Throughout 2025, the sports teams at ZB and the Herald have spent countless hours watching games being played. In the first of a three-part series, we’re picking over the rule changes we’d love to see.
Proposed change: Revise rugby’s rulebook to allow rucking bodies out of the way of the ball.
In the old days, rugby players would use their feet to push opposition players (and occasionally a stray teammate) away from the ball in a ruck. This was crucial for providing fast ball for your halfback.
Around the time the game went (openly) professional, officials moved to ban old-fashioned rucking.
Rucking made rugby better. It speeds the game up, leading to opportunities for lighter, faster more skilful rugby players. A fast ruck would also make it difficult for defences to get set so early and so well, therefore, reducing the massive impacts we have now and the awful head injuries that follow.
Yes, I’m old. – Paul Moor
Proposed change: Get rid of the NRL’s golden-point rule in regular season.
Golden point is the sugar hit that no one needs anymore. It’s probably something we never needed, as there is not a lot wrong with a draw anyway. There are two obvious problems with the added time period, which was introduced by the NRL in 2003
Firstly, it creates an artificial spectacle that doesn’t resemble the rest of the contest. It often descends into a field goal shootout, while referees became reluctant to give penalties or six-agains – knowing the consequences, which means teams get away with a lot more.
The second issue is that it is unfair and unjust, as a team that loses an extra-time battle gets the same for their efforts as a club that has been smashed 42-0.
Draws at 80 minutes used to be great spectacles and it’s time to revert back to that, with golden-point saved for post-season knockout games. – Michael Burgess
Proposed change: Set a time trial, or lengthen the final stage, to intensify the denouement for cycling’s greatest race.
Granted, the romance of the occasion on the last day of the Tour de France is enshrined in tradition as riders often pedal the streets of Paris with a flute of champagne in hand.
This joie de vivre needs puncturing. Yes, they’re always more than 3000km into their French odyssey and a glass of plonk has probably been earned, but wait until you cross the Champs-Elysees finish line before popping a cork.
Let’s keep the tactical and strategic battles coming instead. The 1989 example where Greg LeMond defeated Laurent Fignon by 8s to earn the yellow jersey after gaining 58s on the final time trial remains enshrined as Le Tour’s closest finish.
A tight scenario won’t always emerge, given the race winner is sometimes already beyond doubt, but earnest attempts could make enthralling viewing rather than being deemed dodgy etiquette.
Proposed change: Coming up short of the daily quota of overs bowled will be penalised with additional runs
Following on (cricket pun) from the above, instead of the minuscule fines that are imposed on players, hit them where it really hurts – on the scoreboard. If the run rate for the day was 3.5 runs per over and the bowling side were short by six overs then calculate that (3.5 x 6 = 21 runs) and add it to the final total as penalty runs. If a side loses by a handful of runs then they will rue not bowling the overs they are obligated to. It will also provide a fillip for sides to get through their overs and not take up excess time with changes of gloves or water breaks. – Jack Ward
Proposed change: No more track limits.
Formula One’s rules around track limits are too strict and punish the aggressive driving that fans love to see. Penalties for driving outside track limits should only be enforced if a clear advantage is gained – in effect, when a driver is cheating.
Penalising drivers for being a millimetre over the white line at 300km/h and gaining nothing is nonsense. I want to see drivers pushing the limit and at times exceeding it, without fear of a 10s penalty. – Paul Slater
Proposed change: Designated batters for T20.
T20 is all about big hits and fast play, and right now there aren’t too many changes to the rules of the game that can increase either of these.
But if players were allowed to specialise this could create more high-quality play with the bat and the ball.
A designated batter would allow one player on a team to focus solely on scoring runs. They wouldn’t be allowed to field; their job is solely to hit big. Every team could end up having much more depth in their batting order. It may also bolster the bowling because a designated bowler could be introduced if the designated batter isn’t allowed to field.
More big hits, more big wickets – that’s all we want to see in cricket’s fastest format. – Samuel Sherry
Proposed change: Limit how many intentional walks a team can use in Major League Baseball games
MLB almost got things right. Almost. Before the 2017 season, they brought in a rule that meant managers could just signal the umpire to put an opposing hitter on base. It sped things up, eliminating the need for a pitcher to waste four pitches on throws well outside the zone.
But no one wants to see this managerial tool leave the chest too often. Ask anyone who sat through all 18 innings of game three in the World Series between the LA Dodgers and Toronto Blue Jays when Shohei Ohtani – the best player in baseball – was intentionally walked four times in a row.
I don’t want it out of the game completely, I just want to see less of it and make managers back their pitchers. A cap on how many times an intentional walk can be granted will mean fans get more opportunities to see the best players in the game operating in clutch moments, and/or make the strategy associated with the decision all the more important. We will call it the Ohtani Rule. – Christopher Reive
Proposed change: When a fielding team’s appeal for a wicket reaches a certain pitch of volume, they are deemed to have automatically called for a review of the umpire’s decision.
Cricket has just about got the whole technology thing right, particularly with the review system, which allows players to use their initiative and understanding of the game to find the best decisions.
Yet few things are more tedious than seeing a fielding team appealing to the high heavens – howling like banshees with their faces distorted in fervour at the apparent injustice of the umpire ignoring their claim of a wicket – only for them to then not elect to take a review. Come on, guys, a moment ago you were certain it was out, but when the heat’s on, you’re not?
Prolonged exposure to anything 85dB and above can lead to permanent hearing loss. So let’s make that the point at which the fielding team has automatically sparked one of their reviews. The sight of agitated captains rushing in to shush indignant bowlers will be worth the price of entry. – Winston Aldworth