Lee Stensness: Rule confusion has to be tackled quickly

After last weekend's Ranfurly Shield game between Canterbury and Auckland, the main talking points seem to have been negatives - the law at the tackle ball situation, continual offending and referee interpretations. Poor old referees... if they blew the whistle for every transgression of the tackle ball law they witnessed, there would be very little phase rugby and they would be accused of "killing the game".

But if they don't penalise and let things go then they are "letting the opposition kill the game". Damned if they do and damned if they don't. However, the real problem is not the referees but the rules. The law is an ass, too complicated and thus too open to interpretation.

It is the complexity of rugby's play and rules that make the game so interesting as well as infuriating. The most contentious area is around the transition of a tackle into ruck.

In a tackle you can use your hands to secure the ball if you are on your feet - but only until another two players who are on their feet, with at least one from each team, have arrived. At that point, hands are not allowed. That's roughly the rule... I think.

A way to simplify the tackle ball rule would be to allow all players on their feet to use their hands at all times, so long as they entered the ruck from the back. This would then remove the transition from tackle to ruck, resulting in fewer rules to break.

Critics would say this will make it easier to slow opposition ball down. That may be true but only if the opposition are skilful enough to get in there. It puts the onus on the attacking team to clean out the defenders more accurately and effectively, while rewarding the defending team that commits numbers and competes for the ball while on their feet.

If the ball was slowed down or even stopped, it would be the team going forward that got the put-in to the scrum.

These changes would encourage more of a contest at the tackle with more players, hopefully forwards, being drawn to that area as there is more of a chance to win possession. If the ball is tied up, they could at least make sure their side is going forward so they won possession. This would help to open up the rest of the field for the attacking team, if they retain ball properly.

As for continual offenders, in most cases players know exactly what they are doing. They know whether they are offside or falling on their side or not releasing or whatever.

Sometimes the referee will get a decision wrong but in general players know what they are doing and basically seeing what they can get away with.

This is where the referees need to be consistently strong, and backed up by the system. They must sin-bin players regardless of who, what, where or when.

In France they have a white card in addition to the yellow and red cards. White is a ten minute sin-bin - the same as a yellow. But it is shown to the player responsible for the third penalty when a team has given away three penalties for deliberately slowing down the ball or other professional fouls.

In France it could get a little out of hand with teams down to 12 players at times but their referees, and players, are very... emotional. In New Zealand the referees are more consistent and, with consistency, a similar system would help to open the game up.

There would undoubtedly be some initial gripes and groans from players and coaches alike. However, short-term pain would lead to the long-term gain of a more open game and then we could be talking more about the positives of big Shield matches.