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.

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.

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.

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.

Good logic Spinner.

Until then, no more from me. Enough is enough.

… rather the naughty chair than the supid chair.

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…..

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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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.

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 !

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.