I know absolutely nothing about rugby (both codes), but when a World Cup is on and England are playing, I want to show some solidarity so half-reluctantly switch on to watch. I’m old enough to remember when rugby internationals were played 80 per cent of the time off the pitch, by that I mean players were allowed to boot the ball into touch from anywhere and everywhere, and did so.

Then came a rule where they could only find touch from inside their own 25 (or is it 22?), which certainly made the game more like, er, rugby rather than lower-league football (the booting into touch). Now I know what a ruck is, I am always getting into them with the missus, but how the ball is allowed to get out of a maul is completely beyond me.

But watching this World Cup is a frustrating experience. Because I don’t know the intricacies of the game, particularly the myriad of rules and regulations in the rucks and mauls, I don’t understand why things happen the way they do. I know all about the mores off the field, posh blokes from English public schools throwing each other's tweed jackets into the bath, farmers from the South African outback holding secret initiation ceremonies, and the whole population of  Wales singing hymns. But show me a line-out and it's like a metaphysical forum on medical ethics.

'The haka is a Maori interpretation of the line-out regulations. But no TV producer has the decency to provide sub-titles so we are left completely in the dark'


I know rugby is incredibly popular among aficionados who can explain in detail why a hand of a player standing diagonally to the nth degree of the hypotenuse of the scrum should not have touched the side of the ball with sponsor’s name on. But to an ordinary Joe like me who just wants to catch up with a World Cup game or two, it’s extremely frustrating. All I see are hand signals which would put a bookie at Kempton Park just out of an eight-month stretch to shame.

And having the referees ‘miked up’ does not help, either. First of all, you have to be able to hear what they are saying and have a further degree in comparative linguistics to understand accents that represent farming communities around the Commonwealth. And then, you have to understand the decision itself.

‘Red didn’t release the ball’. Really? I wonder why? Could the fact that eight blokes who push articulated lorries for a living have their knees on your neck, back and arms and pin you to the ball?

And worse still is when the referee engages in a running conversation while the ball is in play, rather like a driving instructor with a woman out on the dual carriageway for the first time. “Blue number 6, move back half a metre, red number 11, take your studs out of red number 3’s head.”  What use is any of this to those who don’t understand the bloody rules in the first place?

And when the referee has made his decision, there is a stony silence followed by an in-depth discussion as to how he could have reached it. “You know what, Brian,” (because in rugby everyone associated with the game is called Brian), “I think that’s a bit harsh. He was trying to get back onside but his left foot was perpendicular to the base line of the maul.”

Of course, there are moves to bring the game to the fans, and for that we have to thank the All Blacks, whose haka has nothing to do with imposing a psychological advantage over their opponents. Rather, it is a Maori interpretation of the line-out regulations. But no TV producer has the decency to provide sub-titles so we are left completely in the dark.

Ah, you say, but what about cricket with the LBW law, run-outs, stumpings, etc etc? Yes, that game too has a raft of technical data the viewer also needs, but there is a big difference to rugby. In cricket, the action takes place every minute and then stops so the TV experts have plenty of time to explain to the armchair fan what is happening and why. And in the main, on radio and TV, the commentators make the game really appealing to the fan who wants to enjoy and learn a bit about the game but who has not grown up on a remote farm in the Cape.

 Listening to the Rugby World Cup pundits is like some kind of Masonic policy meeting. All that’s missing is them wearing a small pinafore and giving each other strange handshakes while touching their noses.

Which leaves us with the universal truth that the only sport worth watching is football. It’s not a coincidence that it is the most popular sport in the world, the reason is that is extremely simple to follow (aside from the nuance of the offside rule and other issues like how Peter Reid ever got to play for England now and then). Yes, it’s true, the game is so easy to follow and enjoy that any old fool like me can follow and enjoy it. Billions do - and old fools who used to play talk about it non-stop and we can all understand what they are on about.

Unless rugby becomes more user-friendly, and allows old fools like me into its inner sanctum by easing up on the theory and giving us more of fast blokes running with the ball (the bit I like), then I can’t see how ordinary Joes will get to like, play and watch the game.

Do you find rugby difficult to follow? Post your comments below - or take Mark up on his word with an article of your own.