The verdicts are in, and many agree that ELVS need some work. Said All Blacks coach Graham Henry: “We were worried about the amount of turnover ball we saw, teams were going backwards and forwards without any sort of structure. We didn’t see any territorial pressure and continuity”.
Laurie Mains: “If the aim of these laws was to speed the game up then they’ve succeeded. But the real concern I have is rugby is looking more like league every year”.
Ian McGeeChan: “My concern is that we will end up playing one type of game, that the variety and depth of options which the game has always had will be taken away”.
MY CHANGES
I would retain all current Super 14 rugby ELVs, and add in rucking (preferred) or ‘hands in the ruck’, and the following:
(a) Promote Attacking Mauls: Do not allow mauls to be pulled down outside 10 meters from the try line (reluctantly), and further once a maul is established (confirmed by the ref) the defending side (only) must be back 5 meters. This would make it very expensive for the defending side to allow the maul to roll forward, this would encourage the defending team to commit more or all forwards to attacking maul, thus removing the forwards from the field wide trench defence.
(b) Promote Attacking Full Lineouts: Do not allow short lineouts, as the consequence of the short lineout is forwards standing in the back line. Quick lineouts are ok. Scrums and lineouts are the only situation where forwards and backs restarts are completely separated. That’s good for the rugby union traditional contests. I would have allowed short lineout pre the ELVs, but as the ELVs have created an imbalance between structured and non structured play favoring the latter there needs to be an add back adjustment. Does the IRB add back, or only deduct ?
(c) Introduce 50/22 rule: Description: If a kick is made from the attacking teams half and it bounces out in the defending teams 22, then the attacking team receives the lineout put in. The kick must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22 (Not after kick off). This rewards the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick. It also encourages the defending team to have players further back and out of the ‘field wide trench defense’. This allows an attacking team to go from non structured play to structured play and still hold possession.
Why …
- There is no method for the attacking team to go from non structured play to structured play and still hold possession. So allow (c).
- The field wide defensive trench is a formidable defence, therefore requires a more rigorous attacking tool to breach it. Allow (a).
- The ELVs have increased ‘ball in play’ and all of it is non structured play, so we must re balance this by having (b), to give further opportunity for the backs versus backs contest.
- Allowing rucking (preferred) or ‘hands in the ruck’ is not enough to fraught the field wide defensive trench on its own.
There seams to be a lot of focus on allowing a free kick for infringements, I am not too fussed on how IRB cherry picks what to allow or not, I am more concerned about tactics and reducing the defense orientated advantage.
Other
(i) Tries must be legitimate: I believe that each try should be legitimate. Use TV referee as much as possible, so this means go back and check for forward passes, touchline breaks and foul play. How far you go back may be the debate, but find a solution, there is nothing worse than the fans being robbed when TV makes it so obvious that it was or was not a try.
(ii) Sin bin must be legitimate: I prefer the rugby league method in how they handling foul play or continued infringements (placing a player on report). If not the report system, then sending the player off must be verified by the TV referee, as the on field referee continually makes incorrect decisions. Millions of dollars are spent to view a contest, most often this contest is ruined when players are sin binned. I accept a red card sending off, no issue there.
Let me know what you think about these proposed changes.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (6) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
Jock m said | May 31st 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Well said Laurie and Ian-Rugby is getting to be more like League and it is one dimentional.
Rucking must be brought back in and
THE TACKLED PLAYER MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PLAY THE BALL ON THE GROUND.-this gives the attacking side an unfair advantage and leads to opposing forwards not even trying to steal the ball or to put driving pressure on.The attacking side already has an advantage because they have the ball.
I hate Rugby now where as once I loved it so much it could bring tears to my eyes.
I guess the smart money won’t pay much attention to a farmer that travelled 70 kms to training twice per week and up to three and a half hours to play a game.
Spiro Zavos said | May 31st 2008 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Ian from NZ has made a thoughtful contribution to the discussion on the laws of rugby. I had a chat with Danie Craven about the laws in the 1960s. He told me, and he was the main writer of the rugby laws for the IRB from the 1950s through to the 1970s, that ‘we will know the laws are correct when we can essentially write them down on one sheet of paper.’
So the question is: ‘Do the ELVs or Ians’ variations meet the one sheet of paper rule.’
The point of the ELVs is that they are a root and branch re-think and re-write of the laws of rugby starting from the premise that we have a body contact sport for all shapes and sizes that features a continuous contest for possession of the ball that should led to scoring tries. Then the panel do the ELVs said to themselves, ‘how can we keep the integrity of this game while simplifying the laws and taking the referees’ subjectivity out of play?’ Voila, the ELVs.
I would love to see rucking brought back on the grounds that it is the quickest way to recycle tackled ball. But this is NEVER going to happen. When the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ requirement came in in 1995, the IRB expressly stated that rugby was a game to be played on the feet, hence the maul rather than the ruck was to be the future re-cycling method. The ELVs have not answered the perennial difficulty of the tackled/recycled ball. But they have taken some of the ‘punishment’ element out with the use of short-arm penalties. UK people object to this, unfortunately.
Graham Henry said that more structure has come back into Super 14 as the players and coaches adjusted to the ELVs, and that the semi-final was played like a Test match.
I don’t like the complicated stuff in Ian’s adjustments to the maul and kicking out. Just pull the maul down and encourage teams to do fast mauls. Also, with the 50/22 rule we have to be careful that kicking is encouraged too much. Danie Craven said to me that one of the aspects of law-making that concerned him was the ‘unintended consequences’ involved with changing one law. He used the metaphor of pulling a thread from a cardigan to explain what can happen when one law change unravels many other laws.
I agree totally on the legimacy of the sin bin. I reckon that the referee should look at a video of the incident before someone is sin-binned. That would stop so many mistaken sin-bins.
t
Jock m said | May 31st 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Spiro,why don’t you just go and watch and report on League and let the rest of us try and get the game of Rugby back to where it was before the carpet baggers got hold of it.
Ian from NZ said | June 2nd 2008 @ 5:36am | Report comment
..”Also, with the 50/22 rule we have to be careful that kicking is encouraged too much.”.. Spiro too late for that. ..This is not complicated, I dont think league thinks this is complicated.
“Just pull the maul down and encourage teams to do fast mauls.”… Thats what the use it or loose it are used for, why need another rule, if the existing laws can be used. Its application of current laws, not new laws that are required.
My maul and 50/22 rules are outside the box. The real debate is the balance between structured play ( scrums and full lineouts) and non structured play ( broken play, short lineouts, tap and go, etc), if you noticed the tactics of the cursaders was that structured play was used a lot to tire out the FAT NSW forward pack, hence they had no legs in the last 20 minutes. I am saying that the ELV rugby rules needs to save the game from being 90% non structured play, because thats not rugby union. Spiro please read my foundation posts from my link under “ian from NZ”. Thanks
Justin said | June 2nd 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
I have little problem with the maul law at present however I think it should be interpreted in the same way for both attack and defence. Why is it constantly allowed by refs for attacking team players to join a maul in front of the ball carrier? Each player joining must join from behind the ball carrier so the defence has a real chance to stop the maul while still giving the attacking side every chance to skillfully advance the ball with players obstructing. This would mean that all new players would have to come in contact the ball as it would have to be passed back through the maul.
Jock m said | June 2nd 2008 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Justin,
You are very close to the mark.The corporates who are only interested in what income they can generate have given all of the advantage to the attacking side so that we get a mindless repetitive predictable game which must be as boring to play as it is to watch.
The corporates believe that movement is what counts.
The breakdown contest must be fair and all forwards need to be under pressure to either compete for the ball or to drive over the ball or to push against an opposing forward rush.
In addition the TACKLED BALL CARRIER MUST RELEASE THE BALL BEFORE MAKING CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AND PLAYERS MUST BE ABLE TO USE THEIR FEET>
I watched a little of the Sydney Uni Easts Game on Saturday TV-Do today’s players realise that they are playing unlimited tackle Rugby League?