For a long time, the southern and northern hemisphere rugby calenders have differed. For instance, the northern hemisphere's Six Nations usually takes place between February and March. This is in contrast to the southern hemisphere's Rugby Championship; which takes place between August and October.
As a result of these discreptencies, there has been calls for a global rugby calender where both hemisphere competitions are played simultaneously. This would ease the pressure and workload of all players involved.
Additionally, while it isn't new for laws to be changed from time to time, New Zealand and Australia have introduced some law variations that have people questioning the purpose and the need for such a law to be implemented on full-time basis.
It has been reported lately that the South African and French rugby boards have aligned their views on the calender. Unfortunately, there are opposition to their united front.
SA Rugby has reportedly aligned with France at the latest World Rugby Shape of the Game summit.
Administrators and key stakeholders gathered in London this week to discuss the future direction of the sport, with proposed tweaks to the laws â particularly around scrums and game tempo â creating clear divisions between hemispheres.
According to French sports daily, LâEquipe, South Africa has sided with France and other northern hemisphere unions in pushing back against proposals driven by Australia and New Zealand.
Those changes are said to focus on speeding up the game and reducing stoppages, including efforts to limit scrums in a bid to increase ball-in-play time.
Super Rugby Pacificâs recent law trials have fuelled the debate, with critics concerned that certain modifications risk stripping away core elements of rugby union in favour of a more free-flowing, rugby league-style spectacle.
Franceâs stance has been clear. "Weâre open [to changes], but we donât want to break what works," said Yann Roubert, president of the Ligue Nationale de Rugby, which governs the Top 14 and Pro D2.
French Rugby Federation president, Florian Grill, added: "We believe that France has genuine legitimacy given the quality of its professional rugby and its national teams.â
Leading figures in the sport have gathered in England for the all-important summit, where the evolution of certain laws have been debated and, unsurprisingly, not everyone is on the same page.
Most notably, it appears as though France and South Africa have formed one faction to challenge the ideas of Australia and New Zealand, who are effectively being accused of attempting to change rugby union into a sport more akin to rugby league.
This comes after Super Rugby Pacificâs law trials and modifications aimed at reducing the number of scrums in an attempt to increase the speed of the game and the ball in play minutes.
New Zealand and Australia are rallying to ârevolutioniseâ the sport, according to the publication, if it means abandoning fundamental elements of rugby.
It is argued by Australia and New Zealand and echoed by World Rugby, that if the game is to grow in new territories, then a more dynamic style of play is needed; but the French Rugby Federation has countered that it will not be achieved "by imitating rugby league." Instead, they believe that embracing rugbyâs inclusive nature, being a game for all shapes and sizes, will be more effective.
Former referee, Mathieu Raynal, who is now the manager of the professional referees for the Top 14 and Pro D2, launched a scathing attack on Super Rugby Pacific law trials earlier this year.
While he has been less brutal this time around, he warns that New Zealandâs and Australiaâs proposed changes will lead to a more standardised player profile with loose forward-esque body types replacing bigger-bodied front rowers.
"We believe these zones are powerful symbols of our sport," Raynal said of the set-pieces.
Former Wallabies head coach, Ewen McKenzie, believes that the scrum has already been "depowered" from what it was â20 or 30 yearsâ ago. There have been accusations that World Rugby and other unions are attempting to reduce the impact of that set-piece.
One such law, which prevents scrums being taken following a free-kick, has come into global effect, while others are currently being trialled in Super Rugby Pacific.
Former referee, Nigel Owens, predicts that one Super Rugby Pacific law trial will produce inconsistent referee rulings this season. The Welshman stated as much, having debated the validity of the law modification with fellow ex-international referee, Wayne Barnes.
Super Rugby announced a host of new law modifications and trials ahead of the start of the 2026 season and Owens has taken issue with one in particular despite the weekendâs Six Nations action providing a good example of how it can work effectively.
The law tweak in question is 8.3, with Super Rugby now confirming that it is no longer necessary for a referee to issue a yellow card after awarding a penalty try.
"It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee," a statement from the competition organisers read.
The fact that it will be at the refereeâs discretion is problematic for Owens, who has taken issue with the law in general too as he thinks players will be more cynical in their attempts to stop the attacking team as they are less likely to be yellow-carded.
"Wayne Barnes and I have always had a good debate about this," Owens said on World Rugbyâs Whistle Watch show with former Lions centre Jamie Roberts.
"Barnes had the same view on it as Super Rugby that it shouldnât have to be a double whammy but I donât know. What they are doing here now is technically rewarding a negative act. So a player now will decide, unless I go out there and deliberately knock this ball forward or I donât deliberately throw myself and collapse this maul, they are going to score."
"What is making them think twice is that weâre going to be down to 14 men as well for 10 minutes. Now think about it. If I donât deliberately knock this ball or fall down there or if I donât take down this maul illegally, theyâre probably going to score."
While he is sceptical about the law trial being successful, Owens was able to see the value in it, pointing to Taine Plumtreeâs yellow card against England during the opening weekend of the Six Nations.
The Wales replacement made a high tackle on Henry Pollock, who was in the act of scoring, which led to a knock-on. Referee, Pierre Brousset, awarded the penalty try and issued the yellow card to Plumtree which Owens felt was a bit harsh.
"I can also see a valid point for this trial in one sense, with the tackle at Twickenham with Plumtree," he said. "So youâre looking at that, âGoing oh thatâs unluckyâ. So now [with this trial] you wouldnât yellow card that guy because youâre going, 'thatâs not cynical, thatâs unlucky'. So itâs not a yellow card. So I can see a value in trying this for that reason. Plumtree was unlucky."
Roberts argued: "But you think itâs unlucky? Would another referee think differently?" Owens believes that would not be the case with referees likely to have a general view on that decision âI donât think so,â he replied.
âNot with the Plumtree one. I think the general consensus would be that it was unlucky. So then what youâll have here now is that Plumtree wonât be yellow-carded for that under this trial. But then, if the ref feels that a player deliberately took that maul down, you can still yellow-card it. So it will open up a little bit more inconsistency in the decision-making, but I can see the point of it."
Certain countries â most notably France and South Africa â are not happy with the direction World Rugby have gone but McKenzie claims that the scrum is already very different to what it once was.
"My perspective is the scrumâs already been depowered. If you go back 30 years where you had to have technical ability up front, thatâs all gone anyway, so itâs already been depowered in the name of safety," he said on the Rugby Unity podcast.
"Youâre either going to get rid of it completely â you canât depower it any more, itâs overmanaged now in my opinion."
The former Wallabies boss appeared on the podcast alongside another ex-Australia head honcho in Eddie Jones, who is not a fan of the law changes and McKenzie agrees that the scrum needs to be protected.
"I donât agree with taking it away; if you write it off, you will change the body shapes and the whole fundamentals of the game change, so you canât depower it any more," he said.
"If you switch to other options to restart play like free-kicks, youâve got to remember scrums are the one opportunity where you get space."
"All the forwards are gathered in one spot and thatâs why rugby league still keeps it in its game, even though itâs only a scrum in name â everyoneâs in the scrum but nobody actually scrums.
"What it does is give space around the field to maybe do something tactically and thatâs one area of the game thatâs starting to develop, and teams are doing better off the set-play. That opportunity still exists off scrums. If you go free-kick, everyoneâs going to fan out and youâre back on the 13 versus 13 or 14 versus 14 in defence."
The 60-year-old feels that it can simply be improved by the referees getting the game moving quicker. Shot clocks have been introduced by World Rugby but they are not been adhered to strictly by the officials.
"Yes, itâs faster but we already know that the scrum can be done quicker. I actually heard it on the weekend in Super Rugby one of the Australia refs was saying: 'Come on, letâs go, letâs get the scrum done',â he said.
"It was good to hear the referee say that. Everyone usually goes for the water bottles, including the referee, so we need to keep the tempo of the game up, and it was."
âLook at some video from 20 or 30 years, the scrums were more technical and they were much faster. When we played in the 1991 World Cup final, there was like 40 scrums. These days, thereâs 20 less, so a lot more scrums, you just didnât notice because they were done quickly and you moved on."
âItâs up to the players, itâs up to the referees to keep the tempo of the game up, you donât need to change anything."
Australia and New Zealand have generally been the drivers behind reducing the impact of the scrum. They are looking to increase the ball-in-play time and put emphasis on the attacking side of the game but, as McKenzie stated, the set-piece is a very useful way to score tries.
Rob Nichol has issued a warning to Rugby Australia ahead of crunch talks to move the Rugby Championship and align with the Six Nations.
The chief executive of the New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA) believes that Super Rugby Pacific could take a backseat to the NPC (National Provincial Championship) if Australia backs South Africaâs push to create a global calendar.
Springboks boss Rassie Erasmus has advocated for the Rugby Championship to be rescheduled for earlier in the year, and talks are set to take place this week over the possibility of doing just that.
This has been described as the âfirst credible attemptâ at creating a global calendar with Los Pumas (Argentina) legend, Agustin Pichot, set to lead the discussion.
"I think it will sort out a lot of problems for us," Erasmus explained last month.
"Players resting or managing the number of games a player can play, so getting it synced, I think player welfare and rules of competitions, all those kinds of things are easier to implement and to adapt to."
"So, it looks like theyâll keep putting questionnaires out and high-performance committees looking at it. Iâm not sure where it is (negotiations regarding it at the moment) and when it will start, but I think it will be awesome."
The benefits for South Africa and Argentina too, are plainly evident as it would further align with the northern hemisphere rugby seasons; meaning that the Springboks players arenât effectively playing all year round.
After initially resisting the shift, it looks as if Australia have come around to the idea but New Zealand are holding firm and need convincing.
"In the past, when we last talked about it seriously, New Zealand was the biggest challenge. Australia is now on board," SA Rugby CEO, Rian Oberholzer, said on the Rapport Praat Sport podcast.
"We have a good chance of getting through this time. I think New Zealand also understands that there are more solutions and positivity than negativity to change the seasons."
Speaking to The Post, NZRPA chief Nichol warned that Rugby Australia needs to be careful what they wish for as moving the Rugby Championship could have a detrimental impact on Super Rugby Pacific.
"I can see what theyâre thinking," Nichol said. âTheyâre thinking, 'OK, it creates a big window [April-September] for us to put Super Rugby up against the NRL and AFL in the domestic market'.
"That would be great from their perspective because you wouldnât have the Rugby Championship after July, so youâd have a clear window.But for us, weâve got this incredible competition called the NPC, so that doesnât work for us."
"What we have works for us and the question is, if weâre going to move away from that, would we actually go for a Super Rugby comp or would we actually go the other way around and just make a longer NPC?"
"We would want to do whatâs best for rugby in New Zealand and if you create that kind of a window [April-September] itâs not just a fait accompli you put Super Rugby into it and bypass NPC."
There have been calls for New Zealand Rugby to be more selfish in their decision-making and according to Nichol, South Africa have not produced any good reason for the calendar shift or tangible benefits for anyone but themselves.
He argues that it would be a massive change to New Zealandâs ecosystem and a convincing argument on how it positively impacts them will need to be made.
"For us to seriously contemplate something like this, itâs really got to be a very compelling case as to why we would do that," he added. "So, thatâs the challenge thatâs been laid down. Itâs easy for a party to say. 'Oh, weâd just really like to see a Rugby Championship at the start of the yearâ."
"Well, thatâs nice that youâd like to see it there, but what does it actually mean for everyone?" He added: "Weâre saying to them is if you want us in our country to have that debate, itâs a really, really big conversation and one that weâre not really wanting to have unless thereâs a really good reason for having it."
With any law amendments needing to be finalised in time for implementation at the 2027 World Cup in Australia, the stakes are high. The emerging alliance between South Africa and France suggests that preserving set-pieces and the traditional fabric of the game will be central to the resistance against sweeping reform.
I know I'm being biased and patriotic but I see no reason for any possible law changes when it comes to scrums. Scrums in rugby are traditional. Traditions should never be altered with. Unless it's absolutely necessary, it should stay as its status quo stance.
I'm all for a global calender to be adopted. It's weird to see the Six Nations being played at a different time period to the Rugby Championship. It would be great to watch a latter match before switching to a former match or vice versa.
A format of a sport should stay put and not change to another form of the game. In this case, rugby union shouldn't attempt to transform into a rugby league format.