Throughout 2025, the sports teams at ZB and the Herald have spent countless hours watching games being played. In the final instalment of a three-part series, we’re picking over the rule changes we’d love to see.
Proposed change: Reset the offside settings so that any part of the attacker’s body being onside means a goal will stand.
Football’s offside rule is no longer fit for purpose. It was designed to prevent goal hanging – a striker lurking in the penalty area for the entire match – and has been a great innovation over more than a century.
However, it was not designed to rule out perfectly good goals because someone’s shoulder, knee or toenail is ahead of the last defender. Goal scoring is the most difficult task in the modern game and the VAR offside interpretation has made it even worse.
There is nothing more deflating than seeing a spectacular goal scratched after a forensic check, involving millimetres and taking minutes. The balance needs to be tipped; if any part of the attacker’s body is onside, apart from hands or arms, it should be a legal goal. – Michael Burgess
Proposed change: Rugby players can call “mark” for a fair catch anywhere in their own half.
The halfbacks’ box kick has become one of the most dire things in rugby. The game is at its best when players create and exploit space by running and passing the ball. The ubiquitous tactic of box kicking from almost anywhere on the park in order to set up a 50/50 lottery for possession a few metres further up the field is a guileless admission of a lack of ideas.
We should encourage teams to use the ball in a constructive fashion by punishing them for dull-witted kicks.
So, if a player catches an opposition kick on the full in their own half, they should be able to call a mark for a free kick.
There’s a nuclear option for this rule change: let players take fair catch marks anywhere on the field. And, once they’ve taken the mark, they get the throw-in from the resulting lineout if they kick the ball out, or knock over a droppie (like in the good old days). – Winston Aldworth
Proposed change: No yellow cards for footballers going into the crowd.
There is nothing greater in professional sport than footballers celebrating a goal. Being packed in with thousands of other like-minded fans as the ball hits the back of the net is euphoric, with football fans forking out thousands to follow their team week in, week out.
And yet, should the player want to celebrate that goal with said fans, he’s punished with a yellow card.
The reasons for the rule have always been along the lines of fan and player safety, as well as time wasting and disorder that security would be unable to control.
But would fans of a team really attack one of their own players after a goal? No. And considering football is now adding more time on to the end of matches than ever before, anything lost would already be made up if delayed by excessive celebrations.
All that’s really happening is stopping players from celebrating with fans who for the most part pay their wages. – Alex Powell
Proposed change: Session breaks in test cricket both 30 minutes.
This never made sense to me. Two hours of play for the opening session in a cricket test, followed by a lunch break of 40 minutes. Do the players need that long a break so early in the day? Especially when just under half the players may not enter the field over that time, with their feet up in the pavilion. The players don’t need 40 minutes and neither do the fans in attendance or the viewers.
Then later in the day the tea break is 20 minutes. Substitute fielders now often give bowlers a chance to leave the field after a spell so the only player out in the middle doing the long stints is the wicketkeeper – and they choose that life.
So let’s make it simpler – 30 minutes in between each session. Morning session 11am-1pm, second session 1.30-3.30pm with the final session 4pm-6pm. Drinks breaks at midday, 2.30pm and 5pm.
And while we’re making changes to cricket, let’s make it that if batters run five – a very rare occurrence – they get an extra run to make it worth six. – Cameron McMillan
Proposed change: Instate a limit to the advantage rule in rugby union.
God, this is annoying in the XV-a-side code. The referee (or, Allah forbid, the TMO) notes a penalty infringement of some sort. The official then allows play to go on as long as the attacking team has the ball and are doing something with it. Honestly, this can take minutes.
Then the ref blows it up anyway when the attacking team has failed to do anything. In the beautiful game (and this stupid rule is one of the things preventing rugby from ever getting close to football for watchability in my very unbiased opinion), the advantage for a foul is one play. One play. The ref will then come back to yellow-card the offender later on, when play has stopped, should it be required.
Rugby needs to define the advantage: make it a 5m gain, or 20s, or something. Anything. Please. And don’t get me started on scrums... – Richard Wain
Proposed change: Get rid of the TMO.
Football, rugby and league need to get rid of the third match official. I’m not talking about merely limiting the TMO’s power, but just get rid of the thing completely. They actually make the game worse.
If players are allowed to make errors and “it’s just part of the game” then why can’t officials? Erroneous calls are part of the rich tapestry of sport – the Bob Deans try/no try on the Originals’ tour in 1905; the Geoff Hurst goal/no goal in the 1966 World Cup final; Kevin Skinner sorting out the Boks on the 1956 tour. None of those legendary things would have happened with a TMO. Grow up, accept the ruling and move on – and make the eyebrow-raising event part of the legend of the game. Grow the story of the sport. – Paul Moor
Proposed change: French cuts should be worth six runs.
Taking a leaf out of Cricket Max, some shots are more impressive than others and should be rewarded accordingly. The French cut requires a level of touch some of the greatest batters never find. And so I propose, a French cut that runs away to the boundary should be worth six runs rather than four.
I will now be taking questions.
Is there actual skill involved?
Have you tried to successfully inside edge the ball past the stumps? And have you mastered it? Of course you haven’t because it requires a massive degree of skill.
Won’t this frustrate bowlers?
Yes.
Are you sure this doesn’t just reward blind luck?
Are you telling me, any time you see the French cut deployed, these elite players are relying on luck. Years of training and hard work all for just a bit of luck? I think not.
This doesn’t make any sense.
Not a question, moving on.
Among everything else that needs addressing in cricket, is this really the best place to put your energy?
Will this make the game more entertaining? Yes. Will this create another wrinkle for players to have to consider? Yes. So therefore, this improves the game, and anything that improves the game should be welcomed. – Andy McDonnell