shown by the Springboks mimic the England team of that period.

The 10-man game, which rarely sees the ball being passed wide, was used effectively for years - with Rob Andrew's kicking and passing statistics at the end of the game heavily in favour of booting the ball down the park.

Yes it was successful, much like South Africa's was in the Tri-nations earlier this season, but don't for one second pretend it's actually a good game to watch.

Wait, I've just got it. By revolutionary de Villiers means the 10-man style has coming back around in a circle rather than any kind of innovative rugby, because South African's style certainly doesn't fit the latter.

Okay, I admit it, I have some sympathies for international rugby coaches. Their need to appease a country often forces a win-at-all-costs mentality which means the people paying good money to witness a sporting spectacle are driven to boredom by the grind-out tactics. But it's their livelihoods that are at stake so they can be excused a little bit.

But at some point the good of the game has to be taken into account.

Because if international rugby continues along the lines it's on at the moment then it's heading for oblivion.

Just how far has it slipped? If you'd said to me two years ago I'd be waxing lyrical about the Air New Zealand Cup and enjoying it way more than the All Blacks Tests I would have laughed in your face. But that's exactly what's happened.

But the fault doesn't fully sit with the coaches and the tactics they employ, because they are only a function of the rules the teams are playing under.

In nine matches in last year's Tri-nations 43 tries were scored, an average of just under five per game. In this year's Tests, 11 tries have been scored in five games, an average of just under two.

There may be other factors involved in that, but I believe the biggest difference was the ditching of the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) - and more specifically the loss of the short-arm penalty for the majority of breakdown infringements.

South Africa are on top at the moment because they were the slowest team in the southern hemisphere to adapt to the ELVs and therefore didn't have far to regress to playing under the old rules again. The opposite is obviously true for the All Blacks.

And the return to full-arm penalties - which gives a stop and start game compared to the quick taps of the short-arm variety - has meant a staggering 47 penalties have been scored out of 58 shots at goals in just FIVE games this year.

That's a staggering average of over nine successful penalties per game. Last year 33 penalties were scored in nine games - an average of under four.

I know the ELVs weren't perfect, but they sure as hell made for a more attractive game of rugby that we're witnessing this year. And whose fault is that?

It goes back to the decision of the northern hemisphere teams who condemned the short-arm penalty without ever having trialed it.

In my opinion that decision wasn't for the good of the game. In fact, I'll go as far to suggest it was an attempt to stop the southern hemisphere teams from becoming stronger while the northern hemisphere jokers went backwards.

It was protectionism of the highest order and we're the ones suffering because of it. And if rugby doesn't adapt to create an entertaining spectacle they'll be the ones to blame when it goes down the toilet.

I think there are a couple of things that could be done to make international rugby an attractive proposition once more.

The first would be a return of the short-arm penalty. With kickers landing penalties regularly from their own half there's a huge area where any indiscretion will cost points. And given referees are making some god-awful decisions at the breakdown that would minimise the impact of those crappy calls.

More revolutionary (there's that word again) would be a change in the points scored to make tries more valuable and kicks less so. I do like rugby league's use of the drop-goal as effectively a tie-breaker so decreasing that to one or two points would be a start.

Leave penalties at three points and have a try worth six or seven points with a two-point conversion would be a more positive step.

Okay, maybe those changes wouldn't work but whatever contributes to more tries being scored - be it a five-yard drive from the forwards or a 90-metre freeflowing ball-in-hand move - would get a thumbs up from me.

Incidentally I chuckled when I read this April 2009 piece from Austrlian rugby journalist Greg Growden when it became apparent the ELVs were destined for the dustbin:

"Considering the widespread opposition towards the sanctions - with even southern hemisphere observers believing that with differing refereeing interpretations at the tackle, it had contributed to the game degenerating into a muddled midfield kick-fest - there appears little hope of them surviving this process."

Given the stats above, give me a muddled midfield kick-fest with tries aplenty than the straight-arm boring kick-fest with no tries we're seeing this year!

So what rules would you change in rugby? Do tries need to have more value in the game? Are the short-arm penalties the biggest difference between last year and this year? And are you getting bored of international rugby?

Let me know what you think. I appreciate all your comments.