By Spiro Zavos
July 19th 2008 @ 2:39am
Does rugby league need a dose of the ELVs?
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
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...
(21)
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.
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.
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!
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’…
Steffy said | August 6th 2008 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Rugby doesn’t need lineouts. They are a complete waste of time. Why union sticks with them is anybodys guess.
True Tah said | August 6th 2008 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Union sticks with lineouts because they are a genuine contest for possession…something which league no longer has.
League has become populated by athletic robots running into each other…if thats what you like watching I suggest that you try watching the NFL, where they hit a lot harder than in league.
Benjamin said | August 6th 2008 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
Steffy, genuine interest - why do you think that so many league players are now crossing the divide?
Steffy said | August 7th 2008 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Money
Benjamin said | August 7th 2008 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Just money, and no other reasons?
Jack Fruit said | September 15th 2008 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Spiro, what about allowing defenders to protect the fullback when attempting to catch a bomb? It would make it a less attractive attacking option and encourage more creative, less predictable attack.
And yeah, bring back da bears!
Issac said | September 29th 2008 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
One ting RL could look at is reducing the number of players on the field. 12 or 11 players will open the game up, even if it was 5m rather than a 10m rule. The 10m rule created a false perception that there would be more space to attack.
Crosscoder said | October 6th 2008 @ 8:08am | Report comment
After watching some of the exhilarating tries and speed of rl compared to union even under the ELVs,the 13 man code needs only to tweak a couple of rules.One being the kick happening too often on the 6th tackle.
If getting excited over ” proper”yet predictable scrums and lineouts (a time and ball in play time waster), so be it.I always laugh when people talk about quick disposal of ball in union rucks compared to play the balls,when it would appear a search party is needed on occasions to extract the ball from the ruck.A multitude of attacking phases bores the pants off me.
No wonder rl is often referred to as open rugby and is gaining new adherents in Wales,England and Scotland for starters..
I understand why Sthn hemisphere union brought in the ELVs to make the game more appealing,and in the process as many in the Nthn Hemisphere say ,make it more like rl.You know what they say about imitation.
Benjamin said | October 6th 2008 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Why don’t we ask Mark Gasnier about imitation?
Crosscoder said | October 6th 2008 @ 8:34am | Report comment
When you are offered $1m per season,Gasnier would play ice hockey.The reason he left St George was the non payment of some of his 3rd party contracts and his self inflicted “fish bowl” existence in Sydney.He then made the “heartfelt” coment it is not about money,please.It is like a politician blurting, it’s not about power or prestige.That is imitation
He is out injured currently with an ankle problem playing on the wing.
Maybe we should ask Craig Gower who commented to a Penrith teammate he made a grand total of 6 tackles in France,but raved about the golf in the Sth of France.
Benjamin said | October 6th 2008 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
I’m sorry, 6 tackles when?
I think this is another case of a rugby leaugue fan assuming that money is the core root of motivation for all transfer cases.
“When you are offered $1m per season,Gasnier would play ice hockey.The reason he left St George was the non payment of some of his 3rd party contracts and his self inflicted “fish bowl” existence in Sydney.He then made the “heartfelt” coment it is not about money,please.It is like a politician blurting, it’s not about power or prestige.That is imitation”
I don’t see how that is imitation.