By Spiro Zavos
September 10th 2008 @ 2:19am
Surprise, suprise, the ELVs are OK in the UK
Shaun Edwards, the coach of Wasps and defense coach for Wales, has clearly been watching the ELVs at work in the Super 14 and the Tri-Nations Tests. Before the Guinness Premiership started last week, he wrote an article for The Guardian telling critics “to forget all those dire warnings about the ELVs.”
“There might be a bit more kicking”, he noted, “but other than that our game has remained virtually untouched.”
Edwards was a rugby league great.
I like his use of the phrase “our game.” Does he mean rugby union, or the UK game of slow-plod forwards, multiple long-arm penalties, restricted ball in play, slowing down the game and endless kicking?
Whatever, he did make the point that the UK tournaments are playing only thirteen of the 33 ELVs.
Among the variation NOT being played is the use of short-arm penalties for infringements, except off-side, not coming through the gate, and foul play (all long arm penalties in the full ELVs) at the ruck and maul.
Another point Edwards made that is very relevant is this: “The demise of the (rolling maul) seems greatly exaggerated and I don’t see it going away just because it can be pulled down … Teams will adapt and find more ways of protecting the maul.”
In the Tri-Nations, both the Springboks and the All Blacks used rolling mauls to some effect.
Against Samoa, the All Blacks used a lot of rolling mauls, something I expect them to do at Brisbane if they get the chance.
The point about allowing the maul to be pulled down is that it gives a defence against the maul, where under the ‘old’ laws there is none at present.
So how did the commentators cope with their first experience of the truncated ELVs in the opening round of the Guinness Premiership?
The UK Daily Telegraph’s Martin Johnson is a terrific colour writer, but he knows very little about sports in general and seemingly even less about rugby.
In his match report on London Irish defeating Edwards’ Wasps he made the stupid statement that “the northern hemisphere have – thus far – stopped short of turning the game into a rugby league-style tap-and-go fest.”
If the Tri-Nations was rugby league with 15 players, how is it that a league star like Timana Tahu could not cope with the intricacies of the union defensive requirements?
London Irish won, Johnston insisted, because “they brought some structure to their game along with the passion.”
This admission destroys all the dire warnings from the experts that the ELVs take the “structure out the game.” The proposition is nonsensical when you understand that scrums, lineouts, mauls and rucks still exist under the ELVs.
In fact, while there may be fewer lineouts and scrums, each of these events has a greater importance because of the advantages that flow from getting possession that can be used more effectively than under the ‘old’ laws.
Benjamin made the point in one of his excellent articles on the Guinness Premiership that teams have already learned to be clever at the lineout, with some of them using halfbacks and non-throwing hookers as lifters.
The throwing side winning the lineout, though, can then attack a short side that does not have any defenders.
This is the thing about the ELVs: they put the cleverness in skills, moves and thinking back into rugby.
Rupert Bates in his report on the Saracens-Harlequins match in the UK Telegraph observed: “We saw the tactical upshot of the ELVs within the first minute … With both backlines required to be 5m behind the scrum, there is far more space to play with and Danny Care, the Quins scrum-half, raced right from the base of the scrum, drew the skeleton cover and fed wing David Strettle for the opening try.”
Exactly.
The cleverness and skill of the players, helped by a stable scrum, was rightly rewarded.
Christopher Lyles in The Observer described London Irish’s first try as “interesting” because the Wasps used only five men to defend against the seven used by London Irish in the lineout.
Instead of putting the ball wide where the Wasps had stacked their defence, London Irish drove through the thin lineout defence to score a try.
Lyles acknowledged that the majority of the ELVs “appear fair enough.” But the ELV that rankled was allowing the defending side to pull down a maul: “absolute, complete and total madness.”
This sort of analysis raises questions about the knowledge that Lyles has of the rugby game and how much rugby in the Southern Hemisphere he actually watches.
It is a response based on a manic ideological theory rather than based on reality. He should read Shaun Edwards (and less of the Usual Suspect), and he should watch what has happened this year with the maul in the Souther Hemisphere.
Paul Ackford’s take on the same match was that Wasps were “slow to adapt to the possibilities that are created by the much-talked about ELVs” and that London Irish had a “coherence and passion throughout the side that Wasps conspicuously lacked.”
I take from this comment the admission that there is no “structure” that it is the fault of the team and its preparation, not the fault of the ELVs.
Finally, the Usual Suspect in The Sunday Times.
“Let’s play the IRB’s game by trialling the 13 ELVs and then abandon most of them,” he told his readers.
Closed-minded, moi?
The Northern Hemisphere game was “too appealing” to be forced into jeopardy by a few IRB “experts” (the Usual Suspect’s punctuation).
Rod Macqueen et al, not experts?
Then in his match report on the Harlequins-Saracens match, he accused the referee Wayne Barnes of “interrupting the action with a whistling concerto.”
Apparently, the IRB has ordered referees to be stricter at the break-down, and Barnes, who is a barrister in real life and an extremely officious referee, was only too happy to oblige.
The Usual Suspect followed this up by defending Barnes (“he is acting on orders”) and blaming the IRB for not ordering the crackdown on infringements at the ruck and maul two years ago.
The point about all this is that the full-arm penalty is so draconian in the hurly-burly of the ruck and maul, when it is often difficult to decide who infringed first, that referees over a period of time tend to restrict the flow of penalties (except when ordered not to).
Also, teams knowing this then tend to defy the referee to penalise them by continually infringing.
I hesitate, but only for a second, to mention that this is what happened in the 2007 RWC semi-final, France-New Zealand at Cardiff, when Barnes refused to penalise France in the second half even once, even though France was blatantly playing the ball on the ground to slow down the All Black attacks.
The point about the short-arm penalty ELV is that it enables the referee to penalise offending sides – but not too harshly if they make mistakes – while allowing the game to flow.
Is it too much to hope that some of these insights into the zen of the ELVs will become apparent to some of the more influential rugby writers who have the bully pulpit to affect the thinking – often for the worse, unfortunately – of the rugby public in the UK?
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(106)
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 2:11am | Report comment
First of all Spiro it was a quater-final between France and New Zealand not a semi-final.
Anyway, regarding the ELV’s trialled in the Northern Hemisphere, to be honest there wasn’t much difference between the old and new laws. I am from the NH and I believe that we should have trialled the majority of them such as the short arm free-kicks etc, just to see how they went. However when watching many of the super 14 and tri-nation games, there didn’t, in general, seem to be much struture to it, and that’s what in essence rugby is- building up pressure by keeping possession, making ground (which can be done through the backs or forwards) and eventually building up enough pressure to eventually score more points than the opposition (sounds obvious but it’s true).
In all honesty Spiro, your opinion is rendered meaningless if you don’t actually watch the games yourself. You comment on the 5m scrum rule and how Harlequins took adavantage of a solid scrum and the space given from the rule. What you failed to mention, however, is that one of the Harlequins player commented after the game that is was almost too easy for them to score the try from the scrum (this was also evident in the New Zealand-South Africa game).
I agree with you about the lineout, as it makes teams think more about their set piece moves. London Irish knew they had the stronger lineout and therefore they capitialised on this, pressurising the Wasps lineout and thus scoring two relatively easy tries from this.
I just feel that the ELV’s trialled in the NH are a bit pointless. I even asked myself during a friendly match- are we actually playing under the ELV’s here because it looks like the same game we were playing before the new rules.
Benjamin said | September 10th 2008 @ 2:56am | Report comment
Spiro, your article seems almost surprised at the critical response when actually a lot of people (not Shaun Edwards) were always intrigued by a section of the ELVs. Only a small handful were only ever vehemently opposed to them in the UK. However the issue with the rolling maul is that not only is it very difficult to succeed at but it also draws defenders to the ball, thereby creating space in the midfield and on the fringes. Martin Corry has said that Leicester have given up on the maul and that it is not plausible to have a maul taken down and then launch quick and smaller units off the side. Given that the lineout now requires fewer defenders actually in the line it would make sense not to have the drag down law simply because that would offset the defenders who would otherwise be padding out the backine. Personally I don’t see how a group with very low body positioning can be stopped but I imagine that Corry knows more than me. I still do not agree with the law that penalises the side that takes the ball into the breakdown if it becomes unplayable but then the lack of a short arm in the GP may negate open gamesmanship at the ruck.
the general said | September 10th 2008 @ 5:05am | Report comment
The NH questioning of the ELVs had as much to do with their impact on the non elite rugby players – you know the ones that pay to play rugby, who account for 95+% of the people who play rugby, who play rugby with a single neutral referee and don’t have the benefit of neutral touch judges, 4th and 5th officials and tmos. Just because the ARU does not care about its members doesn’t mean the other unions are the same.
Having watched most of the tri nations, I have no problem with most of the ELVs to be trialed in the NH but I thank my betters in the NH governing bodies daily for not inflicting the free kick a go go that is being dished up. Everytime there is a tackle, everybody jumps in and the referee awards a free kick to somebody – that’s just not rugby!
Spiro Zavos said | September 10th 2008 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Colin H
Wishful thinking about the semi-final, perhaps? The article was a round-up of the opinion about the ELVs, not actually their impact as seen by me.
One of the points I’ve made about the ELVs, and it is a point made by Robbie Deans etc, is that teams can play what we may call a traditional game of scrumming, driving, kicking etc with the ELVs. BUT there is more scope for the expansive game when it is on because the short-arm penalties negate a lot of the slowing down of the ball. Pressure is taken off the referee to blow away the game, as Wayne Barnes did, with numerous penalties, or not blow penalties and allow the slowing down to take place, again as Barnes did at Cardiff.
The idea of having only 3 full-arm penalties for infringements at the ruck and maul, instead of about 30, is to take the subjectivity (bias perhaps sometimes) out of play.
This is a point that the presumably knowledgeable rugby writers in the UK haven’t been able to grasp.
As for Martin Corry and the rolling maul. I admire him as a player. But I don’t think he’s done his homework. Rolling mauls are still happening. It’s a matter of time before teams develop faster mauls. But there is at last a defence against the slow-plod maul near the tryline that referees allow to stop more than twice and are therefore, if properly formed, impossible to bring down and defuse.
It’s the aspect of bringing cleverness back into rugby, too, that is overlooked in the massive campaign against the ELVs run by the senior journalists and the RFU.
Benjamin said | September 10th 2008 @ 8:15am | Report comment
You might like to have a peruse over this Spiro. I’m firmly of the opinion that the breakdown is a mess even though the GP doesn’t have the short arm. Having watched the S14, Celtic League, T14, 3N and GP I think that the breakdown is now even harder to referee.
“Senior English referees are convinced that these last two amendments amount to a cheats’ charter. “I studied two matches in which these were in operation and it was chaos,” said one official. “The normal Premiership encounter averages around 18 free-kicks and penalties. When the Stormers played the Crusaders there were 11 penalties and 22 free-kicks; when the Bulls played the Crusaders the figures were 16 penalties and 11 free-kicks. In one eight-minute spell, four penalties and four free-kicks were awarded.”
28 Apr 2008 – Daily Telegraph
Regarding the rolling maul, how many have you seen in the 3N? I’m sure Martin Corry has done his homework because he is the club captain and would be working closely under the guidance of Cockerill and Meyer. Rolling mauls aren’t still happening.
Benjamin said | September 10th 2008 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Actually, having done some more thinking over the rolling maul I see two problems – if you stay really low then the only part of your body that is allowed to be grabbed is close to the ground therefore making the job of the defender even easier. If you stay relatively upright then it is easy for the defensive unit to grab a few chests and stagnate the maul. This is also done with fewer defenders than past rolling mauls would have necessitated. This also means that it is pointless to have break-off units because the defence is padded with forwards. Given that the lineout now requires fewer defenders the redundancy of the rolling maul is a key point missed by the LPG.
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Watching the GP this weekend there very few rolling mauls (whether that’s for the good or detrement of the game, well it’s your opnion). I personally feel that the ability for the maul to be taken down gives the defending team the advantage (which I thought wasn’t the objective of the ELV’s). This, I feel leads to slower ball for the attacking team and stagnates the play and which would thus lead to either more kicking or forwards taking it through the middle, which I don’t see a problem with but some SH pundits do.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 10th 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
The biggest mistake made in all of this, is that the NH didn’t treat the trial as a trial of most or all of the ELV’s.
Even after the first game, it is clear that they will find themselves in the sitaution where they are stuck between the ocean and the deep blue sea.
The ELVs, as they have chosen to adopt, will improve the game for players and specators. So, rescinding the current ELV’s will not be an option. However, they will have lost a year of learning to use the vast range of the ELV’s that they chose not to adopt in 2008/09.
Anyway, that was their choice. It will be egg on face for S Jones and the adminstrators when the players and spectators come out in support for even the limited ELVs adopted.
Paul Ackford, someone who I have always considered to be a very knowledgeable and observant commentator, has also been strident in his opposition to the ELV’s. I suspect tho that he is a big man, in body and mind, and hence the sort of man who can admit the error of his ways. If that happens, they had better start swimming forwards and towards the light as quickly as they can to allow them a reasonable shot at the RWC in 2011.
Too easy to score from scrums, give me a break. Yes, attackers are advantaged by defenders being back 5 metres, but to say that this fundamentally changes the fabric of rugby is ridiculous and says much about the incompetence of the defence at the start of the season. It also ignores the cumulative effect of the ELVs that see games open up later in the game as physical condition and previous pressure begins to tell.
There is one final ingredient that is missing from NH, SH and the current ELVs. More yellow cards earlier. The blight on the game is the acting that the once tough forwards now carry on with when it comes to pretending to be making honest mistakes at the breakdown. stick to the rules and everything will be okay!!!
Otherwise, players will just concede more free kicks. Thankfully, this tweaking can be done by instruction to the refs.
Wallythefly said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:05am | Report comment
They’re not using the short-arms?????
That’s one of the most important ELVs IMO
mudskipper said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:28am | Report comment
It maybe worth while to have some of the Southern Hemisphere officials who have been applying the ELVs in the Super 14 and Tri-Nations to referee a few Northern Hemisphere matches and help get the ball moving?…Just short term arrangement to work along side the NH Officials’. Or perhaps give some after match feedback to the NH Officials to assist the transition…and minimise mistakes…
Just an idea….
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:40am | Report comment
LeftArmSpinner,
From what I’ve seen both in the Southern Hemisphere and the relatively short period in the north is that they don’t open up the game. What were the ELV’s meant to do in the first place. These are just suggestions of what I thought might be behind the IRB reasoning.
1. Make it easier for the referees? No, the breakdown is a mess at the breakdown in the SH. Possibly once the refs get use to the laws, it might be easier, but as it stands it’s not easier.
2. Increase the number of tries scored? Various statistics have said that it doesn’t increase the amount of tries scored.
3. Ball in play for longer? Again stats show otherwise. Still pretty much equal.
4. Encourage positive play? Well it may have done that but New Zealand beat Australia using simple, structured rugby much like the old laws really, as did most of the GP teams this weekend. it’s still possible to play ‘negative’ rugby using the ELV’s.
Any other suggestions and i’m happy to argue for or against the introduction of the ELV’s.
fanciful said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:57am | Report comment
1. It is easier for the refs but they are learning too. personaly, a few short arms and then a yellow card is the best way to go. no more infringements at breakdown, too expensive. the breakdown is always a mess, its the beauty and uniqueness of the game. having said that, some 3N games have seen quick ball until a player is isolated and then the defenders counterruck. good tactic, as long as the attack doesnt make too much ground.
It is better for the ref because he doesnt decide the result with penalties.
2 and 3: Don’t know about the stats. It is logical that a quick tap is faster than a line kick and a lineout and not kicking out from 22 means that the ball is in play more.
4. As regards positive play, everyone is still learning. 5 metres at scrum time encourages positive play.
Simple structured play always works, Test matches will always be more structured. Nature of the players and the time they have to train and learn the structures.
ELVs or not.
ELVS evolve the game, rather than revolutionise it. correctly so.
As always, those most ignored in the debate will eventually have the greatest say, the players and the spectators.
Roger said | September 10th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Colin,
I thought it was pretty clear that the main intention of the ELV’s was for less time at stoppages and to keep the ball in play longer. I thought the S14 and 3N stats clearly showed that the ball is in play longer (albeit significant periods being kicked back and forth but still better than being in a stoppage) and there was less time for kickers to stand over balls and ponder life before kicking one of many penalties. Whether tries are scored or not is really irrelevant.
I agree with some that giving a team the ‘option’ of a tap is a great change, and its the GP’s loss that it isnt being trialled. What needs to be remembered is that IF a team wants to scrummage its way down the field without taking taps, it can. I dont think the ELV dictate an unstructured style of play to be played, but rather they prevent one team’s style from dictating another. i.e you can have one team taking many tap and go’s and another taking scrum after scrum. Undee the old rules I thought that if a team wanted to infringe enough then they could slow the game down to their pace and prevent tries and concede goals.
Lets imagine a game between Wallabies an England. Wllabies could keep tapping and going to prevent scrums when they have the ball to try and tire ENG tight 5 out. When ENG got ball, they could slow it down, scrum and kick and play their way. Intriguing stuff. If ENG played ARG then I am sure the game would be a scrummagers dream..see everyone is happy now.
I dont think anyone wants a game of sevens, but at least the possibility of a battle between styles would add significant intrigue to a game.
I think the only addition, as suggested by many others, to the ‘realistic’ rules would be to instruct refs to issue early yellow card players who lay over ball. Tackling techniques would have to be modified, and would there have to be careful consideration to ‘how’ a team might safely flood a ruck without losing a man to the bin.
I for one think the ELV in totality are a cynical expercise by the IRB to implent a set of rules neither NH or SH truly like, but both will feel they achived a partial victoy and can go back to their unions saying they achieved a compromised victory.
What is the biggest concern is that the rules are a very convoluted way of trying to fix the problems caused by outlawing rucking, the perfect way of ensuring an atatcking team can get quick ball, giving defensive teams a chance to get a turnover or slow it down, and keeping refs out of the game. Oh well.
Ian in NZ said | September 10th 2008 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
..”Against Samoa, the All Blacks used a lot of rolling mauls, something I expect them to do at Brisbane if they get the chance.
The point about allowing the maul to be pulled down is that it gives a defence against the maul, where under the ‘old’ laws there is none at present.”…
UTTER LIES. The use it or loose rule works just fine pre ELVs, and when this was introduced you loved it. And now its mud! Mate you should write for political campaigns, cause the truth is not need there also !
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Roger, to be honest all we can do at the moment is debate. I’m not sure what you say about Eng v Aus matches would be true but it would certainly be an intresting prospect. We’ll really find out what happens when the GP gets into full swing and the players learn the the rules properly. I fully agree that most of the ELV’s should have been trialled up here but I don’t think the ELV’s have had an overwelmingly positive effect on Southern Hemisphere rugby, in my opinion. The players, coaches and the SH fans have given their stamp of approval but they would because you were the ones wanting change anyway.
Roger said | September 10th 2008 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Colin, do you think any changes were needed to rugby given that since rucking was outlawed the flow of the game appears to have suffered?
stuff happens said | September 10th 2008 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
I don’t have a problem with the ELV’s it’s just that I can’t see it’s made much of an improvement to rugby this season in the SH.Sorry, but for me much ado about pretty little.
ohtani's jacket said | September 10th 2008 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
I’m with you, stuff happens.
Too much talk about what the ELVs do in theory and not enough discussion about what they do in practice.
Peter K said | September 10th 2008 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
I disagree on the analysis of the maul pre and post ELV.
Pre ELV of course you could stop the rolling maul, it took execution and skill, and committed forwards hence opening up the space out wide.
Post ELV you do not need as many people to bring down a maul and hence less space out wide.
Also while there have been some rolling mauls under ELV’s there have been less. Most noticably in the TN’s ALL attempted mauls from lineouts 5 metres out were pulled down such that they were no longer attempted. The possibility of mauls scoring from 5 metre lineouts was always intriguing, interesting and added variation and suspense. This is no longer the case in the TN’s under the ELV’s, and thus making the game poorer.
I am for the rest of the ELV’s and it is a shame that the short arm ELV was not used in the NH.
Of course it does allow a cheaters charter BUT as has been said by myself and others before this is easily fixed by mandatory use of yellow cards for repeated ruck infringements.
Mart said | September 10th 2008 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Spiro – racist tosh once again (sadly I’ve come to expect nothing better from you). Of course the NH are not going to be as gung ho about the ELVs as the NH. And the SH Oct / Nov tour of the NH is likely to produce some big wins (you read it hear first….). But the NH will cotton on and use the ELVs to their advantage. Yoy only need to look at this season’s 3Ns to see how teams that get the “rules” right prosper. So any rugger bugger would pray for common rules that we could all judge teams against. Definitvely. Oh, and journalists without your racist bias too…..
Sledgeandhammer said | September 10th 2008 @ 9:34pm | Report comment
For me the real benefit of the ELVs has been seen at the lower levels of the game. Club rugby in Sydney, which in recent years as been quite turgid at times has been fantastic this year. The majority of games I’ve seen (both live and on ABC TV) have been hard, fast and enjoyable to watch. In fact it’s like watching rugby pre professionalism in the sense that the players have the freedom ‘to have a go’.
I think that everyone saying the ELVs are much ado about nothing should punish themselves by dragging out some test matches from the last season few seasons on the VCR. As Gregan stated, test rugby was ceasing to be enjoyable or even a challenge, the name of the game was gaining field position, then penalties (and people talk about a cheats charter!)
At the end of the day rugby has been always been a players game, and the evidence is they do support the ELVs (despite what the crusty old critics on both this site and in newspapers would like to believe).
I also think the free kick is the most important ELV and must be retained. If free kicks reward cheating, why is it there are so many penalties awarded at the breakdown under the old laws? Clearly awarding penalties at the breakdown doesn’t work. The breakdown is a lottery and games should not be decided by what the league commentators used to call ‘differential’ penalties (this meant essentially a penalty that could go either way). Much better to award a free kick or scrum and get on with it.
Final comment – if the rugby community rejects the ELVs it will get the game it deserves.
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Roger, to be honest Roger i didn’t think there was a need for change in the game. I think when the game was refereed well it produced an open game of rugby. I think the main problem, especially in the NH was players lying on the wrong side of the ball, thus stoping the slow release of the ball. Now the IRB have stated that they want the NH referees to clamp down on ruck infringements in general. This has led to a stupid amount of penalties in the first week of the GP, but hopefully players will get the picture and we can see a game of open rugby, much like the GP last season actually.
Colin N said | September 10th 2008 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Roger, to be honest I didn’t think there was a need for change in the game. I think when the game was refereed well it produced an open game of rugby. I think the main problem, especially in the NH was players lying on the wrong side of the ball, thus stoping the slow release of the ball. Now the IRB have stated that they want the NH referees to clamp down on ruck infringements in general. This has led to a stupid amount of penalties in the first week of the GP, but hopefully players will get the picture and we can see a game of open rugby, much like the GP last season actually.
Benjamin said | September 10th 2008 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Mart, I’m sorry – big wins for whom?
Sledgehammer, actually Fourie Du Preez was rather scathing about the ELVs during the S14, I’m sure his opinion isn’t isolated either, however it is unlikely that given O’Neill has put so much stock into the ELVs that any Wallabies would be able to disregard the party line. After NZ lost to Australia, early 3N, Henry was perplexed and angry that a team that had played all of the rugby, NZ, had lost the game. I imagine the players shared that opinion. If anything the ELVs have made the game even more predictable. Apart from a few eclectic periods of play the process goes kick-catch, kick-catch. Teams are worried about retention and thus the approach to all 3N games bar the last has revolved around field position and concentrated sterility. The breakdown is harder to referee, there is no rolling maul and the lineout is now a lottery. Frankly there is no way that people could claim that the recent 3N has in any shape or form been an improved technical tournament.
I agree with Colin N, and a point well made by Warren Gatland – the ELVs are merely a substitute for accurate refereeing.
ohtani's jacket said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
I still don’t understand why they didn’t just reduce the amount of kickable penalties. All you have to do is say these are the penalties where you can have a shot at goal, the rest carry the usual attacking options.
Deans is right in theory that the ELVs allow you to play the way you want to, but in practice sides have had to adjust to the rules, changing their usual style of rugby.
Sledgeandhammer said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
Benjamin, sorry mate, you must have missed it but SANZAR surveyed players from South Africa, New Zealand and Australia regarding the ELVs and the response was overwhelmingly positive from all 3 nations. Quoting one player’s comments is really twisting things.
Graeme Henry’s comments were all about gamesmanship – and it worked. Also, he hadn’t had the benefit of the super 14 to get used to the ELVs, now he has.
To say the games have been predictable is just plain silly- I can’t think of two more contrasting matches than the first two Bledisloe encounters. Also, the up and down results prove how unpredictable the games have been – both in style and results.
Regarding the breakdown, there have been more turnovers under the ELVs which shows there is competition for possession, which is the essence of rugby. I have loved the counter rucking we have seen this season, such as relief from the monotonous pick and drive, ball up the jumper stuff we saw in previous seasons.
The ELVs are not a substitute for accurate refereeing either – under the old laws accurate refereing leads to a stop start match with loads of penalties – if the referee applies the letter of the law. The reality is under the old laws we are asking players to compete for possession and then penalising them for doing so.
Ohtani – in essence the free kick option does just that – teams can take a tap or a scrum, but cannot take a shot for goal. The only option missing is the lineout. The referee also has the discretion of turning the free kick into a penalty or yellow carding players.
ohtani's jacket said | September 11th 2008 @ 12:52am | Report comment
Yes one of the overwhelming positives of the ELVs is the attacking play inside the opposition’s 22, but you could accomplish the same thing without free kicks and then we wouldn’t have the mess we’re seeing in midfield: the lack of counter attacking, the high kicks, the poor kick returns, the free kick turnovers at the breakdown (where no-one’s afraid to give away possession, because ELV rugby is a territory game.)
I don’t have a problem with the forward play under the ELVs, but the back play has gone to pieces aside from South Africa in Jo’berg.
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 12:55am | Report comment
I’m not twisting anything, hence I said that I suspect Du Preez’s opinion is not isolated. I did not state that SA players were anti-ELV. In any case, as I stated, it would be very unlikely for any Sanzar players to publicly denounce the change that their unions are pushing very hard for.
The main reason that the games have been been unpredictable, in result only and not style of play I might add, is that it took two games for Henry to work out the new rules and because PDV insisted on his nonsensical game plan. Other than that the results have been similar to recent years. There has been a huge amount of kicking because teams are worried about losing posession – that to me is negative rugby. There is no argument whatsoever that the 3N has had games of high skill and quality better than anything of previous years. What you are saying is that you want a game with little intervention of the ref – that isn’t professional sport. If a team is at fault they must be penalised and it is hardly like we have seen a reduction of referees blowing their whistle.
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 1:23am | Report comment
…Anyhow, without starting a lengthy and pointless debate, my point is thus;
1. there is no justification so suggest that the ELVs have improved the game. Not only are the ELVs muddled (rolling maul – illogical and short sighted) but the IRB made a mess of their trialling. None of the current 3N games, bar one, have been any better than games of previous years. 5 metre rule, 22 rule – yes. Good ideas. Others – not really.
2. it is easy to say that the game was boring and quote that silly little egg Gregan, but some of the rugby played by Wales, NZ, France and Ireland over the past few years has been delightful. This suggests that the ELVs are a substitute for inventive coaching. This over tinkering has begun to alter some of the traditional tenets of rugby union – and that is not acceptable.
bob said | September 11th 2008 @ 4:59am | Report comment
Interesting that Spiro and the SH rugby commentators are so into the NH game… it strikes me that you should play your game and leave mine alone. I play rugby, coach rugby and when I can, quite often, pay to watch rugby. I like the old laws, I was enjoyiung seeing our game eveolve into a faster version of itself, without interference, and I know that mauls can be defended because I know how to play the game and defend them… I am willing to entertain the use of certain elv’s, but not those that alter the game in a significant way, which the short arm does… even the AB coaches admit this. They say that maybe ways will be found round the negativity the elv’s have bred, but how long do you want? You’ve had a long time and still your tri-nations looks like a kick-fest, proper kick and charge and kick and charge etc! It’s boring, but if you like it, you play it.
Once or if you really need the money, twice a year we can play tests, and every 4 years we can contest a cup… but for 99% of the time, I’ll play and watch and coach in my part of the world, I’ll see club games with 80,000 spectators, I’ll be caught up in the passion and the excitment, the power and variety of NH rugby, and I wont give a single passing thought to Australian, Kiwi or SA rugby. So why not go your way and leave us to go ours?
Any of your players who want to play our style of game are welcome, on any level, but your sports writers and adminstrators can take a hike.
Glenn Condell said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Spiro
off topic I’m afraid, but I wondered if you noticed The Usual
Suspect’s very nice piece on Chris Latham, who he rates the best 15
he’s seen. It’s here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/stephen_jones/article4691864.ece
and this is Mr Jones’s top ten 15’s:
1. CHRIS LATHAM (AUSTRALIA)Of all the full-backs I’ve seen in the
flesh, he has the most in his armoury, with an allround efficiency
bordering on the ruthless
2. JUAN-MARTIN HERNANDEZ (ARGENTINA)Has been called the Maradona of
rugby. Now moving towards fly-half but he is a magician anywhere on
the field
3. JPR WILLIAMS (WALES)Typified the courage and self-confidence of
rugby at London Welsh, Wales and the Lions. The first great
counter-attacking full-back
4. CHRISTIAN CULLEN (NEW ZEALAND)Arguably the greatest attacking
full-back of all time. A shame that he was past his best when he
signed for Munster
5. SERGE BLANCO (FRANCE)One of the most celebrated Frenchmen in any
sporting field. His brilliance as a try-scorer alone was priceless 6.
ANDY IRVINE (SCOTLAND)Could not quite supplant the great JPR in Lions
teams, but he was compelling to watch, a hero of Scotland and beloved
to this day
7. GAVIN HASTINGS (SCOTLAND)Just one yard of pace short of being a
truly deadly attacker, but in his allround game almost as accomplished
as Latham
8. MATT BURKE (AUSTRALIA)A reliable kicker and an ebullient attacker
who for some time was good enough to keep Latham out of the Australia
team
9. JOHN GALLAGHER (NEW ZEALAND)Almost as brilliant a runner as Cullen
was in a later era. Accordingly, the Londoner became a magical Kiwi
10. GWYN EVANS (WALES)Curiously underrated but a man of deft talents.
A Lion in 1983, only the lack of a true goalkicking game robs him of
higher accolades
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Absolute dross that Hernandez is on that list and a player like Robinson isn’t. Even Ruan Pienaar’s father should be ahead of Hernandez in the fullback pecking order. Ignacio Corleto is a far better xv than Hernandez. I think that Mr. Jones just wants to let all the other kids in the playground know that he watches rugby and isn’t averse to throwing in a wild card just to mess with our minds. Just like young teenagers trying to outdo each other in the ‘who knows the more eclectic band’ argument. Utter bollocks.
Jerry said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Jones is just a pointless stirrer in my opinion. In his latest “Rolling Maul” he slates NZ for “tapping up” players from the Samoan squad that recently played the All Blacks. I’m not sure what he’s even accusing NZ of – the players can’t play for the All Blacks due to IRB regulations, so the only teams that could sign them would be provinces and/or S14 franchises – how is that any different from NH clubs signing Samoan players? If anything, Samoan test players who play in NZ are more likely to be released for international fixtures – there’s a reason that squad was a “3rd XV’.
Latham wasn’t even the best Australian fullback ever, in my opinion. Matt Burke shaded him in pretty much every discipline except clearing kicks.
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Jerry, if you fancy turning to page 6 of the Rolling Maul you will see Mr. Jones respond to my initial response to last weeks Rolling Maul (Benjamin Saunders). I criticise his views weekly on the good ol’ RM. Last week he was having a pop at a young highboard diver as some weak metaphor for why young players should never be capped. SJ just seems desperately out of touch with contemporary rugby – hence his naming of Tom Rees as a potential Lions captain when Haskell has captained sides all through his life.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 11th 2008 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Bob, rugby was fundamentally changed when rucking was effectively outlawed. Breakdown problems ensued. The ELV’s go some way to address this. It must be supported by more yellow cards sooner. You read it here first.
Bob, rugby is a brotherhood. Miopia, separation and selfishness are not brotherly!!! Until you have fully trialed them, you do not possess the facts, and in particular, how the crowds and players will respond to the ELVs. Using 13 of 33 the ELV’s is not a trial. It is a tantrum!
The strength of the NH game is the wealth of talent available. Much of it is not local and so cruels the national team. Also, I understand that the Islander countries and nationals (E.g. Sth Afirca, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, etc) are going to be removed from the Kolpak definition and hence over time, these exciting players will leave the NH comps. Replacing them with the currently ignored local players will leave a significant gap in skill, numbers and entertainment value.
Colin N said | September 11th 2008 @ 11:09am | Report comment
The ELV’s don’t address the breakdown at all. If anything they make it harder to referee. The simple thing is to clamp down on ruck infringements earlier. As I said in an earlier post, the IRB are instructing refs to do this and hopefully this will sort it out.
LeftArmSpinner, there is plenty of local talent available to the countries. Around 65% of the players in the GP are English qualified. Also the majority of the stand out players in the GP last year were English. So to say that the wealth of talent in the NH isn’t local just shows how much you know about NH rugby. And the same goes with the Celtic nations as well.
Matt said | September 11th 2008 @ 11:50am | Report comment
I honestly believed (after watching the WC last year) that the game was about to turn into a kick fest. And the side the really went to town with the tactic were actually the darlings of the tournament, Argentina.
Loffreda and Pichot had the Argies playing a kick and chase game that not only took opposition by surpirse, but also allowed them to take some big scalps too. This same tactic of kicking into the middle of the field and putting a defensive wall up against the counter is what has now invaded most rugby pitches in the SH. It is surely only a matter of time before it takes root in the north also? I am yet to view any GP games, but the Top 14 matches I have watched certainly had their fair share of midfield bombing.
I believe that, ELV’s or not, this season was destined for a kick fest. We have all seen in recent seasons how well a strong defense, coupled with a territorial kicking game, can win games (and silverware). And no tournament has more wall like defense than the Tri Nations.
During the Sydney test, if the Wallabies had poor defense then they would have succumbed to the same rampaging attack play that the AB’s dished out to England. But that is not the case, all three Tri Nations sides possess very well organised defensive patterns. So, the only way to really score tries is from a good territorial position. It is only when a team has a weak defensive game (Aussie against the Boks, 2nd Test) that teams can win from depth.
I would question which, if any, of the ELV’s is it that has prompted this new tactic of ‘aerial ping-pong’. Surely the new breakdown laws meant that it is easier for the attacking team to retain possession? I beleive the stats show that, if you take the ball into contact, the Attacking side has over a 90% likelyhood of retaining the possesion.
So is it the not passing back to the 22 then? Is it just that teams are now substituting the contest of the opposition lineout for simply contesting the high ball instead? Because the stats still suggest there in more ‘ball in play’ time. In many cases it is quite a significant amount of extra time.
The only aspect of the Tri Nations (and the games I have watched under the ELV’s) is the large amount of Midfield kicking. All other aspects have been an improvement in my eyes. Although I will admit that, for all the trouble it has caused (and all the mud slinging contests of the field) I would have almost rather they hadn’t bothered, so bad has been the organisation of it.
But I do think that, come the end of the season, most NH pundits will wonder what all the fuss was about. The ELV’s that they have adopted are so minimal in their affect that even the most observant rugby watcher would struggle to notice a change had they been away for the rugby press for a year (and if they were dea enough to not hear the constant pro/anti ELV spin for the commentators).
Andrew Jones said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Spiro – love that you now just call him “the Usual Suspect”. Brilliant. Cheers, Jonesy
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Matt, in that tournament that was only true of Argentina and their dull play has been glossed over due to romanticism. In any case knock-out tournaments are always dull to a certain extent and every single WC since 1987 has consisted of the same, knockout rugby. I can’t see one tournament being the justification for an onslaught of tactical kicking. Look how Wales have won their past two Grand Slams, for instance.
I imagine most NH pundits will wonder what the fuss is about because they are only trialling 13 laws. However some of the ELVs have been poorly thought out and poorly trialled/distributed by the IRB, who even admitted their mistakes – that is the problem – mismanagement. If you take the lineout as an example: now that the maul is so easy to be dragged down defending teams can have four forwards in the line and pack their backline defence. If the defence decides to pack their lineout then the lineout becomes a complete lottery. In the S14 lineouts were down 14%. The rolling maul is a skilful, organised facet of union – that is why so few teams succeed with it, it also sucks in forwards and clears out space in the backs. By making it so easy to bring down the IRB have allowed the defending team to once more pack their defence. The increased kicking – it has all combined to create negative play. The Top 14 has seen some awful cynicism as opposed to any new lateral thinking. A missed opportunity methinks.
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
Poor effort Spinner. Colin I think the number is closer to 70%!? In any case any informed fan only has to look at Wasps, Harlequins, Leicester, London Irish etc to know that the GP is actually on the up and up and last season was the best in terms of rugby played and young English talent identified.
Spinner, you talk of brotherhood when you refer to an enforced set of rules that will make some players completely redundant because they are too heavy. You also talk about the NH holding back these changes – why did the IRB trial different ELVs in the S14 and the 3N? Smacks of mismanagement to me. Probably why the IRB came out and admitted as much. Btw – who was rucking outlawed by? Was it those great visionaries by the IRB?
bob said | September 11th 2008 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Leftarm, I agree that rugby is a brotehrhood, and anyone who wears my shirt is my brother. I’ve played and coached in many places, and as I travelled, came to see rugby posts as a place where I would be welcomed and understood, and find brothers… but against our deepest wishes we have taken on the ELV’s. and are trailling them, according to the agreed format put to us by the IRB, and still it isn’t enough, still people like Spiro want more. We have compromised as far as we can, and to ask more in the name of brotherhood is not on… it’s akin to attempting to bully us into agreements we want no part of. I would hate to see a South/north split, as threatened by O’Neill, but could live with it.
As for our talent locally, it is only now beginning to come through, and in the future we will see more and more young players shine. Thats not to say there wont always be a place for overseas players, because they will always be welcome, but their absence wouldn’t detract from our game. We can live with it… We are a club based culture, and wasps played Irish to a crowd of 52000 last week, not to see world superstars, but to see their club… and the game is growing daily… we want the sh on board, but some credit for our willingness to compromise would be nice, and some space from the Sh critics to actually make our own minds up would be welcome.
We wont be pushed on this, not by the RFU, not by the IRB and not by the SH.// and as Benjamin has rightly stated, where was the brotherhood when the IRB introduces laws that take teh heavyweights out of contention for serious game time? We are a playing based culture, and we wont have laws that undermine the game for all shapes and sizes.
Now, some of the ELV’s may work well, and we’ll see, but let us do that, let us have our trial… and let the Spiro’s of the world focus on their own game, and leave ours alone.
Steffy said | September 11th 2008 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
“In any case any informed fan only has to look at Wasps, Harlequins, Leicester, London Irish etc to know that the GP is actually on the up and up ”
London Irish published their most recent financial figures today
Benjamin said | September 11th 2008 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
That’s completely irrelevant because you have taken the quote out of context. Go away Steffy, it’s getting boring now.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 12th 2008 @ 12:25am | Report comment
Bob, you have not really taken on the ELV’s, just 13 of 33 of them and not the important ones, and it is only a trial anyway. Re wasps and London Irish, it was a double header wasnt it, so 52,000 is misleading? and who played best for Irish, Peter Hewat, a non tackling fullback who was dropped from the S14 Tahs team. Sure, a very good goal kicker and very good hands but very slow and a poor defender.
Who has taken the heavyweights out? Not the ELV’s that’s for sure. They are just as if not more important. Just look at how much work the Wallabies are putting into reestablishing a bunch of heavy weights. Look also at the size of the S14 and 3N packs. Nothing has changed there at all.
Bob, in the spirit of brotherhood, and an former Roslyn Park player, forget the rhetoric and the conspiracy theories.
Removing rucking affected the game fundamentally. The breakdown brokedown. The pressure came back onto the refs, unfairly, and their penalties determined matches. At the same time, defences have improved with the advent of professionalism and attacking rugby, thro backs and/or forwards, was being stifled. Games had become dull.
The ELV’s are an IRB initiative. Look at who runs the IRB. SH people embraced the ELV’s and have trialled them comprehensively, but this does not equate to a conspiracy.
The stats, and the spectators and players (at 3N, S14, ARC and Sydney grade level) opinions are strongly in favour of the ELV’s, after playing under them for a full season. These players play in teams that have a variety of different playing styles. Surely all that is sufficient for the NH to give them a solid trial for themselves, just a trial. Don’t underestimate the positive public interest that they have generated in SH. You cant buy that sort of publicity.
Anyway, until you give them a real trial, collected and examined the stats and polled players and spectators, NH is not in a position to really criticise those that have trialled them. That is just plain fair and reasonable!
No more. I am completely fed up with this now. You can take the horse to the water, but you cant make it drink.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 12:37am | Report comment
Benjamin. What do you mean by up and up?
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 12:50am | Report comment
Spinner, you’re out of your depth with that argument. Firstly yes it was a double header but GP attendances have been rising year on year. Secondly Hewat had a good game but last year he was average, his kicking percentage was around 8th in the league. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with your criticism of Hewat but it would be completely innacurate to suggest that any average S14 player could be a star in the GP. Irish and Harlequins, Wasps and Saracens also, contribute a group of excellent English players to the GP. I could name them if you would like because I imagine you wouldn’t know whom they are.
I have already given you the Adam Jones scenario, to which you never responded. Perhaps it was just a coincidence. The Australians aren’t investing in heavyweights they are trying to invest in an aggressive, accurate pack – not size for the sake of it.
The IRB removed rucking and yet suddenly they are the geniuses behind the game-saving ELVs!? Why were separate ELVs trialled in the S14 not trialled in the 3N? Is it coincidental that the IRB have admitted that they made a mess of the trialling or is the NH’s fault?
It’s interesting that you would say drop the rhetoric, that coming from a contributor so deeply clouded in hyperbole and rhetoric that I initially thought it was Al Campbell in disguise. It’s also interesting that you would employ that expression. I would love you to list what has been good about the ELVs so far. Please just for the sake of clarity.
Steffy, read the thread. It is abundantly clear.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:01am | Report comment
“GP attendances have been rising year on year”
Apart from last season when they were down on the previous season. You also have to factor in that GP attendance figures aren’t strictly attendance figures because many if not all clubs include season ticket holders regardless of their actual attendance
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:09am | Report comment
So what is your point, other than appearing to pick holes in occasional threads?
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:13am | Report comment
If you are going to attempt to make points at least try to make them based on facts.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:15am | Report comment
Show me the facts then.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:34am | Report comment
The GP “attendance” figures are available on the GP website.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:35am | Report comment
Ok, then, seeing as you’re unwilling to, I shall continue…
Firstly you completely twist a quote to suit a point that has no relevace to anything whatsoever. Childish and boring.
Secondly you decide to involve yourself in a debate – for what reason I do not know, but you’re not really on the money there either. There are 9 consecutive rises in attendance figures from 1998/99 until 2006/07 and a mild drop in the last WC season. I would imagine that 9 increases constitutes a trend and that one slight drop reflects an aberration. I suppose the World Cup that was hosted in France had nothing to do with that drop?! I think therefore that it is safe to assume that the GP is very much on the up and up.
You’re pedantic interruptions are boring, churlish and irritating Steffy. You have nothing positive to contribute so unless you’re that angry at rugby union in general, I imagine there are better things you could be doing. Do stop being so borish.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:45am | Report comment
“Ok, then, seeing as you’re unwilling to”
I told you where the figures are available, what more do you want?
I have often noticed that rugby union people get angry when facts are introduced which conflict with their wishful thinking.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:50am | Report comment
That was prior to your post appearing. No Steffy, people get angry when narrow minded people steal quotes and twist them to suit a boring, pedantic, churlish and glib argument that comes from your direction quite regularly. Unless you have an opinion on the ELVs I suggest you bore off. As aforementioned, I doubt that 9 rises and 1 small drop constitutes wishful thinking.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 1:54am | Report comment
“I doubt that 9 rises and 1 small drop constitutes wishful thinking”
That’s not what you said, you claimed, “GP attendances have been rising year on year” – I merely pointed out that was incorrect – I am not sure why you believe that gives you the right to be abusive
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 2:00am | Report comment
“In any case any informed fan only has to look at Wasps, Harlequins, Leicester, London Irish etc to know that the GP is actually on the up and up and last season was the best in terms of rugby played and young English talent identified.”
You took that quote, cut the end off and claimed that it was a reference to finance. It clearly is not. That is patently cynical and in any case, you had absolutely nothing to do with the prior debate. You have no opinion on the ELVs and you have no understanding or appreciation of the London rugby union teams – therefore I can see no reason why you would involve yourself when you did other than to assert one of your usual points. You then butted in, again I might add, to make a rather lame point. 9/10 suggests a trend, as I have already said. My point is correct therefore. I don’t know what right you have to think you can keep butting in with these pedantic points. It is beyond silly now. If you want to criticise rugby union then submit an article to the league section. Other than that you are being a constant pest.
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 2:07am | Report comment
“You took that quote, cut the end off and claimed that it was a reference to finance. It clearly is not”
Your “up and up” statement wasn’t really a reference to anything – I tried to help you by providing some context for it however the example I gave, a financial one, showed quite the opposite. If you wish to narrow down what exactly is “up and up” then maybe we can find a point of agreement.
“9/10 suggests a trend, as I have already said”
You said it after I corrected your previous statement of wishful thinking.
“If you want to criticise rugby union then submit an article to the [rugby] league section.”
Why would I want to submit a union article for the rugby league section?
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 2:12am | Report comment
I think a reference to developing English youth talent and the brand of rugby employed provides context, especially given the thread that the quote was a reponse to.
Again, if you think that 9/10 is not a trend then you obviously missed economics class. Wishful thinking that is not. The only drop was a slight drop, and I think that there were more than 900 Englishmen in France watching the WC unfold. That is a point that you have chosen to ignore.
More to the point why would you want to comment on the rugby union section?
Steffy said | September 12th 2008 @ 2:16am | Report comment
“Again, if you think that 9/10 is not a trend then you obviously missed economics class”.
I have never said it isn’t a trend.
“Wishful thinking that is not.”
Who said it was?
Nelson said | September 12th 2008 @ 4:39am | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket said | September 10th 2008 @ 11:17pm
“I still don’t understand why they didn’t just reduce the amount of kickable penalties. All you have to do is say these are the penalties where you can have a shot at goal, the rest carry the usual attacking options. ”
Agreed. I dont think “not releasing/holding on ” should be a kickable penalty…all that the defensive side is being denied is possesion of the ball…. so all they should gain from the penalty is possesion ( via a free kick, scrum, whatever)
what about a scenario where if the attacking team infringes the sanction is a free kick ( e.g not releasing), and when the defending side is infringes (offside, killing the ball ,tackler not rolling away etc ) its a full arm penalty ?
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 6:54am | Report comment
It is still down to the interpretation of the referee though.
ohtani's jacket said | September 12th 2008 @ 7:38am | Report comment
Why do people up North think the ELVs will effect crowd numbers? They haven’t hurt crowd numbers in the Super 14/Tri-Nations.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Can’t say I’ve heard that rumour before. The main issue that all NH anti-ELVers is the fact that the change is enforced and also the motivation for change.
ohtani's jacket said | September 12th 2008 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Yet the ELVs have moved the game closer to NH style rugby…. ?
In theory the strongest sides in Europe ought to be able to do what the All Blacks have done this season in Auckland and Cape Town.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Yes, but that wasn’t an anticipated adjunct of the rules. Like I said, the major issue is the need and motivation for change? The fact of the matter is that the ELVs necessitate a strong pack. Not every team wants to kick and chase. Ireland, Wales, NZ and France have, over the past few years, played some lovely rugby. The ELVs now mean that without a top front five that is simply not viable any more as Australia recently found out, much to their chagrin.
Colin N said | September 12th 2008 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Yes the IRB created the ELV’s but I believe the acceptance of the ELV’s by Australia and New Zealand was because of their early exits from the world cup. I think they thought that if they accepted the ELV’s it would make the game more like the SH. But if anything it’s had the reverse effect: it’s led to more kicking and a spread defence across the field. Look at it this way, had New Zealand been less conservative in their quater-final exit (aka lots of aimless kicking) then we probably wouldn’t have been in this situation.
Justin said | September 12th 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Colin I dont think early doors had an influence at all. It was already scheduled in I think. These changes have been on the cards for years.
Roger said | September 12th 2008 @ 9:38am | Report comment
The ELVs were being trialled in the ARC before the RWC, so the result in the RWC was irrelevant to wanting rule changes There goes that part of your conspiracy theory gents!
Benjamin, you really should work on toning down the condescension levels, especially to good contributers like LAS, although I can see you are frustrated with “leaguie” Steffy.
What I am most interested about with regards people who are criticising the ELvs is whether they are unhappy there are any changes at all, OR whether they see some changes are needed but are just unhappy with what changes have been made. If this was clarified then I think the debate might be advanced.
It seems that whenever LAS or myelf or others say that chnages need to be made to even out the problems caused by rucking being outlawed, there is an abundance of replies to the effect that ” well these laws dont achieve that”.
Ok then, accepting that you dont like the new laws, do you think rugby was a better game with rucking? If so, then now rucking has been outlawed, can you accept that something has to be done to remedy the problems? Simply saying the refs must be better is repeating a drective that gets sent out by the IRB every year and either misunderstood or ignored by most. So, what else can be done? Discuss…
Statements that larger props are being pushed out of the game are also more ‘white noise’ on the issue. Unfortunately yes, some props will be a bit fitter, but as many have noted, whilst play is faster, scrums are now more important, especially when a team gets short arms frequently, and can then scrum away to their hearts content and slow the game down to their speed as long as they have the ball.. Still plenty of chubby props around though, just separating the cream from the milk so to speak.
If you dont want any changes, then its probably back to a circular pissing contest as to what type of rugby do you want to see.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Apologies then if I sound condescending but it is bordering on lame to have to hear the same old nonsense about the NH conservatives, holding the game back etc etc. I also think it is facile to hear LAS ask someone to tone down their rhetoric when LAS has taken great pleasure in pushing Tahu down everyone’s throats and asserting how he would rip NZ to pieces etc and how the ELVs are in fact the saviour of rugby. A little perspective does everybody the world of good.
1. It is clearly been proved that the majority of NH fans were always pro some ELVs and anti others. However a large sticking point is that there is no proof whatsoever that the game needed changing. European rugby is in rude health. It is not in NZ and Australia – so why affect change on Europe? That is a bone of contention.
2. The people involved in the LPG are out of date with the modern game. The only link to contemporary rugby is McQueen and it was he who started the defensive emphasis in modern rugby. His teams never played beyond mechanised repetition therefore he hardly strikes me as a realistic beacon of progressive change.
2.a. The fact of the matter is that some ELVs are badly thought out and encourage negative rugby. That is beyond dispute. Therefore whilst there may be some looser moments, as a whole the new rules make the game more predictable.
3. Rugby was a far better game with rucking but that doesn’t mean anything has to change. In any case the breakdown has become even harder to ref so that hardly solves the ruck situation.
4. Here is a prop scenario – Wales have a lightweight pack who love to run and handle, therefore to counter balance that they need a cornerstone at 3. Adam Jones. He is comparatively useless but he does his job in the scrum. Even though there are more scrums under the ELVs there are also pasages of play that are loose and unbridled, therefore Wales cannot risk playing a prop who could miss a fatal tackle in one of these passages. Bye, bye Jones. Various players have made careers out of rugby who could not do that anymore – players like Steve Thompson who has genetic weight issues. Correct me if I’m wrong but rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes. If I were an overweight, fat teenager why would I want to start a sport where immediately I am yards off the pace? What chubby props are still around?
Roger said | September 12th 2008 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Perspective yes. What I think is important is not to say “well the new rules havent achieved their purpose so they are wrong” but rather “well if I am not getting what I want from the new rules, what new rules will help?” Lets be constructive!
The issue that there is no proof that the game needs changing is tough, I suppose I can only ask the question ” is there anything at all you would change about how rugby is played?”. I think every fan could say something, with common themes amongst all…this is a fantastic opportunity for the code to improve, or at least cure the ills created since rucking was outlawed. Think opportunity not threat, O’Neill talks it up (unfortunately) but you should feel confident that the $$$ in rugby are in NH, and thats where the power lies.
Maybe saying ‘chubby props’ was misleading, as we are playing an elite sport here so no one should be chubby, but the premise that the game is for short and wide, and tall and thinner, and everyone in between still rings true for mine. I for one dont want any players on my professional national team to be carrying more body fat than they should. If only god would deliever Australia an Andrew Sheridan clione). Plenty of players have been left by the wayside pre ELVs because they werent physically suited to the speeding up of the game. In relation to chubby teenagers, they will always get a run, as no one else wants to be props…that level of footy is much more forgiving, and everyone will still get a run. Crisis averted:)
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 11:06am | Report comment
There is no point in being constructive as you say because the laws are here, perhaps not for ever but the time for change has been and gone – I think therefore that it is fair to say that there has been a missed opportunity. For example – the rolling maul. Ludicrous to get rid of it. Logically, how can anybody with any rugby history estimate that ridding the game of the maul would do anything but pack the defensive line?
Changes I want – straight feeds into scrums, refs to go on scrummaging courses, proper rucking, the corner flags to not be part of the ‘no try’ zone. Mostly pie in the sky. I would change all of that (I am aware of the corner flag ELV) but it isn’t going to happen. Very few fans in the NH see the ELVs as a threat, they see them as mismanaged and badly thought out. In many ways a hinderance and certainly an opportunity gone begging.
Regarding youth props, I’m not sure that ‘fatties’ would rather play rugby and get even more exposed than they would have, in terms of fitness, than not play at all, to be honest. I’m not a youth coach so I can’t really guestimate. Regarding pro props, a lot of teams will have to rethink the continued selection of certain players; John Hayes and Adam Jones to name two specific players.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 12th 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Gentlemen, my sincere apologies to everyone for my being facile (according to Benjamin) in suggesting that the rhetoric be toned down. My comment was directed to Bob, someone who appears reasonable.
While on the subject of rhetoric, and in Benjamin’s case, I suggest that the rhetoric be turned off completely.
Ben, stop the tantrum. Naughty chair for you until you choose one of the two options. (Typical and effective parenting method to follow)
Option 1: Follow the IRB’s direction and trial the ELV’s, then collect the factual data and player and crowd response and then decide whether they work for NH.
Option 2: Stay quiet, on the basis that you don’t have the data, anecdotal or statistical!!
The silence would have saved us all from the claim “The main issue that all NH anti-ELVers is the fact that the change is enforced and also the motivation for change.” Enforced? It is a trial, a trial, a trial so that everyone can be better informed as to the inpact of the ELV’s.
As regards the GP, 52% of the players chosen in the spine positions (2, 8, 9, 10 and 15) of the GP teams last week were foreigners and many of them, second stringers at that, for example Hewat.
You can draw your own conclusions.
I remain quite happy that the NH are throwing their “tantie” as they are wasting valuable time understanding and working with the ELV’s. I suspect that the true cost of the tantie will only be apparent if the IRB fractures or the NH send underprepared teams to RWC in 2011.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 12th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
BTW,
In light of the current NH behaviour, we should remember the great and unselfish work that NZ rugby did to help Aust rugby in the amateur days, the benefits of which we ALL still receive today. The S14 and 3N has been fantastic. NZ put the game first and well ahead of short term, self interest.
Despite being amateurs themselves, they did not confuse the healthy NZ-Aussie rivalry with doing what is best for the game.
I attended the IRB Pacific Nations Cup final (NZ V aust) earlier this year. Bill Beaumont, IRB VP (i think) was there and doing a great job promoting the world game of rugby. Keep it up.
Wallabies to win by 7 in Brisbane.
Roger said | September 12th 2008 @ 11:28am | Report comment
I wouldnt say the laws are here to stay in totality…certainly some. The fact that the ‘hands in the ruck’ law has been shelved since the ARC comp makes me think there is some method to this trialling madness. NZ papers today are full of articles discussing how games have turned into a no risk kickfest. The alternative to having faith in the IRB to make the correct eventual decisions (after some pain during trials) is unthinkable.
I think everyone agrees that whilst a maul cannot really be defended and contested once formed, it is great for attracting defedners and hence creating space. Likewise, not requiring a defensive team to match numbers in the lineout will mean less space in backline. I think these will be shelved.
Unforunately for all of us, rucking wont come back, which is sad, but necessary esp for junior levels of game where political correctness and liability issues for clubs and protective mums make such a practice too risky.
I think your assessment of the prop situation is a bit alarmist as pretty much no player can be overeight now. I recall seeing players such as Lloyd Walker and David Knox looking decidely unfit running around at 5/8 in days gone by but now either players like that need to shape up or ship out. Game has been speeding up since way before ELVs and the best props will prevail, albe them unlikly to carry extra pounds.
I have a theory that the lack of props in rugby(esp in Aus) is a direct result of body image and weight loss issues,. but thats a far out issue for another day.
Matt said | September 12th 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Enjoying the debate guys, but a couple of points:
I still don’t think that the rolling maul has been removed. I have watched a lot of the Air New Zealand Cup and mauling is still very much a part at that level. It has changed to become a more dynamic feature though and tends to fracture and reform a lot more than before. So I have seen it as an improvement, even though it doesn’t bother me either way. It still seems to suck in forwards and create other opportunities out wide.
The perception of an IRB mismanagement of the ELV process (mainly by NH pundits) is apoint I find Ironic. Because if they had simply allowed the global trial of all laws (as the IRB had requested) then we would all be playing under the same laws now. The fact is that they forced the hand of the IRB and only allowed a few laws into their game. Whether that was justified or not (I can understand fully where they were coming from) it meant that the ELV’s were never given a fair trial. The were dismissed as guilty before ever having the chance to be proven innocent. And for people to then say the IRB mismanaged it, while partly true, is more or less shifting the blame off their own shoulders.
Finally, I think the biggest perceived criticism of the full (almost) ELV’s by SH fans (who have now had nearly an entire season of them at all levels) is the large amount of aimless kicking. I still maintain that this has nothing to do with the ELV’s and was a tactic creeping into the game anyway. Which ELV caused this philosophy change exactly?
Colin N said | September 12th 2008 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Spinner, can you give us any more examples of ’second stringers’ playing in those spine position please and for which clubs they play for.
Benjamin said | September 12th 2008 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Roger, I sid that the laws are here in the sense that it is too late to make further change. I am aware that they are only being trialled until next year.
The maul may be present in the lower levels at NZ but not in the S14, 3N, GP, ML or T14. I assume that is because like in the amateur era, some players are bigger and stronger than others.
My prop theory may be alarmist but I did say that I was speculating, however by and large I cannot see players like Steve Thompson dominating games any more.
Matt, Mike Miller of the IRB came out and publicly said that the IRB had made various mistakes in their trialling of the game. The NH had every right to reject as many ELVs as they wanted simply because there was no necessity for any change. Just because people in the SH like them does not mean that the NH is under any obligation to acquiesce.
Various coaches and players have come out and commented on the increase in aimless kicking, and how it has come about through the ELVs. The reason being that teams are afraid of isolated players and therefore losing posession. Sincerely – if you would like I will find some of these quotes.
Spinner, the ELVs are enforced simply through moral assertion – like how the NH is holding everybody back and yet the NH reaches a compromise and SH sausages like you are still shouting from the rooftops.
Frankly I don’t need any evidence because seeing is believing and this 3N has been poor. It has been predicatable and repetative with considerable awful kicking. The ELVs have increased negative rugby – please correct me on that one if you think I’m wrong. In any case I don’t see what evidence you would even refer to.
You keep ignoring the key point – the need for change. Simply put there wasn’t one (in European rugby anyhow) and you want to blindly accept a collection of rules, that contain some horrendous errors, as if they are the saviour of the game. You glibly accept rules that challenge the core values of rugby and then criticise the NH for asserting their right to say no. Bull honky.
Mart said | September 12th 2008 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Benjamin – sorry, a bit late answering your question, apols for the ommission, but the Oct / Nov tours by the SH to the NH will produce huge wins to the SH sides I think. Simple reason that they and their coaches will have had more experience of / time with the ELVs. Look at the wildly swinging results in the 3N as teams get to work out the goods and bads of the ELVs. The NH national sides won’t have this advantage. That said my view has always been that the ELVs (the E bit there always makes me laugh – I doubt there is any experiment about them at all) will not natuarlly disadvantage any one nation, once everyone works them out they will play the rules to thei strengths / weaknesses. I’ve enjoyed watching the ARC and the current 3N with the ELVs – but then I didn’t dislike the old ones !
Three additional comments:
1. If the ELVs are a world-wide IRB initiative it seems to me odd that all the SH appear to support them and the beefs are coning from the NH. So where is the I in IRB then ?
2. In the Shaun Edwards article that Spiro references there is a great post from “DubDave” (hmmm….Dublin Dave moonlighting ?) which reads “I love this ELV (thankfully not trialled up here) that basically 99% of foulplay committed at the breakdown will be a free kick rather than a penalty. It’s like Richie McCaw, George Smith, Phil Waugh and Schalk Burger were sitting around a table pissed over a game of poker and someone said “If you were head of the IRB, what rule change would you make…..”. ROTFPML at that one mate !
3. It tickles m that Spiro continually rants against Stephen Jones and all things NH / English for myopia etc etc. The words kettle, black, pot apply here surely ?I’d like to think that his writing style is a case of “light blue touch paper and stand well back” as his grasp of sports history / stats is exemplary. I’d like to think that…..
Footnote – am on hols with the family at Mooloolaba this week and on Thurs eve sat next to Pinetree Meads at coffee ! I’ve no doubt by now he’s in central Brisbane !
Mart said | September 12th 2008 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Sorry – also should have mntioned that if folk want to get a predominantly NH view of a similar debate have a look at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/sep/12/premiership.rugbyunion
ohtani's jacket said | September 12th 2008 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Regarding props, Mtawarira is the prop of the future, a player one NZ writer called a cross between Steve McDowell and Carl Hayman. He’d be playing Test rugby regardless of the ELVs due to his mobility.
As far as negative play goes, the Tri-Nations hasn’t been wholly negative and I’d hardly call it predictable, but the back play has been poor. That can only be construed as a failure.
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 12:24am | Report comment
Mtawarira is a good prop, but he is another Woodman and Woodcock, he’s not entirely new to that extent. I can’t see what he has to do with the argument that certain players will become redundant though?
The 3N hasn’t been wholly negative but we have only seen one game when the ball was whizzed about – the last game involving SA. When NZ tried to throw the ball about they lost. I would call the recent 3N predictable on the basis that the ELVs require a simple system to win. Once a team meets those requirements it will win. Teams are not able to play in their traditional style.
Mart, you think Australia will suddenly find a pack to cope with the NH packs within a few weeks? I doubt it. I think the only team to do well will be NZ.
The ELVs aren’t a world-wdie initiative. Anyhow, I agree with your third point. Enjoy your holiday.
ohtani's jacket said | September 13th 2008 @ 12:51am | Report comment
That’s what I was getting at, the trend in props like Mtawarira started long before the ELVs were conceived.
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 12:52am | Report comment
That’s true but props of his ability were few and far between, more of a bonus and an exception to the rule. However whilst props of that calibre and style could excel prior to the ELVs so could heavyweight props who may not be able to do so anymore.
ohtani's jacket said | September 13th 2008 @ 2:01am | Report comment
Maybe, but even when I started watching rugby in the late 80s there was a push towards more mobile props. I can’t think of any All Black props in the last 20 years who were simply there to scrum, none that lasted anyway. Smaller, mobile props weren’t that uncommon in the decades before that. I think certain scrummaging countries have created the illusion that props were always big men.
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 2:13am | Report comment
I would say that there was a push for more mobile props in the sense that in the late 80s there was an increased awareness of fitness, for example Jason Leonard replaced Paul Rendall. A new era was developing. South Africa always sought big men, Argentina always looked for scrummaging props, England always looked for scrummaging props, France always looked for scrummaging props. Mobility and ball handling were an added bonus – countries like Scotland rarely produced big men, like Iain Milne, and for them players like McLauchlan, Sole, Smith and now Jacobsen have always been the norm, however I think that Scotland is an isolated example. Regarding NZ, surely Loe was there to scrummage? Even Brown and Dowd were not fly-chipping or throwing dummies. Therefore all props, to an extent, must have been chosen on their scrummaging ability first and foremost. I’m not saying that all props have to be big men, but certain big props who do a job that their country needs may not be selected any more which might be to the detriment of those countries scrums. A catch 22 situation. Having mobile props is not necessarily a modern invention but they have suddenly come to prominence over the past 10 years as the scrum has steadily decreased as a contest. Despite this I would still argue that scrummaging props are VIPs in the rugby world and that is why Newcastle pay such a high salary to Hayman.
bob said | September 13th 2008 @ 2:55am | Report comment
I coach under 16’s, and am a prop, and whilst at elite level even the heavier props were always a lot more athletic than casual viewers would expect… believe me, there was never room in elite rugby for mere fatties… BUT it is important to note that a lot of heavy weight adults are fat kids, and if you lose the big prop aspect of the game, keeping the fat kid in sport will be a lot harder… keeping his/her self esteem up is a real effort sometimes, but with big heavy props to point to, it can be done… then you lean them down as they get older.
I’m not suggesting rugby shouldnt change in some areas, but there is a misunderstanding of the NH game in the SH. If you look at our test teams, they play a very different style of play to clubs, and I would argue that before the ELV’s we were already seeing the clubs move from a defensive mindset to an offensive one. NH rugby is club driven, not test driven, and we were seeing positive changes all over.
I really don’t see an issue with overseas players, I don’t care if the SH consider them second rate, they add to my club, and entertain me…. they bring new ideas to young players, they are fun, and more than winning, I want that pleasure.
we didn’t want change… 80% voted agaisnt the ELV’s in the RFU online poll, and 25,000 voted so it was relativiley valid… but we are trialling it, which shows good faith.
I can agree that injecting pace is good, but not through the tap and go sanction, and rucking needs to return to police the breakdown, in fact we still ruck in social rugby here… and I have never heard anyone sanctioned for it… a fourth official to police the blindside of the scruum would avert a lot of resets, and leave the maul as it was.
Just as Aussie is having to work long term on finding scrummagers, we need to work long term on developing pace and flair… being forced to enagege the ELV’s is not the way.
One of the great things to look forward to in world rugby was the clash of styles between SH speedsters and NH forwards… there was no reason at all to try to force us into a style that is not natural to us, nor to the conditions we play in.
Having said all that, it seems the Kiwis and the AB’s are finally saying the ELV’s are not good for their game, so perhaps it will die a natural death and the IRB will stop meddling.
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 3:00am | Report comment
Good link Mart, and I think quite well said Bob.
Nelson said | September 13th 2008 @ 5:42am | Report comment
Shawn Edwards : “could it be that the lineout has become a mess – a dog fight – and even the best operators are now less sure of winning their own ball? Some will say that was the legislators’ intention, but by removing the restriction on numbers – either side can decide how many they want in the line – it has been reduced as an attacking platform. In effect, the legislators have (theoretically) created more attacking opportunities off the scrum, by moving the offside line back five metres, but have taken more away simply because there are still more lineouts than scrums.”
i think this is an excelllent point
The line out is the one area which has been cleaned up in recent years ( lifting etc ) if the news laws were intended to make things easier for the ref, not having to count numbers , why not just make a full line out ( 7 man) mandatory. this would create another situation, like scrums, where space is freed up for backline vs backline.
the breakdown is at least as much of a lottery as it was under the old laws and there is surely increased aerial ping pong (which those ball in play stats don’t factor in )
im reallly not convinced the elv’s were worth the touble and cant see why certain administrators invested so much political capital in them
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Anybody who thinks the ELVs are a good idea just watch Cardiff v Ulster. That game will send everyone crying to mumma.
bob said | September 13th 2008 @ 8:23am | Report comment
I can’t believe all the fuss about refs having to count numbers in a lineout… is it really that much of an issue, with a linesman there, and hookers and props pointing out anything illegal? I mean, in 30 years as prop I could always count to about 7… surely a skinny ref is smart enough too?
And how did the notion that a maul can’t be defended every get started? If that was true every maul would lead to a try… it seems that some people have bought into the game that if you say something often enough, it must be true. I never deliberately brought down a maul, but I succesfully defended plenty!
And kicking from the 22, it used to lead to a lineout if it was good to touch, and the lineout to more moves and a pressuring of the opposition… if it wasn’t into touch it was run back or territory gained by another kick to touch… but it was a pressure/nect phase move and now it’s just kick, kick it back, kick, kick it back… it seesm that the people who masterminded the ELV’s are not union people… and Rod Mcqueen isn’t a union man, despite his wallabies days…. but they have some good salesmen… as Nelson says, I cannot understand why certain administrators invested so much political capital in them. Let’s just let them die (the ELV’s not the administrators!…. well maybe the administrators….?)
LeftArmSpinner said | September 13th 2008 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Benjamin, trialing just 13 of 33 ELV’s does not give you any idea of whether the ELV’s work. Quiet, please and back on the naughty boys chair!
Moral assertion. what is that??? If you are a part of the IRB, then stick to their rules.
Talk about doing a Bush/Blair!!! We don’t like the changes that the governing body has proposed be trialed, so we are going to throw a tantrum, trial some of them, call it a compromise, when it is a cop out and a tantrum, and then criticise them on the basis of that compromise after week 1. You want Evidence???? You cant handle the evidence!!! (thanks Jack N)
The stats, the spectator reaction, the player reaction has been well canvased on this and other threads.
Nelson, I get the idea with the lineout, but I think the logic is flawed and hence it is tend to disagree.
Being able to determine the numbers, will create mismatches. the trick will be to spot those and exploit them. e.g. If, on your throw, you see that the opposition has put only 2 into the lineout and you have 5, then drive thro the lineout mismatch.
Nelson, the ELV’s, for a trial, have been blown out of proportion and been made into a NH v’s SH battle and one that seems to centre around who runs/contols the IRB! Its just about rugby and my experience is that they have been better for rugby at all levels. The sky is not falling in, and the people who have invested the personal capital in NH have protected themselves (partially) by not running a genuine trial.
In practical terms, we had the evidence of the issues in the past two RWCs, so the IRB addressed the issues with broadly research and development by the best and brightest, trialed them at progressively more senior levels, created interest and debate in the changes, but then a few decided to scupper them, without even trialling them or getting their customer and player feedback!!! Very irresponsible to the great game of rugby!!!! Same happened to the world cup when it was first mooted!! The visionaries continued on and now it is the financial glue for the game globally!!!
Bob, Whoa up on McQueen. He was one part of an IRB committee. He is a very successful player, coach at all levels and capable human being!!!
I agree that there seems to be more kicking but only if you have poor kickers. SA kicked beautifully against Aust in J’Burg and won the field position and game. The Wallabies kicked poorly and didnt chase the kick. In other levels of the game, there is less kicking and more running. S14 and particularly Sydney grade, has much more ball in hand movement. The ELVs offer the opportunity to play a more complete game, run, kick pass and reward attacking play to balance the improved defences of the professional era.
Bob, the IRB invested because they believe that the game needs help. That is their job!!! Putting them into these roles and then not following their decisions childish. Go with them!!
Benjamin said | September 13th 2008 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Spinner. Wow… good stuff. Are you sure that you’re not in the IRB?
1.13 is a compromise.
2. The ELVs are not being criticised after 1 week of the GP. They have been criticised for an abject 3N. They have been criticised because they are badly thought out. They have been criticised because there was no need for change… and so on
3. What stats could possibly indicate the improvement of a sport – how is that logical in any shape or form? I have read plenty of threads that have commented on the lack of back play, abject kicking and various other problems that have been become effervescent due to the ELVs. I think you are labouring under the misapprenhension that the whole of the SH has been amazed and stunned by the new quality that these new rules have brought to rugby.
4. There is no ACTUAL proof that the ELVs have improved the sport – if you think they have I’d like to know how. If your basis for change is due to world cup rugby then that is nonsensical because all knock out sport is tense and conservative – from the NBA to the FA Cup.
5. McQueen’s personal qualities are completely irrelevant. He is 10 years out of date with the game and he was responsible for the emphasis of the defence on modern rugby. It isn’t like the IRB have asked Campese how to improve attacking rugby.
6. SA kicked well in one game – on the high veld. Around 90% of the 3N kicking has been awful. Literally awful.
7. I find it hilarious that you would invest so much support in a governing body that seems to have done it’s level best to slow the progress of world rugby.
All the jokes in the world will not hide the fact that you have no argument. You have no response to the charge that the ELVs have made rugby more cynical, predictable and negative. You also have no response to the Adam Jones scenario, just repetative claims against the NH.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 14th 2008 @ 12:20am | Report comment
Benjamin, I must concede that after so much typing, all in favour of the ELV’s, after tonight’s game, I generously and fully concede and bow to your superior knowledge of all things rugby.
Hail to the great Benjamin, visionary, analyist and prognosticator extraordinaire. The Rugby God has spoken, and his name is Benjamin……… ALL HAIL.
Tonight’s game was so abjectly (your word, and thanks for that too) a poor game of rugby played by two mamby pamby teams who hanker for the old rules, it is now a no brainer for all to see. The ELV’s don’t work because they don’t improve Rugby to play, watch, referee, market or experience.
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 12:35am | Report comment
How childish. I said the 3N had been abject and less of a progressive spectatcle than in previous years. I can’t see how that could be linked to a game that was yet to occur. You have no proper arguments and that is why you resort to stupid comments like the above. What a shame the power lies in Europe.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 14th 2008 @ 12:38am | Report comment
Benjamin………………As Borat would say: NOT.
Or, to keep it English, As Noel Edmonds would say, “GOTCHA”.
Tonight I witnessed, with more than a hundred gasping people at the local boozer, the exhilaration of great rugby.
Fast, open, skillful from all players, tough, very tough, but subtle where possible, courageous and brave from both teams who refused to submit.
Not cynical, not predictable nor negative.
Forget the winners and compare it to the later stages of RWC 07. Chalk and cheese!!!!!
The ELV’s work at Test level and equally at grade level.
Any partially sighted person will agree. Abject is not a word that describes the rugby offering this year.
I am happy to live with your contention that I have no argument, particularly when you have not bothered to trial the ELV’s and clearly possess neither eyes nor ears. I say this because you dont listen or see.
Thanks for investing all that personal capital and credibility before bothering to run the trial.
Finally, a big thanks to the three 3N teams for a wonderful tournament. Long may it continue and I look forward to when all of our rugby players and spectators will be able to benefit from the ELVs.
In the meantime, Benjamin, think of the damage that your mob are doing to this great game by not following the IRB’s direction. Bush and Blair all over again: Just look at the impact of their unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq, a sovereign country, and in the face of UN disapproval, on the price of fuel…..There is a governing body for Rugby, the IRB, and the system only works if we all trust and follow its direction and, if unhappy, work to change its composition……. Goodbye……..Back on the naughty chair until you choose one or other of the two options. Trial the ELV’s or be quiet about them…..
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 12:50am | Report comment
1. I think quite a few people would contest that this recent 3N has been one of the worst in recent years.
2. Let me put this simply … all knockout rugby is tense and conservative – in every single sport. Comparing the 3N or S14 to the WC is like comparing a sausage to a car. They do not relate.
3. You have no response to the fact that the people involved in the LPG are out of date with rugby. You have no response to the mismanagement of the trialling. You have no response to the badly thought out ELVs, such as the rolling maul. You have no response to the necessity for the ELVs. You have no response to the fact that the ELVs have encouraged negative rugby and you have no response to the ‘Adam Jones scenario.’ Please actually make an effort to answer these because to date you have not.
4. You keep trotting out this hyperbole about crowd responses and statistics when numbers cannot in any way reflect the improvement of a sport. It’s just hot air.
5. Bush and Blair – you are all over the place! The NH has no obligation to trial laws that they all voted against – coaches, spectators and referees. It is a democratic right to assert opinion and when that opinion is ignored I think you’ll find that there is little option left. In any case 13 is a greater compromise than the IRB deserve.
… rather the naughty chair than the supid chair.
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 12:51am | Report comment
1. I think a few people would confirm (not contest) that this recent 3N has been one of the worst in recent years.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 14th 2008 @ 1:02am | Report comment
Benny, Put up or shut up or in other words, trial them properly or …….. Silence until you have.
Until then, no more from me. Enough is enough.
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Silence is golden. You’re complete failure to address any of the aforementioned key points says more than I need to. I thank you.
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 1:08am | Report comment
NH rugby fans you must accept these laws without question and until you do so you have no right to critique what change the laws have affected in the SH.
Good logic Spinner.
ohtani's jacket said | September 14th 2008 @ 1:16am | Report comment
Whether you like the ELVs or not, that wss a hell of a decider.
I chastised the f— out of the All Blacks for ttrying to milk time at the end, but the bar was electric in that second half. Whether it was due to the ELVs, I’ll have to think about when I sober up.
Benjamin said | September 14th 2008 @ 2:18am | Report comment
Indeed, an excellent game. Don’t know how you can criticse them for stuffing the ball up their jumpers?! If that was me I would have put the ball down my pants and run out of the stadium.
Thought Sharpe had quite a good game – proved a few doubters wrong.
An interesting stat though – 33 kicks in general play, just in the first half. Ball in the air means no ball in hands.
bob said | September 14th 2008 @ 9:53am | Report comment
left arm, you say “Not cynical, not predictable nor negative” but I have to disagree… I saw more ab’s laying on teh wrong side, going straight to ground and generally spoiling he contest for the ball that I’m sure if you changed their shirts to another colour you would have seen 5 yellow cards and a red for McCaw! But tehy know how to play their game so no complaints… but to suggest it was a great game is not true. It was a great clash between two very good teams, but not great. The scrums were a shambles, the lineouts passable, the mauls pretty non-existant, the passing poor by their standards, and the tactics completely lacking… it was run and hit, kick, kick kick, run and hit… the tension was there because it was an all or nothing game and you’re not accustomed to seeing those. But it wasn’t a classic from the skills point of view. HOWEVER, some of the trin-nations have been good… the first game between the boks and blacks was a good example of the better ones, and tehy have all ben better than the s14… so our worries are not based on a weeks trial… we have live coverage of s14, trin-nations, curry cup, and ANZ Cup, as well French and Cletic league games…. so perhaps we have sen more than you?
And please, leave the Iraq war out if it…. this is about rugby, not world politics.
gavin said | September 14th 2008 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Edwards and other league bloke will say he ELVs are fine as it makes their transfer over easier technically. Whether or not they work is another mater. We’ll see. I think I’ve seen more kicking under the new rules that were supposed to encourage running.
Sluggy said | September 14th 2008 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
I don’t think at all surprising that the NH – or some of them – are now finding the ELVs haven’t ruined the game after all.
Why? Well for starters they’re not even using most of them. And the ones they are using help speed up the game (5m rule, no passing back to 22 and similar) make a lot of sense if you want to see a bit more running with the ball.
Rowdy said | October 3rd 2008 @ 1:17am | Report comment
Spiros, are you incapable of referring to element of England rugby without a sneer ? It makes reading your articles about as hard for us as you probably find it to read Stephen Jones.
As for “manic ideological theory” – I have yet to see (please correct me if I’m wrong) any admission from you that the ELVs are anything short of a 100% triumph in conception and execution nd that we’re all hopelessly backward and reactionary in objecting to a skerrick of them – if, however, you visit any of a number of rugby chartrooms, you’ll see that there are plenty of ELVs that we up here like, and a few that Aus, NZ and SA fans don’t like; reducing it to the usual gutter level of NH plodders vs SH magicians just debases your arguments.