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.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
February 23rd 2009 @ 11:54am
Who Needs Melon said | February 23rd 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
For those interested, here is a link to a PDF containing the full list of ELVs:
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/newsmedia/0/020811drelvss142008_4404.pdf
It also shows the ELVs being trialled at Super 14 level.
Handy.
February 23rd 2009 @ 11:59am
pothale said | February 23rd 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Sorry, I hit send button too early. I have no desire nor fondness for a slow-plod incessant kicking game in the northern hemishphere. Nor do I see it that often.
The effect of the ELVs has in my view sped up the game somewhat, particularly in the N Hemishpere, and has for the most part improved bal-in-hand skills out of necessity, as some of the bigger and more powerful teams at club and national level have moved to this way of play. The recent games in the NH against SANZAR demonstrated the gulf that is still there and that has to be closed and teams like Wales, Ireland and France are pursuing it – evidenced by some of the their recent 6N games.
It’s interesting to see that some SH posters are less than enamoured with some of the ELVs – I thought at this point, they were pretty much adopted across the board by players and fans.
Spiro points to the speed of the game that results from the adoption of the ELVs, as presumably the points where the game could previously have been slowed down, no longer exist e.g. quick lineout throw, no pass back into 22, absences of rolling mauls, staying on your feet at breakdown, etc.
Whilst the speed of the game may be faster in S14, it doesn’t necessarily mean greater try scoring opportunities or that kicking penalties/drop goals are still not deciding games.
I posted elsewhere earlier about a quick analysis of games across the S14, GP and Magners leagues this weekend. The average number of tries per match was actually greatest in the Magners, and the number of penalties kicked was about the same – 17/18 across all leagues. Interestingly, points gained from penalties/drop goals affected the outcome in 3 of the S14 games, compared to none in the Magners and just one in the English Premiership – so the game has clearly moved on since the advent of ELVs across the board, even if on a more limited basis in NH.
Having not experienced on a regular basis the use of the short-arm sanction for infringements at breakdown, I’m not in a strong position to make a judgement on these and how effective they are. Clearly, they could have an impact on the outcome of a game e.g. Wales v England last weekend might have gone the other way, but for the penalties awarded to Wales for holding on, which I understand would be short-arm sanctions in SH. I recognise that Wales may well have scored a try instead from these scenarios.
Btw, I understood that something like only 13 of the original 23 ELVs were trialled on a global basis. What do the other remaining 10 refer to? Spiro, Van der Merwe, anyone?
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:05pm
pothale said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
thanks for link Melon. Is it appropriate to cut and paste them in here or is there a copyright issue with that?
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:11pm
Who Needs Melon said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
So…
According to LASs rule stated above (which I agree with) I’ve restricted my comments to ELVs that were bold in the PDF – i.e. those that were supposed to have been tried in Super 14. Is that list correct? It says that we don’t have the “you can pull down the maul” law but I’ve seen that in action as well. Was that just in Tri-Nations or something???
Assistant Referees: Can anyone object to this one?
Posts and flags around the field: Has this ever come into play? Whatever.
Inside the 22 metre line: I like this one.
Lineout: Quick throw in: I like this one.
Lineout: Pre-gripping, lifting and using another team mate to lever is allowed: Don’t object to this one. Whatever.
Tackle/Post Tackle: Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED [re-emphasises existing Law]: I think this is too rigidly applied at times. As is “leaving your feet”. The breakdown is still a mess. I don’t think I object to this law though.
Tackle/Post Tackle: Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines: Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: The offside lines run parallel to the goal lines through the hindmost part of the hindmost player at the tackle: Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet. [re-emphasises existing Law]. Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: Any other players playing the ball at the breakdown must be on their feet. Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a Free Kick: Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: Free kicks can be taken in accordance with current Laws [re-emphasises existing Law]. Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: Dangerous play will not be tolerated. e.g. Diving over the breakdown [reemphasises existing Law]. Fair enough.
Tackle/Post Tackle: The half back should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball [reemphasises existing Law]. Fair enough.
Maul: Players joining the maul must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED [reemphasises existing Law]. Fair enough.
Maul: If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a Free Kick. Fair enough.
Scrum: The offside line for players who are not in the scrum and who are not the team’s scrum half, is 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum. I like this one.
Sanctions: For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10 – Foul Play, the sanction is a Free Kick. Fair enough.
So basically there’s not one of the Super 14 trialled ELVs that I really object to. Anyone else?
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:16pm
Knives Out said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Here is a quick stat. for everbody.
If you take the average amount of tries scored per match, in every 3N game since 2000, and – quite significant this part – dismiss the 2007 3N due to the NZ conditioning window and weakened squad that Jake White selected, the figure is 4.2 or 4.16 something. I forget which, I worked this out ages ago. Anyhow, that figure is the exact same amount as the figure is for last years 3N. I notice that figure was ignored by a lot of pro-ELV fans.
Without descending into a tit-for-tat form of banter I think the proof is in the pudding. The S14 wasn’t of a significantly higher standard last year, and neither was the 3N, which in parts was awful. This years S14 hasn’t looked any great shakes either. To that extent it is not arguable that the ELVs have improved the SH game as a spectacle – which wasn’t actually the original point of the ELVs, but seems to have become highly relevant. The reason is vital; because rugby is a business and results matter. You only have to look at the sort of defence-orientated, kick obsessed rugby that SA and Australia offered on the Spring tour. Neither side attempted any width, vibrancy or ivnention BECAUSE rugby is a business. That is an inescapable fact. Nothing can force a coach to make his players run the ball from under their own posts. Nothing.
To suggest that the ELVs promote “real” rugby is inherently arrogant because not only does it imply that there is a singular, perfect style but it also seeks to enforce that style onto a game that was built on variety. As far as I know rugby union is the only sport where fans will criticise a certain style. It does not happen in boxing, soccer or American football. So why our sport? As fans we must avoid talk of “real” rugby and all the implications that go it and seek to analyse the ELVs at face value. The eternal politicking of people like O’Neill on one side and Eddie Jones on the other, for example, has done nothing but hinder the analysis. The ELVs were developed to ease the refs burden, to take subjectivity, guesswork out of the game. Has that happened? Simple question.
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:37pm
pothale said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
“As far as I know rugby union is the only sport where fans will criticise a certain style. It does not happen in boxing, soccer or American football.”
You’re kidding right? You’ve never heard of different playing styles in soccer? There’s quite a few teams in Europe who might beg to differ. And I suspect the Socceroos would to.
I saw nothing in the SA V England match that was defence-orientated, kick obsessed rugby. I saw a clincial machine play some of the best rugby of the year and simply destroy their opposition. That was a result. Nothing to do with business.
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:43pm
Colin N said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
“As far as I know rugby union is the only sport where fans will criticise a certain style.”
It happens in soccer quite a lot, but I agree with most of the things you have said.
“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).”
I assume that’s why they implemented this law, to stop the up and under kick fests and effectively encourage back threes to run at every given opportunity, which was never going to happen. It was also apparently introduced so the ball is in play more. What that does to improve the game, I don’t know.
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:44pm
pothale said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
The pull down the maul law is not being applied in S14, but is being applied in NH? How did that happen? Surely if it’s being trialled globally, then it must be in SH games?
Not sure about LAS’s edict that says the only people allowed comment on ELVs is those who have trialled them in full. Whose he referring to? People on here or in the IRB?
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:45pm
LeftArmSpinner said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Melon, geez, thanks for upgrading my opinion to a rule!!!
Not to be seen as just replaying the compliment, I can only agree with your assessment as it is both complete and succinct. Where “Knives” gets “This years S14 hasn’t looked any great shakes either” I just cant understand. Having just watched the past weekend’s 7 games in their entireity, I can only conclude that the rugby is excellent. I have submitted an article to this effect today. The set plays are still so important, the skill level and fitness is improved, and the entertainment is increased and the players enjoy playing with the ball in hand.
February 23rd 2009 @ 12:50pm
Matt said | February 23rd 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
pothale, Nah the pulling down of Mauls is allowed in the Super14, it’s probably just that most S14 teams don’t bother to use this tactic. Although I’ve actually seen quite a few good mauls over the first couple of weeks. Teams seem to have adapted their Mauling to spread it out and make it longer in length and also more fragmented (rather than one big lump of bodies). This allows them to drop of pieces on the maul as they get pulled down. Quite clever I thought.
Colin N,
I believe the non passing back into 22 rule was designed to stop teams negatively passing the ball backwards with the aim of just kicking it out, slowing the game down and reducing running rugby. But, as has unfortunately occured it just means that teams now choose to kick the ball anyway (just upwards instead of sideways).
But, although many blame this evolution on the ELV’s, the Up& Under tactics was already starting to creep into the game preELV’s. The Pumas at the WC were the most glaringly obvious example of this tactic. They used it to great effect when upsetting the French in Pool play (as well as using it in other games).