Peter West is right to say that rugby union is too dominated by penalties (Letters, 20 October). Surely the solution is to expand the number of offences penalised by a simple free kick and reserve the use of penalties for only the most serious offences, for example dangerous tackles. This simple change would tilt the point-scoring in favour of tries, keep the ball in play for much longer periods and speed up the game by reducing the time lost to penalty kicks at goal.
Roger Carruthers
Derby
• Peter West is quite justified in lamenting the dominance of penalty kicks in rugby union. The solution has seemed obvious to me for some time: ban the use of artificial kicking tees, and go back to the old method of the kicker making a tee in the turf with the heel of their boot. This would immediately prevent direct scoring from penalties near half-way, and significantly reduce the near-guarantee of three points from closer in. It was good enough for Barry John…
Richard A’Brook
Carnoustie, Angus
• Long ago, when the rugby teams of the home nations seemed to consist largely of graduates of the older universities, my father had an explanation for the superiority of the southern hemisphere teams: “Our lads spend their week carrying briefcases; Australians and All Blacks spend theirs with a sheep under each arm.” What’s the explanation now?
John Fitzpatrick
Northampton
• It is worth noting that amid all the understandable if over-the-top anger felt by Gavin Hastings and the Scots (Joubert ‘a fine referee and a good man’, Sport, 20 October) at their controversial exit from the World Cup, no mention is made of the Australian player, Nick Phipps, for not owning up to touching the ball first, negating a penalty against the Scots. Only after the game did the smiling Wallaby admit what he had done. Thankfully sportsmanship still exists in snooker and golf, where players immediately admit if they have transgressed.
Malcolm Pithers
Wakefield, West Yorkshire
• Unlike Peter West, who has given up on rugby union because of the obscure laws, I have never warmed to the game, for the very same reason. What happened after Australia scored? The Scots were obliged to kick the ball back to them. Why? What is the purpose of the drop-out? Who knows what might have transpired if the Scots had been allowed possession for the remaining minute or so? Oh, silly me, until the ball went dead. They don’t even have the gumption to blow the whistle when time’s up.
Dennis Millar
Belfast
• Peter West in his letter makes a convincing case for rugby league football.
Richard Keane
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
