The Northern Hemisphere is lazy when it comes to ELVs
Roar Guru By Gatesy, 26 Apr 2008 gatesy is a Roar Guru
Here’s a theory. Why does the Northern Hemisphere seem hell bent on opposing the ELV’s without even trying them? I think it is just sheer laziness, and an in-grained dislike of trying anything new.
In the South we take the view that you can have change for the sake of change, and you can have change for the sake of progress, and we are not afraid to try new things,
I believe that there is now overwhelming proof that:
A. this is not just a Southern Hemisphere initiative
B. it is not intended to make rugby more like rugby league
C. there is a genuine belief that rugby has become over-regulated by laws which are hard for the players to follow, let alone the spectators
D. that it has become a game with too many stoppages
E. it is time for an overhaul
F. the ELVs have breathed fresh air into our game.
They have not ruined the fabric of rugby, there are no losses of contest. The scrum has become more of an attacking weapon. There are not significantly fewer line-outs, and the game is generally a better spectacle for the watchers and the players.
I’m just sorry that we haven’t trialled the collapsing of the rolling maul, because it would introduce a new element of innovation.
Let’s face it, the rolling maul is one big offside event anyway, and it doesn’t really make sense to me. Allowing sides to bring it down would be interesting, and certainly within the spirit of the tradition of the scrap for the ball at the breakdown.
Nobody in the Southern Hemisphere is in favour of the quick re-starts that league has now introduced. No one is advocating getting rid of scrums or line-outs or rucks or mauls.
You might be interested to know that the RFU has instituted a survey to ask people whether they should even embark on the trial. What a great show of leadership! They need to do the trial before most people would have a clue as to whether the laws are worth exploring.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
April 27th 2008 @ 4:04am
Dublin Dave said | April 27th 2008 @ 4:04am | Report comment
Mudskipper
Congratulations!! Your argument is pretty much the same as that of the “Old Farts” around the time the game went professional. Their argument was that “We won’t be able to play a professional game with win bonuses with these laws. Rugby League couldn’t. We won’t be able to.”
They were pooh poohed at the time “No No Things have moved on since the 19th century. Players are more professional in overall attitude. They are not the unwashed working class yobs that made up league. ”
They of course were afraid of the potential for crippling and maiming people in the rucks and mauls. They probably did not foresee that a professional game brings in more types of professional than merely players. There are marketing types, sponsors, business development geeks—all the various pond life that is more interested in what it can do with an audience than what attracted the audience in the first place.
These buck chasers don’t mind ripping up the game that we love and dumbing it down for a casual audience. For some of us, it means more to us than that.
Your argument is proving the old farts right.
April 27th 2008 @ 8:14pm
mudskipper said | April 27th 2008 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
London and Dublin your diplomacy is bass…take a closer look at a Super 14 game, better still watch this years coming tri-series.
Pleased to hear rugby is still popular in the north, send you’re National A Teams south ASAP… We haven’t seen a Northern A team South of the equator for sometime…
April 28th 2008 @ 7:06am
Dublin Dave said | April 28th 2008 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Oh please stop whinging Mudskipper.
When Ireland beat Australia and South Africa by record margins on successive weekends just over a year ago, I seem to remember it being politely pointed out to us that the visiting teams were both greatly weakened and that many of the top players were being rested at home for the world cup.
As it happens, Ireland are going down south to play Australia and New Zealand next month. I hope we do bring a load of new players and shake things up a bit. If we send down the old reliables who performed so dismally at the world cup and 6N, we really will get stuffed.
Here’s to the new faces.
April 28th 2008 @ 9:43am
mudskipper said | April 28th 2008 @ 9:43am | Report comment
DD…Looking forward to next month
April 28th 2008 @ 5:46pm
Dublin Dave said | April 28th 2008 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
So am I.
With a little trepidation, it has to be said. But you can’t win ‘em all.
April 28th 2008 @ 6:21pm
Ian Noble said | April 28th 2008 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Nothing to do with laziness, not all Aussies are pro ELV’s look at this posting on a blog on Peter Ackford’s excellent article in the Daily Telegraph.
To all northern unions:
Don’t touch the ELVs with a bargepole. The Super 14 games this season have been something you would see in a public park on a Sunday morning – touch football, nothing else. A form of hybrid rugby league, heaven forbid. No structure, no form.
And don’t listen to that clown O’Neill, He’s a downright menace to the game, who just wants to big-note himself. He says the game is faster, which is true, and more entertaining, which it is not. If he wants to be entertained, let him go to the pictures.
As your article says, the game is not flawed. So leave it alone.
Posted by Bob Wilson on April 27, 2008 1:38 AM
May 1st 2008 @ 6:06pm
Sledgeandhammer said | May 1st 2008 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Dubline Dave, you say it doesn’t matter who instigated the ELVs, it only matters who supports them now. Really!! what utter rubbish, the ELVs are an IRB initiative and frankly the English, Irish and Welsh are simply being recalcitrant in their opposition – can’t imagine FIFA putting up with such rubbish.
The second point is that the IRB is asking for a trial only at this stage – how can anyone in their right mind be opposed to a trial? Therefore whether or not the ELVs are a success they will not be the death of rugby, the trial will determine their success. To refuse to allow the trial to go ahead is purely a spoiling tactic.
The third point is that given the lack of intelligent opposition from the NH regarding the ELVs I can only assume opposition is driven purely by fear alone – I have read a lot of the English blogs and this seems to be the case.
Which brings me to the recent Paul Ackford article. Surely this was nothing more that fear mongering at the behest of the RFU. If not Mr Ackford should give up journalism. I have never read so many false and outlandish claims in one article. Some examples:
“..from August the game as we know it now may cease to exist.” Pure fabrication, the ELVs charter is to ensure rugby can be enjoyed by all shapes and sizes and key facets of contest for possession are not lost.
“..will heap an intolerable educational burden on all those splendid, unpaid officials.” Pure claptrap – the laws will be simplified under the ELVs and make the “splendid” unpaid officials life easier, not harder.
“..which have been driven chiefly by Australia.” Pure bullshit – the IRB has developed, implemented and supported the ELVs. Australia has made a few comments in support of this IRB initiative, they have not driven the process.
” Armageddon, though, comes wrapped in the revolution that “if a ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free-kick. ” More emotional blackmail to get all the sad bloggers in England in a rage. Having the penalty removed from the breakdown is not a revolution, it is an evolution (key difference) and takes the lottery out of refereeing – how many games are now won due to an contentious referees decision?
“I studied two matches.” Some sad goose studies, wait for it, two matches, and we are all supposed to bow down in gratitude? The fact is the IRB has studies dozens of matches and has the stats to prove it. Not that anyone in the NH is listening.
“The only evidence for ushering in a raft of changes..” We are voting on a trial only at this stage!
“It’s not the complexity of the game that is the problem. Deconstruct that and you might as well do away with rugby union altogether”. The complexity is not the issue my friend, it is the ambiguity. Chess can be a complex game, but it is not ambiguous, the rules and interpretations are clear cut.
“This week Warren Gatland asked for an English referee to take charge of Wales’ two Tests against the Springboks in the summer. Presumably he did so on the basis that southern hemisphere officials weren’t up to the job.” More emotive clap trap.
Let’s face it , the NH is not against the ELVs – in fact what we have is a few bullies from the established home nations attempting to sabotage these important and impressive developments. The ELVS are an opportunity, not a threat. The threat rugby faces today is from the recalcitrant, conservative home nations establishment who are complacent and playing the typical spoiling tactics we know so well.
May 1st 2008 @ 6:39pm
Ben C said | May 1st 2008 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
I have to say that I support the ELV’s and I am pleased to see that even demagoges like Ackford agree some are useful – like no passing into the 22 to kick, simplifying quick lineouts and standing back from the scrum. Hopefully these at least will be implemented.
I support the other changes however I remain concerned that although simplifying the breakdown slightly and allowing teams to kick, run or scrum on a short arm depending on their strengths is a good thing, the breakdown remains a mess. This is true under the existing rules as much as the ELVs. With some exceptions (England’s committed counter rucking that blew Australia out of the RWC) most matches under either rule set sees defensive players lying on the ball to kill it, offensive teams having ‘pillars’ illegally hanging around the edge of the breakdown but not bound to shield the players, defensive teams only committing a single player to the breakdown to stack the backline with defensive players and shut down any attack and offensive teams hanging around with the ball lying there and delaying the game while they decide whether to drive, kick or run. It happens under the existing rules, it happens under the ELV’s and it happened under the full ELV’s used in the ARC (hands allowed in the ruck).
The answer is, of course, to bring back rucking as a bit of gratuitous stomping would prevent defensive players trying to kill or handle the ball. It would encourage teams to commit more people to the breakdown and a genuine contest for possession. Unfortunately unless we steal Mr Peabody’s Wabac machine we won’t see rucking again in Rugby Union. So I am not sure what the answer is. The ELVs add some simplicity by limiting the penalities and awarding free kicks but this enocurages teams to infringe as it is harder (psychologically) to bin a player for a short arm infringement. The existing rules sees messy breakdowns as the ref waits to see an actual infringement so he can award a full penalty.
I wish I had an answer (other than rucking which should, but won’t, reappear). I think that the breakdown rules in the ELV are a small step in the right direction but haven’t acheieved the desired outcome of making the breakdown a real contest again.