WORLD Rugby has announced that its "quadrennial laws review process has kicked off" in an attempt to improve the game globally for both spectators and players alike.

But will tweaking and tinkering with what are often perceived as complex laws really make all that much of a difference?

Unlike football, rugby has resisted calling itself a 'beautiful' game. Yet at its best the sport can make for a thrilling spectacle as evidenced by the England-France match on the last day of this year's RBS 6 Nations Championship.

However, the four previous rounds of the championship were quite the opposite, often producing dreary matches that were not worth the huge sums of money now charged for these hyped-up encounters. Back in February, France defeated Scotland by kicking five penalties, while the Scots provided the only try of the match.

Two of France's five penalties awarded that day were converted into points arose from scrum 'offences'. Now ask any rugby spectator, coach, or player about why scrum penalties occurred and you will be met with a look of incomprehension.

Yet nothing radical appears to be on World Rugby's agenda for this frustrating area of the game other than the "LRG [Law Representation Group] has recommended that the specialist scrum steering group reconvenes to consider strategies to improve scrum duration and completion rates."

What about a really different approach to the scrum? How about the rule-makers abolish penalties for scrum infringements altogether and instead they award free kicks? International games are now won or lost simply because a prop is weaker than his opponent and is subsequently punished. Disparity in strength between individual players is what usually causes a scrum to collapse despite there being an onus on the 'stronger' prop to prevent such an outcome. Would you penalise a winger for being slower than his opposite number?

Another area of contention is the rolling maul, which under the current laws is almost impossible to stop and which in the eyes of many is plain obstruction. Six years ago, Scotland was one of several unions asked to trial experimental laws. One such rule change which was allowing the maul to be taken down. Contrary to the fears of the law-makers, no injuries occurred and in conjunction with less strict rules of engagement at the breakdown, the game speeded up considerably. Sadly these trials never went beyond the experimental stage.

If the rolling maul has to remain part of the game then one way round the dilemma would be to insist that the ball must be carried at the front of the maul, thus making it a fairer competition for defenders.

Another way of dealing with the maul is to reduce the opportunities for it to occur. The most frequent use of the maul is from a penalty created line-out, but this could change if the gain from penalty kicks to touch were to be only territorial. In other words the opposition would have the throw-in.

Yesterday's statement from World Rugby states that "the LRG will further consider proposals regarding the tackle, ruck and maul with a view to maintaining a fair contest for possession while also enhancing player welfare."

Will this result in defending teams being able to secure ball more easily after the tackle and prevent the endless pick-and-drive tactic used either to 'wind down' the clock or make metre-by-metre 'progress' up the field as Heriot's infamously did through 66 phases against Hawick in the Cup semi final?

Rugby League has been able to address its weaknesses. Union, perhaps, should take note.