The global game of Rugby Union is perpetually attempting to accelerate, evolve, and refine its laws to match the increasing speed and intensity of play. However, according to recent statements by Brett Robinson, a prominent figure and former Vice-Chairman within the governance structure, the sport’s governing body, World Rugby, is operating under a 30-year-old framework that actively resists modernization. The critical accusation is not one of ill-will, but of legislative inertia caused by obsolete mechanical processes.
The 75% Obstacle: Gridlock by Design
The core of the structural paralysis, as identified by Robinson in a recent podcast, lies within the voting mechanism required to approve any significant rule modification. World Rugby mandates a minimum 75% majority for rule changes to pass. This extraordinarily high bar is designed to ensure stability and global consensus, but in practice, it transforms essential evolution into a political stalemate.
Robinson argues that this high threshold prevents the organization from adapting with the necessary velocity the modern game demands. When governing bodies represent diverse national interests—often divided along geographical and historical lines (Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere)—achieving a 75% agreement on nuanced technical adjustments becomes functionally impossible, even when the proposal benefits player safety or game fluidity.
The Absurdity of the Single Misclick
The most pointed and technically illustrative example of the system`s failure provided by Robinson involves a recent attempt to introduce a critical law change aimed at improving player safety and continuity: the potential ‘stoppage’ or modification of the laws around the ruck. This was a proposed trial period intended to gather essential data on effectiveness.
The proposal failed by the narrowest possible margin—a single vote. The failure itself was frustrating, but the subsequent discovery transformed the frustration into institutional critique: the deciding vote was reportedly cast incorrectly. A delegate pressed the “wrong button.”
“We have systems that simply do not work and do not allow us to react with the necessary speed,” Robinson noted. The fact that a critical, globally significant governance decision could be derailed by a minor human input error, compounded by a rigid voting structure that offers no immediate recourse, serves as a damning indictment of the entire process`s technical fragility and lack of redundancy.
The Delayed Implementation of the 20-Minute Red Card
Further evidence of this administrative drag is seen in the protracted debate surrounding the 20-minute red card. This law variation—which allows a permanently red-carded player to be replaced after 20 minutes, thereby ensuring the game remains competitive—has been trialed successfully in numerous high-profile competitions, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere. Its potential benefits for preserving the spectacle of the game are clear.
Yet, the official, global adoption of the rule has been agonizingly slow. Robinson expressed significant frustration regarding the delay, implying that resistance originated from legislative hurdles and cultural inertia, specifically pointing toward “some friends in the Northern Hemisphere” who required “better understanding” of the matter. This observation highlights the underlying friction where regional interpretations clash with necessary global standardization.
The slow pace of change means that World Rugby often lags behind the evolution occurring on the field. When rule changes—especially those concerning safety—take years to implement, the organization risks appearing reactive rather than proactive in safeguarding its athletes.
A Call for Modern Governance
Robinson’s critique is not a call for anarchy, but for modern, agile governance. The fundamental premise of the system—that change requires nearly total consensus—is fundamentally incompatible with a sport that demands rapid evolution in response to mounting injury concerns and competitive dynamics.
The current 30-year-old operational model treats law modification as a political upheaval rather than a technical necessity. To overcome this systemic paralysis, World Rugby must transition toward a structure where necessary rule trials and adjustments can be approved by a lower, yet still robust, threshold. If the organization cannot even withstand the consequences of a simple misclick without halting progress, then the system itself is the most dangerous opponent the modern game faces.
Gareth Fenton 
Percy Harlow