Does rugby league need a dose of the ELVs?
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 19 Jul 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
Earlier this year I attended a conference of sports historians talking about the history and future of rugby union.
The main speech was delivered by an English academic, Dr Tony Collins, an expert and passionate supporter of rugby league, and currently writing a history of rugby union in the 20th century.
Dr Collins’ main theme was that The Split from the Rugby Football Union by the northern leagues in 1895 diverted rugby union from evolving into a handling game (along the lines of rugby league) from the kicking game mentality from which it has emerged in the last 20 years.
There is something in this argument, especially on how rugby union is perceived (still) in the northern hemisphere.
No one, though, can predict with any certainty what sort of a game rugby union might have evolved into if there had been no rugby league.
What we do know is that rugby league has evolved into a man-against-man game, and that rugby union’s unifying principle is the notion of a continual contest for possession of the ball.
In its evolution into a man-against-man game, the lawmakers have taken out most of the messy ‘contests for the ball’ elements of the game. Probably the last such messy contest is the battle for the high ball near the defending team’s tryline.
Up to the 1960s, for instance, rugby league had contested scrums. This contest has gone.
So has the contest at the play-the-ball. Benny Elias was the last of the great practictioners in this area.
Unlimited tackles have gone.
So have gang-strips of the ball.
And sides have to stand back 10m from the ruck instead of the offside line being at the ruck as it was in the era of St George’s dominance in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article written by Glenn Jackson on Friday 18 July headed: Pointed discussions to kick game along.
According to Jackson, the National Rugby League should be called the New Rules League “because amid a growing perception that rugby league has become more predictable, a host of radical changes have been foreshadowed as the game’s thinkers start to tinker.”
Jackson noted that an increasing number of tries (22 per cent in 2007 compared with 19 per cent in 2006) are being scored from kicks.
This call for a re-think sounds to me a bit like a demand for consideration of what rugby union has called the ‘experimental law variations’ (the ELVs).
Some of the ELVs-type ideas touted by rugby league experts for their game include fewer points allocated for tries scored from bombs.
Peter Sterling (“our game has predictability”) wants more points for tries scored from inside a team’s own half.
Gold Coast managing director Michael Searle says some penalties should be taps, not kicks into touch and a re-start.
Contested scrums will never be re-introduced to rugby league but players should be able to strike at the play-the-ball; stripping, with any number of tacklers, should be allowed; sets should be increased to eight tackles; and the number of replacements should be reduced.
What other adjustments or changes do the readers of The Roar think should be considered by the rugby league authorities?
Brisbane hand Cowboys their 11th straight loss
Finals equation becomes tougher for Eels
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (16)
- New dawn for rugby league gets underway (11)
- Rugby league commission ushers in new era (3)
- Ennis confident about his NRL fitness
- Why sporting seasons should never cross paths (33)
- Independent Commission four years in the making, but worth the wait (26)
- Kearney still to choose Eels kicker
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (16)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
John said | July 19th 2008 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Spiro, I think the defending team should have 2 markers in the play the ball area. It might do 2 things— it would help stop the dummy half running.But also at the moment the defence has 1 more player in the defence line (forget that the fullback may not be in the defence line– so what? ) Give the attacking team an advantage to see if they can push the ball wide.
Rugby Purist however Rabbithos Faithfull said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Guys,
I would dearly love to see the reintroduction of a contested scrum. I know that the way players are built physically and the everchanging way of the Size of a RL player may not support this.However how much more of a pest would Michael Ennis be or for that matter Robbie Farrar and the Rabbits Issac Luke be if RL Scrums we contestable. I think it would make for some interesting moves and free up both sides for defensive attack and attack with Ball in Hand. Rugby League needs some new laws that is quite clear. In writing this could you imagine if you had a Lineout and you had people like Tony Carroll lifting Dave Taylor??? I digress. Unfortunatley with the Us and them attitude we currently have between the codes it is quite clear that we are long way from any law changes in League.
Hatchet said | July 19th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Spiro, RL certainly does need something. It has become boringly predictable – a sure-fire method of falling asleep.
The only thing unpredictable about the TV presentations is the “commentary team’s” inane attempts to justify the game as exciting.
Spiro Zavos said | July 19th 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Hachet, I wouldn’t want this thread to get bogged down in a sledging match about RL as a spectacle. The television ratings are proof enough that that the game is attractive to hundreds of thousands of supporters. But everything can be improved. My view is that in team sports it is easier to fix up defence against improving an attack. So coaches like Craig Bellamy have concentrated on this aspect, confident that a side with Greg Inglis and Israel Falou in it will score enough points, provided the defence is tight, to defeat most teams.
Bellamy has exploited the rules to slow down opposition attacks with the head-vice tackle and now with the grapple tackle. The rules have to evolve to allow sides to somehow get around these ploys. One way this can be done, in my view, is to bring back more unpredictability into play.
This is why I like reducing the number of reserves and the number of times replacements can be made. The ‘tiredness’ factor should be an important help in opening up play, particularly towards the end of a match when the smaller players can come into their own.
I also like the raking back of the play-the-ball because it encourages a proper play-the-ball and also allows for turnovers.
The increase in the number of allowed tackles could also open things up more. When the unlimited tackle law was changed, I think four tackles were allowed, Now it’s six. Why not eight?
John’s idea of two-markers, which was once the rule, is also worth considering.
There is no doubt that with one marker and a 10m gap teams are virtually invited to make the first couple of hits up from dummy half or the first runner.
mitzter said | July 16th 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment
“When the unlimited tackle law was changed, I think four tackles were allowed, Now it’s six. Why not eight?”
But Spiro how will this open up things more – rather than 4 hit ups we’ll have 6 because just like now you don’t want to waste the ball when you are low in the tackle count. Safety first always
LeftArmSpinner said | July 20th 2008 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Spiro, I definitely agree that something needs to be done. predictable and boring.
a quick story to illustrate the point. I took my son to a rugby league u11 rep trial for the northern beaches region. The 60 odd kids were put into 4 teams, given specific positions and play began. Almost immediately, each team played like an NRL team. 4 “one out” hit ups by the forwards, one back line move of sorts followed by a kick from 1/2 or 5/8. When they got near the try line, one of the halves put a kick in. I was amazed that a scratch team of young, competent (but not really “elite”) players could play a game so easily.
It told me that the game has been so simplified and purified, that it has lost its essence. At NRL level, the difference between teams is now determined by salary cap negotiations, injuries and player commitment to the task at hand.
it is very sad, really.
Crosscoder said | July 20th 2008 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Please no striking for the ball in play the balls and contested ie reset montonously scrums as we got in the union test last night.Teams such as Melbourne,Titans,Tigers,even the Warriors and Panthers and Manly under the 6 tackle rule can show the variations and excitement of the NRL.
The only suggestion for a rule change I would have for the game and have “thrown it up” before, is a bonus (2 tackle) running option to reduce the 6 tackle kicks.Simply you retain the current 6 tackle rule and players are able to kick on any tackle up to and including the 6th.However should the attack feel they have a superior backline and the defence has been run ragged,they have an additonal 2 tackles as a running option with no kicks allowed.
The referee signals the 6th tackle and you either kick or run for two.Warren Ryan even thought it was an innovative idea :aw shucks.
The effect is to put the defence in two minds,reduce the predictable kick on the 6th tackle ,or tries from bombs,and the ability to give coaches the opportunity to devise more structured attacking moves.In effect you have 8 tackles available,but only 6 with a kick option. You also place more demand on a tiring defence, and slowing down the play by the defence should be reduced by ever tiring players.
The competition for the ball argument in rugby league is not the be all and end all(maybe for the purists),the mish mash that was displayed with the increased numbers of rucks and mauls under the union ELVS rules at last night despite more ball in play time was hardly a good spectacle ,tough yes.However the crowd doing the mexican wave said it all.
Both codes need to do something for free flowing rugby.The reality for all codes they are in the entertaining business both the operative words.
Rugby league has been innovative in the past for rule changes to create a better spectacle,that should continue.The former Fijian PM Rabuka,stated rugby league was made for Fijians they love to run with ball in hand,and are not into technicalities.
matta said | July 20th 2008 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
I cant understand why they dont just call ‘held’ much more quickly and why they dont police the tacklers olding the ball player down… I know they have got better in recent years but really – we all know the 2nd man (or 3rd) in on the ground is really there to stop the quick play so why not blow your fing whistle…. or I love that the 1st tackler needs to lay on top, wait for a call from the ref then look at the ref before he gets up….
Gruffalo said | July 22nd 2008 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Spiros
I saw 10 minutes of the 87(?) grand final (Balmain-Canberra) recently. It was fast. open, very exciting. Why? Because there were maximum 2 players in every tackle – and the tacklers jumped up quickly to allow a quick play-the-ball. 3 involved was very rare. It was fast, tough, highly entertaining.
Nowadays, there are minimum 3 in the tackle, often 4 – with one tackler propped up on the ballcarrier for an age looking around to see defence has been set. There is wrestling, flipping players over – anything to delay the play-the-ball. It is boring. The referees now penalise the player for trying to play the ball too quickly!
Solution? Unnecessary 3rd tackler should be penalised. Referees enforce quick play-the-balls.
AND – throw News Limited, Gallop, Hadley, ARL, out of the game and bring back the Bears!
Corey said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The refs need to constantly count to 3 (1-2-3) and if the players don’t get off the ball carrier in that time it should be a penalty. The players would learn after 10mins that 3 seconds is all you have to reset your 10metre line and this would speed up the play of the ball and tire out the bigger guys a lot faster (all making for a faster and more exciting games). I believe the contested scrum should be brought back in, because I play hooker in league and the scrums are where us forwards get excited. We contest it (because the laws allow it) and you can hear all the jives in the scrum, i cop a fair bit of attention as well (punches, kicks in the groins and the likes), but when you win against the feed (which happens surprisingly often) your whole team lifts.
Another thing they should bring to league is the rules against the video ref (albeit I love the video ref sometimes when he stops a try for the other team). The video ref should only be allowed to rule on the grounding – nothing else – and they should be given a time limit of 45secs max (may be even 30 secs).
Possibly making the in goal smaller would make grubber kicks less viable (therefore tries from kicks would decrease), although coaches would train players on grubbers holding up in that distance.
Change the width of the field, make it wider (not by much, may be 1.5- 2.5 metres on either side), this would make for a more expansive running game.
Also change the interchange rule to only allow players to be substituted once (with injuries being exempt from this). But a major one should be stoppage time. Whenever the ball is dead the time should stop, this would allow for more play time and more exciting finishes when a scrum is to be held with only 10 secs remaining and only down by 2- the team doesn’t have to worry about running to set the scrum and it would rid the opposing team of time wasting.
Bernie Howard said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I agree.
The ref counts 1-2-3 at which time he starts walking backwards. When the player is allowed to play the ball any player in front of the ref is off-side. If they lie on the player for 10 seconds, they’ll have a (10m + 7seconds) 17m defensive line.
I used to referee touch like this and it’s amazing how quickly the player returned to his mark so his attacking side had 10m to use.
LeftArmSpinner said | July 22nd 2008 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
gruffalo,
excellent research even if it suggests that you are an anal retentive beyond belief. jokes aside, fast, tough and entertaining. that’s as i remember it. i dont agree with your solution however. it makes for complexity and brings the ref further into the contest. league needs more competition for possession. play the ball, scrums, strips, etc.
and then limit the subs so that you cant afford to have 3 in every tackle.
antbytes said | August 2nd 2008 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Get rid of the play the ball !
When you’re tackled – put the ball on the ground behind you (al la rugby) and that can be the play the ball, why slow the game down with a play the ball ?
Same rule as touch football – If the dummy half gets caught with the ball it’s a handover and the dh can’t score.
That simple change will seepd the game up heaps ! And make it less predictable
oposasa said | August 6th 2008 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Rugby league need consider one thing, lineouts!
The best rugby union tries are scored from lineouts (think about the only try that the wallabies scored in last saturday’s bledisloe) and lineouts would allow a greater range of body types to play the game i.e tall people.
And league lineouts would take us one step closer to the glorious and inevitable re-unification of the rugby codes. You might see that as a pro or con depending on your ‘vision’…
danwighton said | November 12th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
The best thing that union has over league is the lineouts.