By James Mortimer
October 18th 2008 @ 2:13am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Discrepancies in ELVs will confuse the players
On Wednesday, the powers that run our game in the South – the SANZAR ‘alliance’ – failed to agree on how the official changes that see six teams qualify for the finals will be contested. There is also confusion as to whether next year’s series will be run under the hybrid ELVs or the global ELVs.
The hybrid rules were used in this year’s Super 14 series whereas the forthcoming European tours by the All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies will be contested under the Global Rules – as will be next year’s internationals.
The major sticking point is South Africa, who bring considerable weight to the table considering the dominance of their viewing audiences.
The South Africans want to see the Top Six qualifying system utilised under a geographic conference-style system that will ensure that they’re not penalised with the perceived disadvantage of longer travel with African teams.
They also wish to utilise the global ELVs, as this ensures continuity and prepares them for their games against the British Lions – which will be played under global rules.
New Zealand and Australia believe that Super 14 qualifying rounds should be played under a Top Six format, which sees the top two qualifiers rewarded with a first week off in the finals series.
However, the wish to continue to use the Hybrid laws makes little sense considering that eventually one would think that the global ELVs will take precedence.
A decision must be made soon as this causes itinerary issues for all the Super 14 teams when we consider that the Super 14 is only four months away.
This then brings me to the IRB and the inept administrations of referee’s boss Paddy O’Brien.
I don’t like to criticise O’Brien as I thought he was a very competent official, but he seems to be going from bad to worse in his governance of the referees and his significant hand in the ELV decision-making.
First, why is there an option for SANZAR to use either the hybrid or global ELVs?
More to the point, why, in what was effectively the first year of trial, were there different sets of experimental laws?
Furthermore, why play early 2008 internationals under old laws, then switch to hybrid laws for the Super 14 and Tri Nations, then to global laws for the Northern season and end of year tour.
The great criticism has been consistency, especially in the troubled breakdown area – so the IRB really has stuffed this up by not ensuring a consistent set of ELV’s – with a definitive agenda of what they are for and when they will be enforced or disregarded.
Despite complaints about excessive kicking, I think that beyond a lack of steel in the enforcement of the ruck area (referees are not decisive enough), the game in general has been improved, with more time with ball in play, and teams more willing to attack for a try rather than kick for penalty goal.
Which brings me to O’Brien’s inane comments regarding these issues where he responded to complaints from Leicester’s coach Heyneke Meyer, Wasps boss Ian McGeechan, Harlequins coach Dean Richards and Saracens director of rugby coach Eddie Jones.
“I think there’s a bit of a myth out there that one of our objectives was to make the game more entertaining, which was not the case,” O’Brien said on the Total Rugby show.
So Paddy, what exactly was the objective of the IRB - to make things more confusing?
The perceived increase in kicking is the general complaint coming from the North, although statistically this is not the case.
However, O’Brien did admit that due to the ball being in play longer, it spent longer in the air. But that this was down to the referees.
But how do the referees control this?
“Sure, there is a lot of kicking and that is down to other reasons. Until the referees really get harsh at refereeing people on their feet at the tackle, players will not commit to the breakdown and the only way to break defences is by kicking the ball.”
But this is not then down to the referees, but to O’Brien, as their boss. As it is his job to ensure that the game is being policed in the correct manner.
The principal difference between the hybrid ELVs and the global ELVs is that the hybrid laws employ sixteen variations, and a breakdown offence sees a free kick rewarded.
The global laws employ thirteen different variations, but a penalty is awarded for ruck offences.
This would go a long way to cleaning up the confusions, with a harsher penalty being given to ensure that the policing of the ruck is more transparent.
This will be the sticking point for the Southern Hemisphere player, as what they could get away at the tackle area in the Super 14 and Tri Nations will not be allowed for the Northern tours.
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
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...
(18)
Loading ...
Benjamin said | October 18th 2008 @ 2:20am | Report comment
O’Brien noted that kicking had increased during the WC and that it would have increased without the ELVs despite the fact that a host of top coaches, both NH and SH, had implictly stated otherwise. He also seemed to miss the fact that a knock-out, four yearly event is not comparable to a round robin, yearly competition. I agree with your sentiment about O’Brien. His recent comments did nothing but raise eyebrows.
Spiro Zavos said | October 18th 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
What has to be remembered by opponents of the ELVs is that the 2007 RWC was a disgraceful game of rugby in that both teams kicked the ball continually, drove from the lineouts with slow-plod mauls and found it virtually impossible to run the ball on the few occasions when they tried to. The ‘old’ laws are just too stacked against ball-in-hand rugby and too favorable to teams who want to close the game down.
The ELVs allow for the old game if teams want to scrum but they also allow for teams to run with the ball. In this respect the sanction about taking the ball back into the 22 to kick out is the most important ELV in my opinion.
Benjamin said | October 18th 2008 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Spiro, that is the nature of knockout rugby. It always has been that way and it is the same across the world. Every WC (I can’t comment on 1987) has been won by the most clinical team. The pressure of increased revenue and media attention has only further enhanced the reward and thus decreased the potential for risk. Were you in a position to say that international rugby was a disgrace then fair enough. The fact of the matter is that over the past four years certain nations have produced vibrant, exotic rugby. This is not a critique of the ELVs but the argument that the ELVs were necessary due to dull WC games is not accurate. Furthermore, lets not forget that Argentina were the team most guilty of wasteful kicking and yet they were the media darlings of the whole 07 tournament. Let’s also not forget that Fiji, Tonga, NZ, Wales and Australia played some excellent rugby in that WC. It is not the PR disaster that certain pundits like to recall it as.
Regarding the 22 rule - how many teams are running instead of kicking? The answer is literally none.
James Mortimer said | October 18th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Sprio and Benjamin,
I think focus needs to be on the unneccessary weight that comes with the winning of the World Cup. To call yourselves World champions for four years based on a two month tournament is a unfair reward.
Compare this to soccer, where the domestic championships such as the Premier League, Serie A have as much if not more importance than the international championships, which are balanced by not only World Cups but by elite competitions such as the prestigous Euro titles.
I do believe that the ELV’s are going along way to make the ball more “watchable” but while teams are more willing to attack for the tryline under the new laws, as Ben notes, teams will often kick deep within their own territory, but the 22 rule is employed to try and enforce teams to take a gamble.
But World Cups are won on pragmatism. Witness the new 2008 hybird of the All Blacks, gone is the attack at all costs, from no matter where, that they employed circa 2004-2007. The brainstrust and the senior players have realised that as Sprio said - you must close a game down. Have we ever seen Dan Carter take dropshots at goal so often as he has this year?
My key complaint is that ELV’s are being put across in a unprofessional manner.
Why are so many coaches complaining? And why does or has not the IRB consulted such people.
Why are so many players happy? But still unsure of which rules they may be playing a prospective tournament under.
We bear witness to what I believe is the greatest game of sporting competition that exists, but the IRB must be far more decisive and transperant with their tinkering of the code.
Everytime I here Paddy or a IRB representative speak regarding the ELV’s, they appear almost argumentative and stubborn on debated points. Let’s put deadlines in place, if it is working, let’s keep them, if not, let’s keep the game moving forward.
For if the ELV’s are in place to grow the game and attract more audiences, would not a new member to our watching fraternity be a bit confused by the changes of how the game is governed?
James Mortimer said | October 18th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
“Every time I here Paddy or a IRB representative……..”
It should be hear - I apologise for my momentary lapse in professionalism and proofreading.
sambobly said | October 18th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Benjamin. The new 22 rule wasn’t intended to make teams run from their 22 more, it was intended to make it harder to clear the ball from your try line. I believe it has managed this. By forcing teams outside their 22 to kick into the field of play the ball remains in play longer. The kicking team either needs to bounce the ball into touch (which requires much more skill and should be rewarded accordingly) or to give the ball back to the opposition who can then run it back at the kicking team. This leads to the ball remaining in play. I think the new 22 rule has been successful.
van der Merwe said | October 18th 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Ja, as a big fan of traditional tactical rugby I loved the World Cup final and would not hesitate to call it the second best game of the tournament behind France versus Blacks. Australasians wouldn’t have liked it no matter how it was played.
Colin N said | October 18th 2008 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
sambobly, The kick from 22 rule has certainly kept the ball in play longer, but so what? Who cares if the ball is in play longer, if anything it’s made rugby into a kicking dule, especially up here in the NH whereby players are scared to take it into contact because of the stricter rules at the breakdown. Because of that rule rugby has, at times, become very tedious.
You forget that the reason New Zealand lost in the WC was mainly due to the fact that they played against their instincts, virtually playing negative rugby. The New Zealand of the last four years would have counter-attacked the majority of the ball that was kicked to them, but they just kicked it back. As a person who wants New Zealand to lose evertime they play, I was glad the way they were playing, because France on that day hardly played with any French flair that we’re use to, they just defended very well, with a little help from the referee. I’m English and I thought his performance on the day was poor, but you can’t blame him for New Zealand’s negative play on that fatefull day.
onside said | October 18th 2008 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Nine articles down on the ‘From the Experts ‘ side ,Stirling Mortlock puts a case for rugby as an Olympic sport.
Firstly ,the major rules of rugby are under review, and secondly , whatever the decision, the intrepretations
of the rules are so dependent on the whim of referees,it makes most rule changes moot ,regarding improving
the game as a spectacal. So if discrepencies in the ELV’s confuse players, imagine if you will what havoc a
referee can bring to the game regardless of what rules players and supporters think are in use. The rugby
press in Australia is full of ‘what might be ‘ because if it focussed on ‘what is’ there is nothing to write about.
It reminds me of the old gag,where a man sitting on the end of the bed says to his partner, I dont believe in
oral sex, because I cant see the purpose of spending all night talking about it. And so it goes.
bob said | October 18th 2008 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
Spiro and co are missing the point, imo, because clearly the ELV’s in some format will be adopted. The NH resistance is no longer to ELV’s in principle, but to certain elements. I think it’s fair to say that the short arm sanction in place of penalties is all but dead in the global game and needs to be abandoned by the Aussie/NZ die hards, it simply isn’t goping to get game time in the NH and with SA wanting it gone, all the die hards are doing are making it a painful and divisive death.
The maul ELV will also be abandoned, because mauls have dissapeared and they are a valid and worthwhile feature of the game. There is simply no reason for them to be taken out of teh game… it could be argued that the refs are not reffing the collapses correctly, allowing players to tackle legs, go in the side, and often simpy go to ground to cause the maul to stumble… all illegal and all common in the NH… had it been refd properly, as it has a couple of times, it might work, but honestly, how long are we going to bemoan the refs? I think we all agree that they need a lot more training!
But the 22 kick, the 5 meter scrum, the lineouts, etc, all do seem to add pace and space, so they will be kept.
It seems to me to be time the SH came to the table, as the NH has (all be it reluctantly) and instead of trying to dig in, found valid compromise.
Benjamin said | October 18th 2008 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
James, I totally agree with your sentiments but having said that the WC is every 4 years and it only takes precedent for the year prior to its beginning. People still respect great teams like the 05-06 All Blacks regardless. SA are current champions but their recent performances have tended to make people forget that. I think the majority of fans recognise their achievment for what it is and now it has been put to bed. The 6N and the 3N (which is becoming worryingly overstated in length) still take priority in the domestic season. A key issue is the amount of games being played… far too many.
Sambobly, are you saying you enjoyed the 3N kicking? This recent 3N was one of the worst - in terms of quality - in years. The GP is an absolute mess too. I understand the logic behind the rule but it was illogical to assume that because a group of students would want to counter attack all the time so would the top pros. We saw what happened to the ABs when they tried to pass and run their way out of trouble.
James Mortimer said | October 19th 2008 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Colin N,
We forget New Zealand lost against France in the WC because they played against their instincts and played negative rugby.
What a load of bollocks!
It was because they couldn’t play against their instincts that they lost, as they kept the ball in hand and not once tried to play the percentages. This is backed up by their game statistics, overwhelmingly dominant in every aspect of the game, bar one, on field kicking.
If they had played negative rugby, they would have won - as negative rugby is widely regarded as a gameplan based on territorial possesion, kicking, and taking penalty goals.
If only the All Blacks had played as you stated!!
Jerry said | October 19th 2008 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
“If they had played negative rugby, they would have won - as negative rugby is widely regarded as a gameplan based on territorial possesion, kicking, and taking penalty goals.”
Er… to quote you “What a load of bollocks”. The All Blacks WERE playing for territory, WERE playing for possession and WERE playing for the penalty. They dominated the first two, but unfortunately the third was out of their control and a certain English ref had decided he wasn’t gonna make the call and award a penalty that would decide the game. They could have gone for a drop goal of course, but the (on field) thinking was that a penalty would come if they put enough pressure on the French.
Colin N said | October 19th 2008 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
If you watch the game again James you will see that New Zealand kicked away a lot of ball. The game was well set up for New Zealand to put 30 points on France had they played to their instincts, but they kicked it away, until New Zealand’s second try when they decided to go through the phases- through the forwards I might add, not throwing it wide.
I would love to know what the game plan was on that day because, although they dominated most areas of the game they didn’t exactly play an expansive game. They also weren’t very clinical which had been a feature of their play for the previous four years.
TembaVJ said | October 20th 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I agree with Benjamin that in big knock out games or finals teams usually play it safe due to what is at stake. The ELV wont change this. I said from the start that the IRB should of trailed the rules one maybe two at a time across the world not just in selected areas. Now with all the new laws, old new laws, half new laws and global new laws its hard to see what makes the game better and what makes it worse. Why on earth did we need to change so much at once? Players, refs, coaches and viewers of the game are all having a hard time keeping up.
I think the IRB knows it stuffed up and is playing cover up now, I am glad some people decided to put their foot down and said enough is enough. I am not against all the changes, more the way they have been implemented.
TembaVJ said | October 20th 2008 @ 10:01am | Report comment
You cant make this many changes and expect them all to be good, O’Neil and die hard ELV supporters need to wake up and realize that not all of these changes are going to improve the game. Rugby is played differently across the world, you cant expect every country or team to play All Black style rugby.
Andrew B said | October 20th 2008 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
G’day Bob,
I agree with your conclusions. The Sanctions and Maul ELV are not long for this world, and its probably better for the game for the respective unions to get on the same page as soon as possible. The Incompetent Rugby Board (IRB) have no idea how to do this, lets hope our administrators can agree and meld it together. I’m confident that even JO’N will work towards this result.
bob said | October 25th 2008 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Hello Andrew B, I agree, it’s time to get the admin men to work it out regardless of the IRB, who have demonstrated a complete lack of ability in this area.