The IRB – in its infinite wisdom – will be making a call on the global trial of the ELVs sometime in April. I thought we might jump the gun on them since they’ve been turning up in various posts and articles over the last while.
Rather than polarise things from the off, I’d suggest for the purposes of this debate that we leave aside people’s views of northern hemisphere rugby vs southern hemisphere rugby and focus on the ELVs only.
Which ones are effective? Which ones do people think nullify the game or play? Are some more suited to warm weather/solid ground? Which ones should stay? Which should be dropped? Are the ones that might benefit from a tweak or two? Is the law fine but the refs are making a mess of it?
If people have examples of particular games to illustrate what they’re talking about – all the better.
As a first step, perhaps Spiro, who was the first to write about the Stellenbosch Laws – might dig-up something from his archive to set out what the various Laws are – and what they’re meant to achieve.
Everyone can pile in after that. And if I’ve left out some important criteria, feel free to add in or amend.
This was a short article as the content is going to come from everyone else.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (27)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
van der Merwe said | February 23rd 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
As I understand it, the original intention was to 1: simplify the rules and 2: diminish the interpretation of the rules by the referee. Neither has been achieved (in fact the very opposite), therefore, if there is any sanity, the bulk will be discarded.
Let’s see:
Having two varieties of penalties: Advocates of this law may wail about seeing games decided by the boot, but they miss the point entirely. At least, when only the “long arm” penalty was applied (as it was in the proper rules), you knew what you were going to get, no matter how much you disagreed with the decision. Now, what you get is largely up to the referee and his whimsy. Also, I might add that with the free kick in place the referee is now much more prone to blowing his whistle (or it might just be that players cheat more), slowing down the momentum ruining the flow of the match.
No passing back into 22: In theory teams will run more. In theory. In reality they don’t.
5 meters back from scrums: Some would argue that when they changed the lineouts to 10 meters in the 60s they should have done the same or something similar with scrums.
Throwing quick lineouts backward: It would have been more logical to keep it the way it was.
Pulling down mauls: Some will point to a rare moment in an odd game where one team manages to maul for about 10 meters and claim that the maul is still alive. That is exactly what that moment is though, a fluke occasion when the opposition forgets or were too lazy to haul the the thing down from where it started. Aesthetically displeasing and pointless.
Touching flag post allowed: This is a great law. The pick of the bunch. Keep it.
Spiro said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
There is more kicking under the ELVs than under the ‘old’ laws. There is nothing wrong with this except for the fact that the kicking has generally been very poor. But when it is good, as with Mark Gerrard, for the ACT Brumbies then it adds to the quality of field position and attacking plays (as with the kick/pass of Kurtley Beale to Timana Tahu).
The kicking has aother purpose, too. i call it ‘the running of the bulls factor,’ tiring the big players out. This allows for the smaller and faser players to come into their own, and in a sense – like the kick/pass – widens the field for more open play.
There is plenty of scope under the ELVs for old-fashioned scrumming and mauling play, as the waratahs demonstrrated in their demolition of the Chiefs pack.
The point is that teams have the opportunity to open up play more than under the ‘old’ laws.
In my view, the ELVs improve the chances of teams playing attractive and effective ball-in-hand rugby. Compare the pace and intensity of the Super 14 matches with the equivalent matches in the UK, even though the UK and French sides are studded with southern hemisphere stars.
The Brumbies-Crusaders match was about as robust and fierce, with crunching and accurate defence, as any match could hope to be.
So the bottom line is that the ELVs allow all types of rugby, including the slow-plod and incessant kicking game so beloved in the northern hemipshere.
it also allows the type of rampant power and running revealed by the south African teams so far this season, thrilling stuff and real rugby rather than the old-fashioned kicking rugby revealed by the Waratahs and hurricanes.
Knives Out said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Simple question here.. Could somebody please tell me how anybody of any basic intelligence (The Laws Project Group – allegedly.) could think that the reaction of student rugby players, on dry hard ground, would ever, could ever possibly translate to top-level rugby. Is that not a significant question?
Colin N said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
The pace of the Southern Hemisphere has always been quicker than the Northern Hemisphere game. If anything the NH team have improved in that area in the last couple of years. IMO, the intensity has generally been pretty similar.
Hammer said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
I agree with van der Merwe on this – the bulk of Elv’s should be discarded … there no evidence in the opening rounds of this S14 that we’ll going to get anything different from last season (with the exception of possible even more aimless kicking) ..
what they have done is turn the game into a structureless mess where the game is even more at the mercy of poor referees – with the resultant effect of the short arm free kick allowing a sped up stop start hotch potch of a game which permits the defending team to stay in the contest by infringing with impunity and in the safety that their actions has very limited consequences …
look no further than the Hurricanes v Warratahs match – poorly officiated by Dickinson where the team with a massive advantage in both territory and possession were on the end of a 18-6 infringement stat which hamstrung any possibility flow and yet got zero benefit out of their superiority – no penalties to keep the scoreboard ticking over and no yellow cards to the offending team … what the Elv’s have done then is to take away a very real deterrent in offending – that being the scoreboard …
Of course we know the refs have the option to yellow card constant infringement but they have proven reluctant to use this option … if the Elv’s are to be adopted in some form the AI’s showed that the northern hemisphere ones returned the game to a bit more of the game of old – more structure and penalties for infringements
hayden said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Dump the short arm stuff. Too open to interpretation. Try something else to clean up the ruck. Keep the 5 metre scrum rule, quick throw in, corner post rule. I could go either way over the maul. I can see both sides to that argument.
pothale said | February 23rd 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
The slow-plod incessant kicking game so beloved in the northern hemisphere.
LeftArmSpinner said | February 23rd 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
The only people allowed to comment on the ELV’s should be those that have trialed them in full. I am uncomfortable with people pronouncing/voting on things about which they have no knowledge.
other than that, the only thing of any value I can offer is that the human condition is still able to see one thing and come up with two completely opposition views.
Hoy said | February 23rd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
As a current club player, (albeit lower grades) I am not looking forward to having to get my fitness in order for the coming season when all grades play the ELVs.
As an ideal they were perfect. In reality, they haven’t quite worked out. The problem is that no matter what the rules are, some people won’t play them as they are intended to be played.
I think the hands in the ruck one was quite good, and actually helped clean things up there when it was in for the Aus comp in ’07. We all know there are hands there anyway, so just legalise it while you are on your feet.
I don’t like the offside line rule. If I am on my own and I tackle a player, I should be able to get to my feet and jackle the ball from anywhere.
I like the pass the ball backwards in a quick lineout. Should be good for most hookers anyway.
I like the pass the ball back into 22, can’t kick out, but again, people will always play this as it was not inteded to be played. It should allow the receiver time to attack, however most just seem to kick it back for no reason. I would suggest a lack of true attacking back threes is to blame for this. Those that want to run, ala Digby, will always run it back.
5 metre scrum rule is OK. Leave that, as defences are getting too good these days. We need to nullify them. People come for tries. I was reading something once about how the rules developed. They said that originally a try was no points but allowed the team to kick for goal. This made the game so enjoyable, because teams would do anything they could to get tries, and they were such awesome tries, that they decided to reward teams for tries. It would be good to go back to that style of play. Tries are so much better than a penalty-a-thon.
I would suggest that the referees need to be talked to about the short arm. There is nothing wrong with it, but if it is repeat offences, shouldn’t they go to full arm? I thought that was the idea. The original offense offers running rugby, the repeat offense punishes with possible points from a kick. Further to that, cards come into play. Now it seems most refs just keep plugging away at the short arm, and therein lies the problem of no deterrent for foul play.
I am also a little hesitant to keep the collapsing the maul rules. That is a little dangerous in my opinion. I think they should scrap that one.
I guess all these rules are great if they are played in the spirit, but they aren’t, and won’t be. Good thread Pothale. Should be interesting to see what people say.
Matt said | February 23rd 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
50/50 on the mauls
Keep the lineout changes (including non-straight throw-ins)
Keep the corner flag changes
Keep the no pass back into 22 (the Up and Under kick fests were already coming into the game before this change, see Marcelo Lofreda and the 2006-2007 Pumas).
Drop the short arms at Rucks.
Also:
Look at introducing a second ref at the pro level to keep an eye on the offside lines, high tackles and defense in rucks. Use the first ref for forward passes, obsruction and offense in Rucks. Wait and see how the NRL experiment works out first.
Change the 22m to a 25m line. Discourage mid-field bombfests!
Prevent Scrumhalfs for proceeding right around the scrum to spoil ball (even on a dominant scrum). The last thing we want is another means of making the scrum even more scrappy, especially when the No.9′s seem to be offside more than they are on-side!!
Look to introduce a minumum pitch width. Currently there are laws allowing a range for field sizes, with a maximum value. But there is no mimumum value. We need to ensure that field are not too small, as they are in some cases, as this closes down the space even more for attacking rugby.