The rolling maul could be heading for rugby's chopping block, with fresh calls to ban the tactic ahead of the 2027 Rugby World Cup.

New Zealand rugby writer Paul Lewis has had enough after watching the All Blacks beat Scotland 43-21 at Murrayfield.

Five of the ten tries in the match came from rolling mauls, including two of Scotland's three.

The Springboks weren't much different. Five of their nine tries against Italy came from the same tactic.

Writing in the New Zealand Herald, Lewis described the rolling maul as an increasingly predictable part of the game.

"World Rugby should ban it," he declared.

That's quite a statement. Somewhere in South Africa, a forwards coach has probably just spat out his morning coffee.

But the rolling maul isn't the only thing under fire.

Former referee Nigel Owens wants fewer replacements, while we've got a few suggestions of our own.

Here are five changes that could shake up rugby before the next World Cup.

These are proposals, not confirmed law changes for 2027.

1. Ban the rolling maul

Let's start with the controversial one.

Lewis believes the rolling maul has become an ugly spectacle, with teams repeatedly kicking penalties into the corner before driving over.

He argues it gives attacking players an unfair advantage because defenders cannot tackle the ball carrier through the bodies in front.

Writing in the New Zealand Herald, he called it "an affront to the principles of the game".

As reported by SA Rugby Magazine, Lewis has also suggested alternatives to an outright ban, including limiting mauls to 30 seconds.

RUCK verdict: I'm not convinced we should ban it completely. A perfectly executed rolling maul is still a thing of beauty. Unless you're defending it, obviously.

There's also something wonderfully brutal about watching eight forwards march their opponents backwards.

But a 30-second limit? I'd happily give that a go.

2. Reduce replacements to five

Nigel Owens has been banging this drum for years.

The former Test referee believes eight replacements are too many and has suggested reducing the number to four or five.

As Owens has previously argued, rugby would benefit from players having to last longer rather than coaches relying so heavily on tactical substitutions.

The thinking is simple. Tired forwards create space, and space creates tries.

It's certainly not something Rassie Erasmus will be rushing to support.

South Africa's famous Bomb Squad has turned the replacements bench into a weapon. Some opponents spend 50 minutes surviving the starting pack, only to discover another collection of enormous Springboks warming up.

RUCK verdict: I'd go with five replacements, provided we protect players and allow appropriate injury cover.

There's something appealing about seeing a 120kg prop trying to chase down a winger after 75 minutes.

3. Ban the caterpillar ruck

This one drives me mad.

Few things in modern rugby look quite as ridiculous as six enormous forwards lining up behind a ruck.

It resembles the queue for a beer at Twickenham, except everyone is wearing gumshields and there's considerably less desire to move forward.

Meanwhile, the scrum-half stands at the back, carefully preparing his box kick.

By the time he finally puts boot to ball, you could have made a cup of tea.

World Rugby already requires the ball to be played within five seconds of the referee calling "use it".

But we'd go further.

We've previously called for an end to caterpillar rucks, and there's still a strong case for stopping teams adding extra bodies simply to extend the ruck and protect the kicker.

If the ball is available, play it.

RUCK verdict: Scrap the caterpillar. If you want to box kick, get on with it.

Nobody buys a ticket to watch a human centipede shuffle backwards.

4. Introduce an orange card

Rugby has already introduced the 20-minute red-card replacement into its laws.

But explaining the difference between the two types of red card to a casual supporter isn't particularly straightforward.

Our solution? An orange card.

An orange card would mean the offending player leaves permanently, but their team can introduce a replacement after 20 minutes.

A traditional red would mean no replacement for the rest of the match.

Same basic sanctions, different colours.

It would also make decisions much easier to understand for supporters watching at home.

Imagine explaining to somebody watching their first rugby match that two players have both received red cards, but only one team will be allowed to replace theirs.

Good luck with that.

RUCK verdict: Rugby has enough complicated laws without making people guess what a red card actually means.

Give the 20-minute sanction its own colour.

5. Stop the clock for scrum resets

I love a good scrum.

Eight forwards going head-to-head is part of what makes rugby special.

What I don't love is watching the same scrum collapse four times while the clock keeps ticking.

Crouch. Bind. Set. Collapse.

Repeat until everyone has forgotten why the scrum was awarded in the first place.

Our suggestion is simple.

After the first reset, stop the match clock until the ball goes in.

Referees would still have the authority to manage scrums safely, but teams wouldn't benefit from repeated resets eating away valuable seconds.

It's something worth trialling before the next World Cup.

RUCK verdict: Keep the scrum. Keep the contest.

Just stop letting two packs of forwards turn the final five minutes into a committee meeting.

What would you change?

Rugby doesn't need reinventing every five minutes.

Some of its greatest strengths are the things that make it different from other sports.

But that doesn't mean we should accept everything simply because we've always done it that way.

Personally, I'd start with the caterpillar ruck and scrum clock.

The rolling maul can stay for now. Although I reserve the right to change my mind the next time somebody scores three identical tries from five metres out.

Which of these five changes would you introduce before the 2027 Rugby World Cup?