By Spiro Zavos
April 9th 2008 @ 12:28am
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
The ELVs should have been introduced in 1895
The ELVs, the experimental law variations being trialled in the 2008 Super 14 tournament, should have been introduced in 1895.
The laws of rugby union were quickly evolving from 1871 to 1895 to turn the game from a predominately scrumming game to a passing game.
But when the Great Split in rugby occurred in England in 1895 with the Northern League (later to become the Rugby League) breaking away from the Rugby Football Union (the England rugby union), this progression in rugby came to a virtual stop.
From 1895 right up to the present day, the rugby union laws have been locked into the scrumming mentality of the diehards of 1895. This has prevented rugby from realising its full potential as a passing game.
This provocative and, in my opinion, essentially accurate argument, was made by Dr Tony Collins, professor of the social history of sport at Leeds Metropolitan University.
His important book, ‘A Social History of English Rugby Union,’ will be published by Routledge in March 2009.
At a Rugby Conference hosted by the Boston University Sydney Internship Program, Dr Collins presented a challenging paper titled ‘Kick Jonny, Kick: or why English rugby is still living in the 1880s.’
The gist of Dr Collins’ argument is that by 1871, a year after the first international between Scotland and England, and eleven years after the first laws of rugby had been drafted, the game was essentially a scrumming game. Teams were 20-a-side, with fifteen forwards and five backs. Forwards and backs played rather like a soccer formation, with three fullbacks.
The game was predominantly played with the foot. Handling was rare. Players could mark the ball on the full (as in Australian Rules) and run on with it. But they couldn’t run with the ball if it was caught on the bounce.
The game essentially was one long scrum. The purpose of the scrum was not to heel the ball out, but to propel the ball forward in a sort of driving wedge, as in gridiron.
Often, the central forward held the ball between his legs and was driven forward by his pack and hacked mercilessly by the opposition pack.
Successful goal kicks were the only way of scoring points, either from the field (the modern drop goal) or after a ‘try’ had been scored. The try allowed a side to kick for goal.
It became clear to the RFU, the governing body of rugby in England and worldwide through its control of the IRB up to 1949, that the 1861 laws were problematical.
Men were much stronger than schoolboys, and because of this, the laws written by schoolboys were distorting the rugby game into a srumming-only game, with scrums lasting up to ten minutes at a time.
The game was static and monotonous at the very time when it was spreading rapidly throughout England. The spread was at its most intense in Yorkshire and Lancashire, where the mining communities with their intense tribalism took to the game.
There were criticisms in these communities about the static nature of the game and the injuries the incessant scrumming was creating.
In 1875, rugby became a 15-a-side game. This change started the revolution to the modern rugby game.
The usual formation now was ten forwards and five backs. The reduced number of forwards meant that the long scrumming mauls became shorter as the ball spilled away from the melee more frequently.
Forwards began to put their heads down in the scrums, looking for the ball. Before this all the scrumming had been done with the heads up.
It was considered ‘not sporting,’ ‘ungentlemanly’, and a mark of cowardice to put your head down and look for the ball, and then try to hook it back to the backs. There was also the issue of whether hooking back or raking back was actually legal. The thought was that the forwards in the pack in front of the ball would be put off-side.
In 1871, hacking was outlawed. Hacking was the blatant kicking of an opponent’s shins to force him to back away from the scrumming contest.
But there was a conceptual and playing problem involved around the question of what should be done when the ball came loose from the rolling scrums and melees.
If you passed it out, you actually needed more backs to make this tactic effective. So the position of Wing Forward was created. This position played on the fringes of the scrums and melees. It was essentially a defensive ploy. The Wing Forward tried to disrupt the ball coming out from the forwards and being passed out to the outside backs by the half-backs.
By the 1880s, passing by the backs became a tactic that opened rugby up. Around the same time, the working classes in the north of England and in Wales became the dominant force in the game, over the Public School old boys living mainly in London.
Rugby had become a game for all the classes.
The working classes, now coming to dominate the game on and off the field, had a different perspective on what the rugby game should be from the PS old boys.
For them rugby was first and foremost a passing game, not a scrumming game.
So, in the north of England and in Wales, developments in playing style and the allocation of positions followed the logic of the passing game ideology.
Yorkshire created the wing forward position. Wales augmented the old three fullbacks alignment with a new four-quarters aligment - fullback, two wings and a centre three-quarter.
With these developments opening up play, there were calls for tries to be awarded points. The chairman of the RFU opposed these calls on the grounds that you only needed to be fast to score tries but kicking goal required all the rugby skills. (I interrupt Dr Collins’ argument as this point to note that this inane notion is eerily reminiscent of similar statements by RFU ‘old farts’ and some UK rugby writers to this day).
In 1892, England finally adopted the four-quarters back system pioneered by Wales, and crushed Wales in a memorable victory.
There was a lot of talk about turning rugby into a 13-a-side game. And in New Zealand, a 14-a-side game, seven forwards and seven backs, was proposed.
But all this talk about modernising rugby and continuing the process of turning it into a passing game rather than a scrumming game was curtailed by the 1895 Split, when the unions of Yorkshire and Lancashire, the strongest and most dynamic (in terms of thinking about the game) unions, were thrown out of the RFU.
The RFU became the dominant force in world rugby and its diehard scrumming ideals prevailed.
Arthur Budd, the chairman of the RFU at this time, said that “heeling out should be banned,” There was similar derogatory comments that the opening up of rugby was turning it into a ‘handball’ game.
Dr Collins then made the argument that the reform process of turning rugby into a passing game rather than a scrumming game, stopped by the RFU, was carried on by the rugby league officials.
In 1906, rugby league became a 13-a-side game. Tries are awarded three points, and goals two points. The lineout was abolished. “And so the evolutionary line in rugby from 20 to 15 players was continued by the rugby league clubs in the north of England.”
The 1905 All Blacks, who created the modern rugby game on their historic tour of the UK and France (losing only to Wales), played rugby that resembled the game played by the north of England rugby league clubs.
I would add a further gloss here. The 1905 All Blacks were assailed by English officials and reporters as being ‘cheats,’ an accusation that is still made over a century later by know-nothing officials and journalists.
In 1932, the RFU/IRB outlawed the Wing Forward, a position played by New Zealand sides with great success. The New Zealand scrum formation of 2-3-2 (the famous diamond scrum) was banned too.
With this decision, the calls from New Zealand for rugby to be a 14-a-side game were finally stopped.
My comment on this synopsis of Dr Collins’ argument is that, firstly, rugby union has down well to retain the lineout and the notion of the continual contest for the ball as being an unifying principle of the game.
The lineout and contested scrums provide contests where different body shapes have their advantages. With these contests, the notion that rugby union is democratic in terms of body shapes is reinforced.
But the main thrust of Dr Collins’ argument that the momentum towards a passing game was stopped in 1895 is well-made.
The arguments that were raised in favour of the drawn-out and monotonous, interminable scrumming in 1895 are still being made in England, predominantly, 113 years later.
In my view this historical survey of the laws of rugby destroys the argument that the ELVs are taking rugby to places that it should never be taken to.
On the contrary, as the history of the game reveals, the ELVs essentially pick up the modernising trend that was stupidly turned back in 1895.
The proponents of the ELVs are in the tradition of shaping the modern rugby game.
The opponents of the ELVs are linked with the old farts of 1895 who believed that scoring tries and passing the ball was not in the real DNA of the rugby game.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(30)
westy said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:13am | Report comment
Dr. Collins work interests me very much.It is my view from a perusal of early rugby converts that League in 1908 /9 was more of a running and passing game than Union at the time. I know I may harp on Spiro but many of the Parent’s supporters in Nsw and of the recalcitrant child secretly keep an eye on each other and have more in common than the superficial social differences perpetuated by both sides. League has had a profound impact on how NSW anyway has played the running game in rugby and even the early All Blacks . Rugby players have also been the innovators of change in League with second phase play by forwards slipping passes such as Thornett., Mossop, Brass’s exquisite passing abilityand Bellamy’s players in motion attack the sidesteps of Fairfax and kicking of Branson and Hawthorne. They were after all originally Rugby players.Both codes can cope with the AFL threat if they recognise their historical roots. It will be a sad day if rugby becomes even more elite and league loses its way. On reflection the Northern Counties were right to force the passing game its just class bigotry got in the way of statemanship in remerging the game. This had a profound impact on rugby in Australia which was more egalitarian in nature . The Australian split should of been easily resolved but was left to rugby officials more concerned with what their masters in England thought of them.References to League being a nine week wonder were sadly misplaced, By 1914 League was here to stay with rising crowds and player support. I do hold early Australian Rugby officials responsible . They did not understand their own players or their needs, their backgrounds ,who really did not have the hangups of the RFU. Check some of the statements of the RFU at the time. Nice people.! I am still trying to figure out why any yorkshire boy fought in WW1. That some of these RFU sentiments were propagated by narrow minded NSW Rugby officials in a completely different social environment killed of any reapproachment. Oh for a Kerry Packer.I am not sure what Australian Rugby would do if the vast tribal heartland of the prodigal son came home.
Fireside Bob said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:56am | Report comment
Well, you could always look at fast-tracking the reforms by simply taking up the rules of rugby league.
Dublin Dave said | April 9th 2008 @ 2:42am | Report comment
First off: What a fantastic job it must be to be “Professor of the Social History of Sport” as Tony Collins apparently is! If I had known that such jobs existed when I was a little boy, it’s what I would like to have grown up to become.
I am fascinated by the social history of rugby, not least in my own country where there truly is a story to tell. But what Professor Collins appears to be writing about, if Spiro’s synopsis is faithful to his thesis, is a technical, not a social, history of the game. ie it is concerned with HOW the game is played, not by WHOM and in what context.
Certainly social aspects can influence technical aspects and vice versa. There is no doubt that the fundamental question causing of the split between union and league was a social one: namely, was it contrary to the spirit of the game and indeed sport in general to pay players to play?
But to imply, as you did, that the split was between those that wanted to pass the ball and those who wanted the game to be a long drawn out scrum is disingenuous in the extreme.
I look forward to reading Mr Collins’ book when it comes out to ascertain how quickly league moved to remove rucks and mauls from their game. The unkind would say that in pre TMO days, it was not possible to have a professional game where one’s livelihood depended on the outcome if it offered such ample opportunity to inflict injury on an oppponent.
So was it not a case of the social issue (pay for play) influencing the technical one (how do we play this game) rather than a fairy-tale notion that the good honest happy peasants wanted to play a game of unconfined athletic delight whereas the evil wealthy stepfathers in control wanted to restrict them to a game of graft and toil to prevent them getting ideas above their station?
As usual when somebody is quoting history to drive a modern day agenda, there is some cavalier treatment of the facts. To start with a minor error, rugby was still a 20 a side game in 1875. The first two England Ireland internationals (the second oldest international fixture) in 75 and 76 were 20 a side affairs. It was not until 1877 (when Ireland Scotland fixtures were added, that the sides were reduced to 15 players.
The Lions did not want to ban the “wing forward” position, as it is understood today. It’s rugby league that has no wing forwards. What the Lions obected to New Zealand doing was using the position of “Rover” ie an additional scrum half who floated around at the side of a scrum to either stifle a running attack or take a pass to initiate one himself. They regarded this as flouting the off side laws and demanded a unified interpretation of the laws on both sides of the globe. For the same reason, they demanded a unified approach to the number of players in the front row of a scrum. When I was a kid, I was told that the only restriction on the number of players in a scrum was that there had to be three in each front row. Period. What’s wrong with one law for all?
The Rover position was the most controversial as it was felt that the All Blacks were flouting the spirit if not the letter of the law. On just about every tour the All Blacks have made since, they have found some law that is either ill policed or ambiguously worded so that they can exploit it and cause confusion. In 1967, it was obstruction in the lineout. In the 90s, it was “crossing” and “pass interference”. On the 2005 Lions tour it was numbers in the lineout. It’s no surprise to know that this was just the continuance of a long tradition.
It’s quite clear from his preamble that Spiro is not listening to the arguments put forward by those who are sceptical about the ELVs. Rather than confront their (our) arguments he simply decides upon the neanderthal arguments he wishes we would put forward and then skilfully deconstructs them. It is rather easy, after all, to destroy something that hasn’t been made in the first place.
Find me ONE example of anybody today saying that the game should contain “drawn-out and monotonous, interminable scrumming”. (your words) There are none.
You will find many people saying that the game should not become a “drawn-out and monotonous, interminable succession of recycling the ball from a breakdown containing as few as three or four players into a midfield of ponderous slow moving forwards who will just bash into each other all day like dodgems at a bank holiday fairground until eventually somebody is hit so hard that they drop the ball and the holy grail of “The Turnover” is achieved.”
There. I just said it.
I want to see a game where the contest for possession at breakdown can be of such intensity that you have no option but to commit players to it. If the opposition doesn’t want to do that, they get driven back behind their own line. If they do commit, then there is space out wide for the wonderful game of passing, elusive running and sheer pace and courage that rugby union has ALWAYS been.
No matter what Professor Collins says.
Ian Noble said | April 9th 2008 @ 5:36am | Report comment
Spiro
I took the opportunity to find Tony Collins web site @ Leeds Met
http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/carnegie/tcollins.htm
I not sure you will be able to download his inaugural lecture but it is very interesting and covers the amateurism and professional debate in the 1890’s. During which he mentions Tom Wills who was the instigator of Aussie Rules and how he adapted the union game, followed by American and Canadian Football and subsequently League.
Personally I am not sure about your contention that ELV’s should have been introduced in 1895 or are you really intimating that union should not exist and the changes implemented by the the Northern Rugby Union which eventually became the Rugby League that is 13 man rugby, no lineouts, etc should have been universally accepted.
Frankly thank god they were not as the game of union is now more popular world wide game than league and with the onset of professional at the elite level is generating more income and crowds than ever before. League is really struggling to compete, but to be frank it doesn’t need to as it has it’s loyal fan base and will find it’s level which will be considerably below the potential of the union game.
By the way as you will note from his lecture he comes from a league background, although I felt his presentation was well balanced.
The Reiver said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Spiro………For once we agree on something !!!
“The proponents of the ELVs are in the tradition of shaping the modern rugby game.
The opponents of the ELVs are linked with the old farts of 1895 who believed that scoring tries and passing the ball was not in the real DNA of the rugby game.”
I concur:
Any bunch of old farts that would refuse to take up the true ELV’s when asked, should be pilloried in every corner of the Rugby loving world.
Even a cowardly compromise of only taking those ELV’s that suits them should be seen as an utter disgrace.
Collapse the undefendable maul that bores everyone rigid……………NEVER
Call anyone in front of the ball at a maul offside or obstructing………NEVER
Handle the ball in a ruck to try and free it up quicker…………………….NEVER
Allow a player to track back and make a tackle in open play…………NEVER (long live the - penalty - try count)
Baffle the whole sodding world with relentless Free Kicks…………. ABSO - bloody - LUTELY
You can almost hear the old farts in Twickers, spitting out their G & T’s in disgust at the thought of such heracy.
But hang on a minute, it wasn’t the RFU that knobbed this up though was it ?
I don’t see many broadsides being fired at SANZAR’s lack of backbone in any of your articles. But you are correct, we should clutch at straws and have a go at the RFU of 1895. It makes perfect sense to do so.
SANZAR was given the task of trialling the full ELV’s and they bottled it, ran away, dived for cover. Why have a go at them for retarding the experiment by 12 months.
And to think that us poor uneducated rugby third worlders (because we are so sub standard up here) saw the whole ELV thing as a political act of conspiracy solely for the benefit of a badly organised and shoddily run union. Shame on us all.
Even now, when SARU the most successful union of recent years (does success breeds contempt ?) has been told it’s having the ELV’s and been given no compromise option. We are still so ill informed as to cry foul.
Please forgive us our poor, misguided, 1895 Victorian ways. We are wrong to be suspicious of anything so half arsed as this.
But then again, seeing as most of this has originated from the aforementioned badly organised and shoddily run union, with the assistance of its even greater incompetant bosses, we must see it as being par for the course and forgive accordingly.
Jim Boyce said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Spiro - Good one and the various observations are excellent. The book sounds great and thanks to Ian Noble I will look at the website material.
As I understand it various forms of football emerged out of the private schools , many of which have been maintained as curiosities perculiar to those schools e.g Harrow and Eton. The football played at Rugby evolved into the present game. I would be interested in the observations of The Roar participants as to the mindset that underlay those games and whether it is still very much alive ie the game is not so much a running game but a one of forced possession being rewarded by a point denoting periodic superiority throughout the game. I haven’t expressed this very well but it has fascinated me as to how games decided by penalty kicks seem to be acknowledged as worthwhile by some quarters in England.This thinking seems contrary to the ELVs which is focussed on running with the ball and the scoring of tries.
sheek said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
In his excellent book, ‘The Rugby Rebellion; Pioneers of Rugby League’, Sean Fagan has a section on early rugby league rules (1895-1908), which I will paraphrase. This of course, relates to the creation of the Northern Union in Britain in 1895/96, & creation of rugby league in Australia & NZ in 1907/08, & the evolution of early rugby league law changes.
1895/96 - Proposals to abandon lineout & reduce playing numbers rejected. Halfbacks to retire behind scrum.
1896/97 - Mandatory for ball to be placed into scrum on same side as where ref is standing. Deliberate knock-on penalised by free-kick instead of scrum.
1897/98 - All goals reduced to 2 points, & tries given value of 3 points. The line-out option was replaced by the kick-in, which of course, is now replaced by the tap.
1899/1900 - Kick-off from converted try (or drop kick from unconverted try), moved from defender’s 25m to halfway. RU’s “play the ball” replaced with scrum (more on this at the end).
1900/01 - Penalty for obstructing the kicker (after he kicked the ball) now taken where the ball landed, not where the offence occurred. No longer allowed to charge the goal-kicker. 12 a side teams trialled.
1901/02 - Scrum for when player crossing into touch with ball. Kick-in still used where ball was kicked out. Knock-on rule amended to allow player to juggle ball & retrieve without it being called a knock-on. Key was as long as ball didn’t touch ground.
1902/03 - Kick-in abolished. Scrums now mandatory to restart play from ball going out, either in hand, or by foot.
1903/04 - 12 a side again trialled. Kicking out on full penalised at the point of kick by player. Only penalty kicks could cross touchline on full.
1904/05 - All comps except NU senior professional teams adopt 12 a side. Max 3 players in front-row. Knock-on further amended to allow opposition to continue play if they picked up/kicked ball from offending player.
1906/07 - 13 a side adopted for all (future) league teams. Modern play-the-ball introduced.
A startling revelation by Fagan, is that the rugby league “play-the-ball” was not an innovation, but actually taken from rugby union. Apparently, as the game of rugby union was played in the late 1800s, after every tackle, & the player was held, & a scrum was formed. The play-the-ball actually replaced the need for continuous, ad-naeseum scrums!!!
Rucking was rare, & mauls restricted to the in-goals!!! So, if Fagan is right, by irony of ironies, league is closer to the way rugby was played in the late 1800s, than union!!! Furthermore, Fagan asserts, union went on its own divergent course after the 1895 split, becoming the “scrummaging” game Spiro mentions. But I need to read up more on Fagan’s explanations here.
They say in war, truth is the first casualty. Unfortunately, in the union-league “war”, neither side is exemplary in their handling of the “truth”. I have come to the conclusion however, & have done a 180 degree turn, that league has as much right as union to call itself rugby.
Furthermore, any true “rugby” fan should keep an open mind as to where either/both codes will end up in the future. Meanwhile, I suggest, “vive la difference”! When we watch union &/or league, we watch two brothers playing from the same parents.
The Cougar said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:12am | Report comment
If the socio-economic clash between the two codes is analysed even further (probably a lot further than it needs to be), then I think there’s a bizarre contradiction in terms of retaining possession.
In rugby league, keeping the ball (in contact at least) doesn’t require the assistance of a teammate. Conversely, the retention of the pill in the tackle in rugby union absolutely demands the help of teammates, either in the ruck or maul, to recycle possession.
Isn’t this incongruous in terms of the “class clash”?
The traditional “capitalist pigs” that played rugby union are meant to fundamentally have an individualistic, selfish, “every man for himself” mindset that doesn’t rely on others to prosper.
The proletariat’s ethos of mateship, brotherhood and support isn’t required in maintaining possession in their “chosen game” of rugby league.
I think I may have taken this historical and social analysis too far…
sheek said | April 9th 2008 @ 10:23am | Report comment
The Cougar - love it!
God (or is it The Force???) has a wonderful sense of irony, & loves twisting our human minds inside out until we go crazy. I’m sure he/she/it uses irony for his/her/it’s own amusement!
Adrian Stoop said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
I didn’t realise there was this little industry of rugby and football historians out there. I enjoyed Tony Collins talk (thanks Ian Noble for the link). I found some of the stuff on Fagan’s web site interesting. He talks about how rugby was played in the 19th century with NFL style downs here http://www.colonialrugby.com.au/old-school.htm and also refers to there being film footage of NU games from 1903. I’d like to see that!
Chas said | April 9th 2008 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Spiro:
In spite of your obvious deep bias against RL are you admitting that if The Northern Union had not come into existence then the RU we know today would be just like today’s RL? The consideration of the ELVs is surely an admission that RL is a far better game. Read Tony Collins’ “Rugby’s Great Split”.
This is certainly not the first (or second or third…….) time that RU has borrwed/ stolen rules from RL in the last 50 years.
LeftArmSpinner said | April 9th 2008 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Geez, All these rugby historians and their history. It is the first I have ever heard of them. It struck me that all of this wonderful history is not as well known as say, cricket or golf history. Over to you Spiro
ROB said | April 9th 2008 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
The game needs some tinkering around the edges but the big turnoff for many is the incomprehensible ” laws” of the breakdown. Most people can understand what is generally a fairly simple game except for that area . Bring back rucking and no hands in the ruck. It will stop players laying over the ball, it will stop referees blowing it up every 2nd breakdown and it will add a dimension to the game that spectators and players want but can’t admit to because it is politically incorrect.
tongstar said | April 9th 2008 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
thanks for the history lesson. absolutely enthralling.
chas - can you explain how the elv’s relate to league?
even with no league the elv’s would still be a important part of rugby development. all games seek to improve over time, and as such the laws will change. this could be due to changes in public perceptions - e.g. introduction of laws to improve safety of participants - or changes in playing tactics - e.g. exploitation of loopholes in exiting laws - or simply to make officiating games easier.
I have no desire for union to become league. aside from structural differences - competitive scrums, lineouts, space on the field (15 vs 13 players) - the major difference is encapsulated in the word ‘continuity’.
league is stop start with limits placed on possession, and basically no contest in the contact zone.
union is also stop start in terms of phases, but if a team is good enough they can retain possession endlessly. to stop one team hoggin theball there is contest at the breakdown.
the laws of rugby are mainly about regulating the contest for possession. the elv’s are designed to modify the contest. e.g. extra 5m defensive line behind scrums modfies the time and space and hence number of defenders for the attacking players to navigate.
I might have some doubts about all the elv’s, but i’m sick of the rubbish ppl spout about elv’s being an aru/nzru driven ploy. that is nonsense. go have a look at all the unions around the globe. i’m sure the asian unions are big fans, and so is wales and france!
tongstar said | April 9th 2008 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
sorry. one more comment.
totally agre rob about rucking.
I don’t get ‘poltically correct’ ideas anyway… so i’ve no problem with rucking…at least the boys will actually start to look tough again for the chicks
cosmos forever said | April 9th 2008 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
Cougar - the ridiculously over rated (and weighted) points of a field goal, generally kicked by someone who hasn’t put in at the coal face ensures Rugby retains it’s links to the capitalist pigs!
Gordon said | April 9th 2008 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
A few points:
The Rugby League was never called “the Northern League” as this article claims. It was called “the Northern Union”. The name “rugby league” is of Australian origin and wasn’t adopted in the UK until much later.
You incorrectly categorised American football as having “wedge” maneouvres. These are illegal in American football and have been since about 1905.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Rugby Unions were not kicked out of the RFU following the split. The soon-to-be rugby league clubs left the RFU and rugby union continued to be played in Yorkshire and Lancashire on a much reduced level.
You focused on the emergence of positions and differing attitudes to the scrum but I find it odd that you neglected to mention New Zealand’s use of a “rover” which caused huge controversy when on tour in England.
westy said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
I am with Sheek. I have aggressively pursued with some substance that the distance between Australian Rugby and League has never been as insurmountable as promoted by people with other agendas. It is difficult to argue that there is something attractive about the way League has historically run its club competition. It has more to it than being professional as League from 1908 to 1980’s was at best semi professional. I have always supported the Wallabies and rugby but have always had my League team. They at any rate in NSW and QLD seem more inclusive and closer to ordinary people than rugby. It is this that saddens me in that in the early days we may have been able to develop a sport with an international dimension close to the general population ’s heart as in New Zealand and classless in nature. That rugby should lose communities that are inherently of a rugby nature to league in Western Sydney is galling to say the least. The problem is not with the players or even the commentators but with the people who have administered rugby in NSW. I know it was not easy but they have been abysmal in growing the game amongst the general population and now seem to be in the hands of one club who has no relevance to rest of the country. If Sydney University ever become one of Sydney’s representatives in a national club competition that is the end for me .
TommyM said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
cosmos forever.
Interesting political connotation suggested with the 3-point penalty there. Not sure about that, I absolutely believe that a penalty goal (and a drop goal for that matter) should be reduced to 2 points. This would have an enormous impact on the way teams play- attacking in an attempt to score tries would be a far more attractive prospect and it would eliminate the deathly penalty kicking duels that have marred so many games (especially World Cup finals) in recent years.
On the ELVs- they’re not perfect, as are not the current laws, and I think the point is that we must be always trying to improve the game with small changes should they seem beneficial (while maintaining its essential fabric). Currently, hands in the ruck to slow down the ball is a significant problem IMO in the S14 as it has been relegated to a free-kick offence. I think the answer as many others have suggested is to bring back rucking. Or perhaps a 3 strikes policy i.e if a team gives away three free-kicks in one half for hands in ruck, the third becomes a full arm. Similarly if it very cynical (or clearly impedes an attacking try opportunity) a full arm should be awarded. This IS already happening sometimes in the S14, but there is no consistency between referees and so some games have descended into a farce of dozens upon dozens of free kicks
Andrew said | April 9th 2008 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
lol. i didn’t read the article, too long. i don’t give two hoots about rugbys popularity, i loved it the way it was last year and i still love it. some of the elv’s are good, and some are atrocious. One thing I would LOVE to see is rucking brought back in, an easy simple way too clear rucks quicker (and speed the game up), and a proper punishment for deliberate not rolling away. Provided that clear stomping is punished, i don’t see what the problem is. This is (was) a tough game and rucking should always a part of that.
Ian Noble said | April 9th 2008 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
spiro
This comment appeared on the RFU web site
“Elite Referees Manager elect Ed Morrison outlined that the RFU were formulating a position on the Experimental Law Variations currently being trialled in the Southern Hemisphere from both the elite and community ends of the game in England. This would then form part of a Six Nations consensus on ELVs to the International Rugby Board for it’s meeting on 1st May 2008.
Morrison said: “We don’t want to lose many of the many facets of the game that make it unique but to look at our game and say nothing needs to change is naïve. However, we have concerns on the ELVs regarding the sanctions*, the lineout and collapsing the maul and I am sure that other unions around the world share those.”
By the way sanctions refers to the infringements which are dealt with either by free kick or penalty, the lineout and collasping the maul are pretty self explanatory. I suspect there will be alot of discussion behind closed doors between unions as a consensus of opinion begins to evolve.
LeftArmSpinner said | April 10th 2008 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Gentlemen, If political correctness and over zealous, uninformed mums are the problem, consider this: Up until a certain age, (the age when Boys makes their own decisions to play rugby) say U14 and below, rucking is illegal.
In U15’s and above, rucking to remove a player so as to get to the ball becomes legal. This excludes the rucking the head and stomping. Both receive an immediate Red card.
ROB said | April 10th 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
LeftArm spinner.Why not? We have a similar concept with scrums under the age of 19. Lets keep the ideas rolling.
FormerFlanker said | April 10th 2008 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Well put Andrew - rucking will prevent players using their hands to slow down the ball. Rucking and mauling are separate and crucial arts for rugby players. If we continue to allow “hands in the ruck” then we will continue to have multiple penalty options for the ref to blow, because so many players end up on the deck fighting for possession. Side-line specttors don’t know why penalties have been given under the current ELVs. I am also concerned that a player who is legally bridging over the ball offers a stationary target for the opposition to slam into - with his feet planted firmly the easiest part of his body to give in contact will be the neck. So…if we legalise rucking more skills will be needed, spectators will have a better understanding of refs decisions, and potential for neck injuries will decrease.
PB said | May 6th 2008 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner,
Sorry, but what you said is plain wrong:
1. There is no law variation that occurs in ANY regard in U15s. Not Mini, Midi or anything else. The laws don’t change until U19s.
2. Rucking a player has NEVER been allowed - in the ‘good old days’ most referees turned a blind eye.
I’ve refereed the game for over 10 years - seniors and U19s. We were always trained that all players had
a duty of care not to injure their opponent. If a player is obstructing the passage of the ball, then he is penalised - by the referee, and it is certainly not for any player to take the law into his hands, or his boots.
LeftArmSpinner said | May 7th 2008 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
PB, you need to get a faster processor and internet connection. I posted that weeks ago. Also, you missed the point. My contrib. was a suggestion on future rules, not a statement of fact on current rules.
Ever been rucked, or more importantly, ever been in a position where you could be at risk of being rucked? self preservation becomes priority 1: You get out of the way. Stud grazes heal but they are sufficient to ensure that you don’t do it again.
PS: I too have been a ref, in the 70’s and 00’s. Safety is paramount and hence the severity of my sanction of red cards for thugs and head kickers.
Andrew said | May 8th 2008 @ 12:26am | Report comment
PB, of course players have a duty of care towards their opponents, and if players are trained correctly they will show this respect towards fellow players. Rucking, for me however, was always part of the game, and in my experience was never undertaken in consistently sinister fashion, bar exceptions - as there ALWAYS ARE. I feel (you may disagree), that rucking does not constitue a lack of care.
This can probably be put down to my experience, turning to nostalgia, as a relatively small half back, i gave my share of “careful scrapes” and was quite shocked one saturday afternoon to find that I had trapezed myself over the ruck onto the wrong side the shitheap, thus finding myself under the feet of a rather large samoan lad with an 8 on his back (I had been scared to tackle him all game). The six marks left on my thigh were quite a sight to behold, and I was quite pertubed (or fucking pissed off), however, I played out the game and was pleasantly surprised at the end of the game, to see ’said samoan lad’ coming over to shake my hand and ask how my leg was with genuine care, with his coach at his side guiding affairs. The sign of respect was a nice gesture, and no ill feelings were kept. This is something I am certain is still common practice in the rugby fraternity and is something that allows things like rucking to occur in a proper fashion. I’ve gone on a slight tangent here, (bringing up old memories).
Time to vent at league now. I find it hard to accept that some followers of rugby league, cheer and hoot when a player gets elbowed or shouldered in the head, and remark “it’s a mans game”. Yet these same people look down upon rucking as aggressive behaviour. My personal opinion is that the shoulder charge in league is GUTLESS, however exciting the hits may be, expecially when a defender has hold of someone legs and the other comes over the top. There is a difference between tackling tough and thrusting the point of your shoulder into someone. Karmichael Hunt’s deliberate shoulder into another player’s head left me disgusted when his teammates vibrantly cheered him on and patted him on the back (he did not once show any interest in the wellbeing of the player he just hit in the head, GUTLESS), this also occured with Rodney Blake and his teammates in a recent game, also GUTLESS.
Anyway, BRING BACK RUCKING! (although watch people target Richie McCaw, best player ever!)
Andrew said | May 8th 2008 @ 12:28am | Report comment
Oh, and to the statement that rucking has never been allowed, rubbish. LOOK AT EVERY TEST MATCH IN THE NINTIES!
Andrew said | May 8th 2008 @ 12:32am | Report comment
Oh, and I rescind my Richie McCaw statement, JOSH KRONFELD was the bee knees! guess where i’m from?
Chris said | June 13th 2008 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Having just watched Dr Collin’s lecture (thanks for the link Ian), I agree with you that the EVLs should have been introduced in 1895. However… (this will take me a while to get to my point, so bear with me)… as we all know the split in Rugby came about because of professionalism versus amateurism and to a lesser degree because the Northern Union wanted to simplify the game. According to Dr Collin’s the rise of soccer in the UK occurred whilst the RFU and the Northern Union fought over these issues. Soccer was successful because it became professional and was more appealing to play at a top level. One would imagine that the players were able to focus on their games more and improve the quality of the game and hence why the crowds at FA cup matches soared.
Travel around the world to Australia a decade or so later. Australian Rules (Victorian Rules) is still trying to make inroads into NSW. Union is staying true to the ‘Mother country’ and following the laws it stipulates. The game is less appealing to spectators and players because it’s complex and slow. League arrives on the scene offering professionalism and a somewhat faster paced game. Had League not arrived, I’m afraid that over time, the people of NSW would have moved to Australian Rules and left Union. I have played both Union and League (albeit rather poorly) so I have no allegiance to either code. I just enjoy them for what they are. May be the rise of League helped Union by keeping Australian Rules at bay. However there wouldn’t have been a need to save the game from Australian Rules if the RFU hadn’t shunned amateurism and embraced the need to evolve the game of Union in the first place. Now fast forward to the present. AFL is attempting to stake a bigger claim in the QLD and NSW markets and soccer is growing rapidly. Spectator numbers at Union matches are dropping because the game is slow and complex (RWC 2007 finals are prime examples). In Europe, Union is struggling to take any market share away from the soccer juggernaut. We now have an opportunity to learn from past mistakes which have hamstrung the game and evolve to meet the demands of the players and spectators. Unlike the 1880’s sport is now a business. It must meet the demands of the market if it wishes to be successful. It’s time that the officials look beyond the ideologies of the past and realise that evolution is a necessity for survival. Nature has evolved, societies have evolved and cultures have evolved… and our world is must better because of it. Why should sport be any different? The EVLs are experiments. Let’s look at them objectively and like evolution let’s see which ones work and which ones don’t. The ones that don’t work and hinder the game shouldn’t survive. It’s an exciting time!