By Spiro Zavos
April 2nd 2009 @ 6:32am
The retained ELVs will create the new rugby era
Before he went away to the IRB conference on the future of Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) as one of 60 rugby administrators, coaches, referees and players’ representative, a leading Australian told me that the likelihood was that most of the ELVs in operation during the current European season would be confirmed.
He conceded that there was no chance of the sanctions and free kicks reform being accepted because the hostile British and Irish unions, particularly, had torpedoed this reform by defying the IRB (once again) and refusing to allow any of their senior competitions to trial that particular variation.
So the fix was in against the spirit and practice of the ELVs despite the fact that they were the most analysised and trialled set of sports laws of any sporting code. Over 800 matches involving 3000 players from the highest levels of Test rugby to the muddied oafs of social players have participated in the trialling of the ELVs.
The same lobby of British and Irish unions (who have opposed every reform and modernisation of the laws of rugby since the 1890s), together with Italy whose game was based virtually entirely on rolling mauls (like the Queensland Reds before the ‘use-it or lose-it’ reforms in 1995) were instrumental in getting the ELV allowing the maul to be pulled down to be abolished.
Steve Hansen, the All Blacks forward coach, one of the 60 delegates, makes the point that this decision needs ‘a little bit of work’ on it: ‘Before the ELVs the rule was very stacked in favour of the attacking team. It was difficult to stop and to me was more like an illegal obstruction. I think they will look at ways to make it a more even contest.’
One change that comes to mind immediately is for the law to be strictly applied that if the maul stops a second time, the ball must be released or the defending side gets a tap penalty. In previous years referees have allowed the maul to stop up to five times and then penalised defending sides when it collapsed.
This made rolling mauls, as Hansen suggests, unstoppable. Hopefully he is right when he indicates that some sort of ploys will be made available, short of pulling the mauls down, to the defending sides.
Hansen is also disappointed, and rightly so, about the decision to require even numbers in the lineouts, dictated by the side throwing in.
As he said, the All Blacks and a number of other inventive sides had worked out clever attacking and defensive plays based around their freedom to juggle their lineout number.
So some of the cleverness has been taken out of rugby which is a pity.
The good news is that despite the rantings and predictions of all the ELVs possibly going under from The Usual Suspect, the IRB looks set to retain the bulk of 10 of them, dish 3 and review the two most contentious ELVs, the sanctions and free kicks ELVs and the matter of infringements at the tackle/ruck area.
The review will surely work out a simplified and effective system to be applied by referees at the tackle/ruck area which was the intention of the ELVs requirements.
So, presuming that in May the full board of the IRB will ratify the conference recommendations and also the clarifications to the tackle/ruck and the further examination and results of the sanctions and free kicks ELVs, we can claim that most of the best ELVs, one way or another, will become part of a new era of rugby.
The enthralling and thrilling Wales – Ireland Six Nations match, which was played with the retained ELVs (aside from the maul variation) showed how vibrant rugby can be if teams are allowed by the laws to play rugby.
The comparison between this fateful match, certainly Ireland’s most important since its last Grand Slam in 1948, and the dire and dreary 2007 World Cup final under the old laws, is very invidious to the case of those who have ranted against the ELVs as somehow taking ‘our game’ away from them.
With minutes to play and having drop-kicked his team into the lead, Stephen Jones, under Irish pressure kicked out on the full a ball that was passed back to him inside his 22. Ireland had a lineout inside the Welsh 22 and converted their lineout possession into a match-winning Ronan O’Gara dropped goal.
The point about this is that in 2007 Wales would have forced a lineout inside the Ireland half and the counter-attack to set up the winning kick would have been that much harder. Just as importantly, the old law rewarded teams like the Springboks in 2007, and England in every year (except 2003), who played the touchlines more than the middle of the field.
These team played football rather than rugby.
There are complaints that the non-ground kicking from balls played into the 22 ELV actually encourages kicking.
This disregards two main points: first, the worst kicking matches rugby followers have had to endure were those played before the ELVs came into force. That Australia – South Africa kickathon at Sydney, in John Connolly’s early career as the Wallaby coach, is a case in point. Also, in the RWC the teams that invariably kicked the ball rather than play rugby, South Africa and England, were the finalists in the tournament.
Second, under the ELVs the team with good systems to run the ball back (the New Zealand, Wales and South Africa) and a good defence against the high ball have done very well.
In this year’s Super 14, the South African and New Zealand teams are dominating the tournament (with the NSW Waratahs being the only other real threat), these teams have generally kept the ball in hand running it back and when they have kicked it has been skilful kicking.
It was always going to be an incredibly difficult task to modernise the rugby laws to take into account the growing size of the players and their speed and the desire of spectators to have a contest and a spectacle. The diehards, especially in the British unions, have always resisted making rugby a more accessible and skilful code.
Some of the ELVs were actually flagged in the 1890s and rejected by the Home unions but accepted by the new Northern Rugby League which broke away from the Rugby Football Union (the England union) in 1895.
The kicking directly into touch sanction against a team taking the ball back into its 22 was played in Australia and Auckland (two rugby league strongholds) throughout the 1920s. The rule was called ‘the Australian dispensation’ and was the generator of a generation of brilliant Australian and Auckland running backs.
I once had a discussion with Dr Danie Craven, arguably the most profound thinker about the laws of rugby who ever lived. He told me that the laws of rugby are ‘wrong’ because they are too complicated and there are too many of them.
‘How will know we have the right laws?’ he asked me, and then answered his own question: ‘We will know when we have the right laws when they can be written down on a piece of paper like the football rules.’
We are nowhere near Dr Craven’s right laws yet. But slowly (too slowly unfortunately) and not always surely, we are getting there. The IRB conference decisions was a step, small but significant, along this path to the right way for rugby to go.
IRB Announcement on ELVs
Top Rugby Stakeholders Agree ELV Recommendations
Senior stakeholders from the international Rugby community, including a number of the world’s top coaches, referees and administrators, met in London on Monday and Tuesday to review the Game’s Experimental Law Variations (ELV) programme. The four-year programme culminates in a decision in May by the IRB Council as to which ELVs might be accepted permanently into the Laws of the Game.
The aim of the Conference was to assess the impact of the global ELV trial and the additional variations being trialled by the SANZAR Unions, as well as to evaluate other ELVs being trialled by individual Unions. The Conference was hosted by the IRB Rugby Committee and Laws Project Group (LPG).
“We held a positive and constructive meeting at which all stakeholders were able to share their opinions on each of the ELVs. This was an important milestone for the ELV programme and it was crucial that robust discussion was entered into and that all positive and negative impacts of the ELVs were raised,” said IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset.
“Naturally opinions differed in several areas of the ELV programme. The IRB regards this as a healthy and positive state of affairs as the Game’s Laws have always and should continue to allow coaches and players to interpret Law so that different styles of play can be employed.”
“The Unions tabled detailed research and analysis to support their views. Everyone had the opportunity to air their views. What was clear was that there was agreement on many aspects of the ELVs and a collective will to see a return to one set of Laws to govern the Game as soon as possible.”
“This conference was not a decision-making meeting but at the end of the day the conference provided a set of collective recommendations on the ELVs to assist the IRB Rugby Committee in formulating its final recommendations for the IRB Council meeting on 13 May. Council will then decide which ELVs, if any, should be fully integrated into Law,” added Lapasset.
The Conference was the latest step in the extensive global ELV consultation and evaluation process. Attendees were also presented with Game analysis and statistical surveys from over 800 matches, involving more than 3,000 players, coaches and referees at the Elite and Participation levels of the Game from 15 IRB Member Unions.
“It is has been a long road since the genesis of the ELV programme at the Conference on the Playing of the Game in Auckland in January 2004 when national coaches and administrators gathered following Rugby World Cup 2003 to debate the state of the Game,” said Lapasset.
“Collectively the participants requested that the IRB look into the Laws of the Game and mandated it to undertake a major review in areas such as the lineout, maul and sanctions, including turning penalties for technical offences into free kicks. The Laws Project Group was subsequently conceived, as were the Experimental Law Variations with initial trials starting in 2005.”
“In the past Law changes were discussed in theory and implemented without on-field testing but importantly this ELV programme has included global practical trials. The entire process is now coming to an end and the IRB would like to sincerely thank its Member Unions for their participation in what has been an unprecedented review of the Laws of the Game,” added Lapasset.
Recommendations for the IRB Rugby Committee
The following is recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
Law 6 – Assistant Referees allowed
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
Law 19 – Quick Throw permitted in any direction except forward
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch
Law 19 – Pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed
Law 19 – Lifting in the lineout allowed
Law 19 – Positioning of Receiver must be two metres away from lineout
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the Scrum
Law 20 – Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
Law 22 – Corner Posts no longer touch in goal
The following is not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
Law 17 – Maul – Head and Shoulders not to be lower than hips
Law 17 – Maul – Pulling Down the Maul
Law 19 – Freedom for each team to determine Lineout Numbers
Sanctions and Free Kicks (subsidiary recommendation for further examination)
Tackle/Ruck Infringements (subsidiary recommendation for ruling in law to be sought by a Union to clarify interpretation of current Law)
Other Union-specific ELVs
Up to 15 minutes half time – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Rolling substitutions for Community Game – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Use of Under 19 variations at the scrum for Community Adult Game where agreed by the Union – recommended to
Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Protocol to extend the remit of the TMO – not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
ELV Conference attendees: Bernard Lapasset (IRB Chairman), Bill Beaumont (IRB Vice Chairman and Laws Project Group), Mike Miller (IRB Chief Executive), Oregan Hoskins (IRB Executive Committee), Giancarlo Dondi (IRB Executive Committee), Peter Boyle (IRB Executive Committee), David Pickering (IRB Executive Committee), Jean Pierre Lux (IRB Rugby Committee), Geraint John (IRB Rugby Committee), Francis Baron (RFU), Rob Andrew (RFU), Kevin Bowring (RFU), Chris Cuthbertson (RFU), Roger Lewis (WRU), Joe Lydon (WRU), Bob Yeman (WRU), Phillip Browne (IRFU), Eddie Wigglesworth (IRFU), Owen Doyle (IRFU), Roy McCombe (SRU), Frank Hadden (SRU), Colin Thomson (SRU), Andre Watson (SARU), Johan Prinsloo (SARU), Peter de Villiers (SARU), David Nucifora (ARU), John O’Neill (ARU), Robbie Deans (ARU), Santiago Phelan (UAR), Ricardo Garcia Fernandez (UAR), Marcelo Toscano (UAR), Steve Tew (NZRU), Neil Sorensen (NZRU), Steve Hansen (NZRU), Nick Mallett (FIR), Francesco Ascione (FIR), Carlo Casagrande (FIR), Rene Hourquet (FFR), Jean Louis Barthes (FFR), Didier Retiere (FFR), Bill Nolan (Laws Project Group Chairman), Dr Syd Millar (Laws Project Group), Bruce Cook (Laws Project Group/IRB Development Manager), Ian McIntosh (Laws Project Group), Dr Mick Molloy (Laws Project Group/IRB Medical Officer), Graham Mourie (Chairman of IRB Rugby Committee & Laws Project Group), Paddy O’Brien (Laws Project Group/IRB Referee Manager), Pierre Villepreux (Laws Project Group), Richie Dixon (Laws Project Group), Rod Macqueen (Laws Project Group), Steve Griffiths (IRB Head of Technical Services), Corris Thomas (IRB Game Analysis), John Feehan (6 Nations), Derek McGrath (ERC Rugby), Ian McGeechan (British & Irish Lions), Lyndon Bray (NZRU Referee Manager), Nigel Owens (IRB Referee), Rob Nichol (IRPA), Damian Hopley (IRPA).
*At the conclusion of the Conference the FFR tabled its proposal to deal with the issue of uncontested scrums. This will be further discussed by the Rugby Committee and Unions will be able to give further feedback before the May 13 Council meeting.
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...
(80)
Dimebag said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Thanks Spiro for the article. I cant say i am disappointed that they are going, they didnt really achieve what they set out to do. They made the ruck even more of a mess with people flopping, the sanctions made people not care if they cheated in it as a free kick is not much consquence and way way way too much aimless mid field kicking appeared. I also am a bit fed up with the complaints about the 07 final. 90% of every final in every sport ends up with 2 teams who are trying not to lose, rather than attack. Almost every soccer world cup final is dull as dishwater. Funnily enough, everywhere else in the world, the 07 World Cup was hailed as the best ever. This will stir up some controversy but i think that we see the game differently to the rest of the world due to the fact that league has dominated here so we expect union to be about running and tries, whereas everywere else the game is seen differently.
True Tah said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Dimebag
Aussies and Kiwis pour scorn on the 2007 RWC for the reason our teams failed to go past the quarter finals. Personally I though 2007 was probably one of the best WCs, I was lucky enough to watch Fiji beat Wales, two of the entertainers of World Rugby, then I watched the bula boys put the fear of God into the Springboks when they drew 20-20, and JP had to make a try saving tackle on that big Fijian lock. Funnily enough Fiji had more supporters than SA at the game, and I suspect many of them had a Welsh accent.
The fact is the Fijians will play the game as they know it, full of running, whether the ELVs exist or not – maybe Australian and NZ coaches should take the same approach as our Pacific neighbours?
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Spiro,
I wouldn’t be so harsh on the British & Irish. Sometimes it’s necessary to have someone play the devil’s advocate. Laws can be changed (hoping for the better) in good faith, then thrashed by the pragmatic realities of on-field combatants.
It is often argued that the most sacrosanct feature of rugby is the continuous battle for possession. Yet, there appears to be any number of studies showing that the continuous battle for possession has become highly predictable, & incontestable.
I was discussing this with a mate who has gone totally off rugby union, & now prefers rugby league as his choice of footy entertainment. He made this point about how the continuous battle for possession could be a good thing, if the rugby play has become stagnant & predictable.
For example, while both rugby league & American football might be ’stop-start’, when it’s “game on”, both sports provide terrific action.
While I still prefer union to league, I have re-discovered a love for league, & I couldn’t care less if league won over union tomorrow. A far cry from my attitude of former years, where I believed the codes were locked in mortal combat for survival.
That’s the problem Spiro, I really don’t care anymore. I continue to follow & discuss union out of habit, but the passion has dissipated. When/if it will return I don’t know.
However, it seems to be that historically, rugby union has been treated with utter contempt by most who profuse a great love for it – administrators, officials, coaches & especially players.
If we all really loved the game as much as we all profess, then surely every day of the week, we would try to promote the best qualities of rugby union to the world, both on the field (playing) & off it (legislating).
Great article, BTW.
Jimmy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Yet more dishonest and one-eyed reporting. The British and Irish unions did NOT defy the IRB: they are part of the IRB decision-making process, just like the SANZAR unions, who could as easily be said to have defied the IRB by trialling only those ELVs that suited them.
And Stephen Jones’s forecast of how the Lensbury conference would conclude was actually fairly accurate (though he did say the ridiculous sanctions ELV would be scrapped, when it’s actually only been deferred for later scrapping).
Your cherry-picking of games that suit your argument is ridiculous as is your ignorant comment that England play “football”, not “rugby” (oh yes, except when they beat Australia!). Most commentators (especially those who know something about the game) considered the Wales v Ireland game a fairly dull affair when considered purely as a rugby spectacle. What made it exciting was the atmosphere, the tradition, the tension . . . all factors that made the 2007 RWC Final such a wonderful game also. But then, one was played under the laws of rugby union and the more recent one under wannabe laws of rugby league.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
“There are complaints that the non-ground kicking from balls played into the 22 ELV actually encourages kicking.”
I had always assumed that people recognised this as the increased kicking being an adjunct of the breakdown structures that surfaced at the same time.
Incidentally, didn’t SA finish up as the WC leading try scorers? Did they Spiro?
Dimebag, you’re spot on about the WC final, and in fact knock out sport in general, but then it is an easy target for the misinformed.
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
KO,
This is off-topic, but a quote of yours in another thread continues to intrigue me – Gareth Edwards could only pass from one side. I would be appreciative if you elaborated briefly on this for me, because I’ve never read this about Edwards anywhere.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Where would you read it, Sheek? How can I confirm it? Edwards struggled off one of his hands.
Justin said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
The problem with the maul (pre ELVs) was not that it stopped (although this isnt great) but that players were being allowed by refs to join in front of the ball carrier. Outlaw that with strict interpretation and you will see more of a contest at the maul. Simple really, and I dont agree the maul should be pulled down (although not because of the rubbish some people espouse to regarding injury) just that it ties up the defence and opens the space on the field.
pothale said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
This article is just a rehash of what we’ve had already on the Roar, and reheated opinions of things already said previously by Spiro and others.
I find it funny that Stephen Jones with his headline grabber article that the key ELVs were going to be consigned to the dustbin of history – collapsing of maul, numbers at lineout and the free kick sanctions, are seen in turn as most of the ELVs going through by Spiro.
Seems to me that it’s more of a compromise. The 22 and the 5m scrum Laws will be recommended. The further review statement about free kick sanctions smells to me like a political kick into touch. I don’t buy that they’re going to be resolved by the time May rolls around, as Spiro hopes. They’ll quietly pass away without people losing too much face amid some comforting noises about paying more attention to the ruck/tackle area that will leave one side feeling more appeased.
It’s a pity that people want to see the ELV discussion in terms of victories for either North or South as opposed to getting an outcome that actually benefits the game.
Most of the Top 10 playing nations wanted the maul restored. It was.
The 22 no pass back was kept because if encourages attacking.
Aerial ping-pong will reduce because of a greater commitment to mauling and belief that posession will now not be lost when attacking from deep.
Numbers in the lineout creates more space for the backlines and encourages more effective ball-in-hand rugby
The other laws were either putting into law what was happening in practice, or are minor tinkerings with the game e.g. corner flag, etc. No-one had any issue with these Laws and probably could have been recommended into the Laws of the Game on the day they were introduced for trialling.
The free kick sanctions were viewed negatively by more than NH unions/players/fans. There has been plenty of commentary on here and from other SH coaches/players about the serial tedium created by the endless free kicks and reluctance of referees to shift to penalty kicks after cynical abuse and/or yellow cards.
10 out of the original 35 Laws have been recommended. Of these 10, 3 have merited useful discussion.
3 other key laws are being dropped. And one remains to be debated regarding sanctions. Or maybe it’s more than one – I’m not sure if these penalty to free-kick sanctions for different offences make up a number of the overall 35 Laws.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Pothale, agree. I wish it would go away now, frankly.
van der Merwe said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
So basically, Spiro comes to the conclusion that the 22 rule is a good one based on Stephen Jones’ moment of forgetfulness? What about the mindless up and unders? Do people enjoy watching those? In the proper, old non-ELV rules, a team could pass the ball back into the 22 and either 1. kick for a lineout, 2. kick up the field, 3. run. Under these new ones, a team can now only do two of those. In other words, limiting the options a team can use. I though rugby was supposed to be like chess, Spiro? Why do you want to limit the tactics a team can use? Why does everyone have to play the same generic style?
Brett McKay said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Pothale, it is funny to see the different interpretations of the outcomes from the ELV conference, especially with regard to the “further investigation” of the free-kick/sanctions ELV. Some see it as a positive that it wasn’t scrapped completely, others see it as being a polite stay of execution now for what will be a quiet death for this ELV later.
On RH-NZ today, Steve Tew is quoted with an almost Switzerland-like premise, in suggesting/hoping that the further investigation and review of the sanctions might lead to something of a rejink of the breakdown interpretations (which to be honest, was one of the objectives of the sanctions in the first place).
I think Tew could be on to something when he says, “Hopefully we can improve the contest and give the referee more discretion if we allow that player to hang on to the ball and finish the act he had started.”
Duncan Johnstone writes “Tew indicated there were hopes the IRB could find some middle ground and initiate a more literal interpretation of the current law to allow the first tackler to continue working for the ball with his hands irrespective of whether a ruck is formed.”
Surely this idea is worth inclusion and discussion in the sanctions review/investigation.
Full story is at http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/news/2307950/ELVs-need-to-tackle-rugbys-grey-area
Dimebag said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
van der Merwe, I HATE this mindless kicking but around my part of sydney those kicks are called Matt Burke specials as he seems to have been te one to start it (although not EVERY TIME)
Rah Rah Rasputin said | April 2nd 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
What was the problem with law 19 re freedom for each team to determine lineout numbers. Was it simply to preserve short line outs? Though it wasn’t actually a blight on the game I thought the law overcame the pedantic infringements for numbers in the lineout. If your short in the lineout then have an extra man in the backline which would presumbly be to your benefit in attack or defence. While, if you have an extra man in the lineout your had an obvious advantage with numbers.
Short lineouts were becoming something of a rarity and were only used for two purposes.
Firstly, when the team with the throw had a lineout on their own 5 metre line in order to limit the other teams number in the lineout and therefore ability to challenge the throw. Teams would also use this ploy to throw over the back to a forward running from the goal line. It could be argued that this is something of a let off and fails to award teams who are able to accurately kick for the corners.
Secondly, they are used to stand a big ball running forward, presumbly a no.8, to run headlong into some helpless flyhalf. Personally, I have no problem with this, the opposing side is equally compensated with there own man presumbly marking up in defence, but wasn’t one of the main criticisms of 5 metre offside at the scrums that encouraged the no. 8 the to pick and run at the flyhalf and the therefore was not encouraging enterprising backline play.
I therefore find it questionable why one of these laws got through and the other didn’t. Any insights, Spiro?
Sam Taulelei said | April 2nd 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Jimmy
The IRB urged its members to trial all the ELV variations prior to presenting their findings at the Lensbury meeting but a few of the home unions either chose not to or barely assessed them yet presented their findings for rejecting them based on what exactly? – so if that’s what you refer to as being part of the decision making process then its tantamount to being tried in a kangaroo court. Criticise the SH unions for having the temerity to actually trial the variations all you want but at least our findings are based on fact.
Personally I wasn’t convinced with the intended impact of the ELV’s and will be glad for the whole thing to go away. Following the All Blacks from 2004 – 2007 they certainly weren’t inhibited in playing attacking rugby under the old laws in comparison to other countries, and SA played thrilling rugby at times in the World Cup as well. Perhaps as True Tah mentioned earlier coaches need to look at themselves first rather than laying blame at the laws for how their teams can play the game. Our biggest problem remains the breakdown and the greatest tragedy is that rucking is still outlawed.
Sam Taulelei said | April 2nd 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
There’s also a lot of hysteria from this neck of the woods about rugby returning to a dour, forward oriented game dominated by penalty kicks point scoring instead of tries following the rejection of the free kick sanctions.
What a load of BS!!!
Like I and others have already stated, there was a lot of good and crap rugby played before the ELV’s and during the ELV’s, what does that tell you???
Who Needs Melon said | April 2nd 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Sheek,
I have to take you to task for this observation:
“the continuous battle for possession could be a good thing, if the rugby play has become stagnant & predictable”.
(not sure if there is maybe a typo in the above?)
And:
“For example, while both rugby league & American football might be ’stop-start’, when it’s “game on”, both sports provide terrific action.”
You seem to be saying that it’s ok to be stop-start as long as the game isn’t bornig and predicatble when it’s actually being played. I can kind of understand that logic BUT…
I’ve been to an NFL game and was absolutely BORED STIFF. Minutes of absolutely nothing would go by followed by a few seconds of “action” – usually a guy picking up the ball and making a yard or two – a bit like a froward picking the ball up from the base of a ruck. Maybe a few tmies a game would anyone go for one of those long touch-down passes so romanticised in US movies.
To me rugby league is better by a mile… but that’s actually not saying that much. For me league is also too much a guy getting the ball and trucking it up hard and straight into a group of opposition players. Very occaisonally you’ll get someone attempt to offload. And then, a few times each game, you’ll actually get some enterprising play (as opposed to kicking away position on your last tackle).
Better still is rugby union… but I don’t want to turn this into another league vs. union debate.
I’m sad to hear you have lost your love of rugby.
AndyS said | April 2nd 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Can’t help but wonder what would have happened if the IRB had had the foresight to say, day one “If you don’t trial a law, you cannot be involved in the discussion of that law”….?
Who Needs Melon said | April 2nd 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Sam Taulelei I agree with you.
If you stuck with the same laws for 100 years you would see all sorts of styles come and go.
When you are changing the laws you tend to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between changing styles and the changing laws. Sometimes incorrectly.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Dr Danie Craven view that the laws are “too complicated and there are too many of them”. This tends to be the case with all sports and all laws in general – you start with the ten commandments but over time you end up with laws so complex that it takes a professional to actually know them all. For example: How about that rule that if you pick the ball up in goal, while it’s still rolling and have your foot on the sideline then etc. etc… Do they play this rule in sub-professional comps? Honestly how many PLAYERS would know this one, let alone spectators?
I’m sick of these discussions on laws. I’m hoping we now get a few years where no-one stuffs with anything. Perhaps in that respect I am now seeing eye-to-eye with our northern brethren.
simon said | April 2nd 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Ironically perhaps, but some of the best rugby I’ve seen of late was during the ARC. My question is, was that because of the full use of the ELV’s (as opposed to the S14) or something else?
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Who Needs Melon,
Not gone yet…..but waiting to be re-engaged!
Re your last post, the laws of rugby have changed so much (since circa 1860s) that if union tried to argue it was closest to the original, it might be in for a rude shock.
Sean Fagan has done some extraordinary research, & there are elements of rugby league, Australian football & American football that all might be closer to original rugby union than rugby union itself!
The ‘play the ball’ (league), ‘kick to kick’ (Australian football) & ‘down’ (American football) were all apparently characteristics of rugby union at one time or another. Even offside was a feature of rugby union at one stage.
Greg Russell said | April 2nd 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
The pre-meeting media reports in NZ were that probably none of the ELVs would survive. On RadioSport there was an interview with the rugby writer at The Independent, whose name does not deserve to be mentioned or even remembered. He said that he found the 2007 World Cup final one of the most thrilling matches he had ever seen. He then said “The problem with you people in the southern hemisphere is that you see tries as an essential part of rugby. They are not. Tries should be seen as supreme achievements, not as something that there must be.”
Against this backdrop, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that any of the ELVs have survived, let alone so many of them. It’s true that the ELVs have not delivered the leap forward in quality that many of us had hoped for, but at least they have delivered incremental improvement. Just thinking back to the 2007 World Cup final makes me shudder.
Finally, an anecdote. At my workplace there is currently a visiting Irish professor who has a reasonable degree of interest in rugby. I put this to him today: “The ELVs are introduced into the Six Nations and the Irish win for the first time in 61 years. Isn’t there are logical connection here that even an Irishman cannot miss? So why is that the Irish want rid of the ELVs – do they want to lose the Six Nations for the next 61 years?” The visitor just laughed and said “You fail to understand that rugby in Ireland is controlled by people who are implacable opposed to any change, whether or not it is to their benefit.”
I don’t think anything more needs to be said.
oikee said | April 2nd 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
To be totally honest with you Spiro, there is no new rugby era, just the same ole same ole rugby being dished out to the public, which is why sheek and his mates are now turning to league. The kiwis are turning to league, the poms are tuning into league.
Now i know you watched the Tigers, Roosters game which had over 10 tries and went from one end to the other, this is what the public wants “supreme acheivement” as a guy above me said, if you score a try. It will only be a matter of time before the groundsmen get sick of replacing divets. I really dont think to many league followers will give up the finals of the NRL to watch world cup union 2011. I think the 310 million hit the kiwis face in 2011 will be more like 500 million. Union should have stayed amatuer. Once money became involved the game was always destined to fail. And i know that all the Aussie rules followers wont even know the world cup is on, as far as they know other codes dont even exsist.
Spiro Zavos said | April 2nd 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Thank you Greg for a brilliant posting. It’s good to know from a person viewpoint that my antagonism to the diehards of the self-styled Home Unions is not based on mad conspiratorial turn of mind. The Independent journalist’s comment on tries is interesting because in the 1890s the chairman of the RFU, then the effective IRB (it still thinks this is the case), argued against increasing the points for tries over penalties and dropped goals (worth more than a try) on the grounds that ‘pace should not be rewarded in rugby.’
The view of the Irish professor confirms the view that there is a deep, indeed, profound lack of understanding of the zen of rugby in the UK. This lack of understanding is reflected in the very poor results UK teams have produced over the years. Scotland and Ireland, for instance, have NEVER defeat New Zealand in a rugby Test.
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland has a losing win-loss record against South Africa, Australia and New Zealand yet they tend to lecture us on how rugby should be played.
This obsession with opposing reforms to the rugby game lost the northern counties of England to rugby league when these counties provided easily the best rugby players in England, and later NSW and Queensland to the same code.
So it is no surprise that they wanted all the ELVs abolished. Thank goodness they have been unsuccessful – so far.
Bulldog said | April 2nd 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Sheek – I am with you on this one buddy. I too used to be very passionate about my rugby but have recently found myself not caring that much about it at all and turing to the NRL for my weekly fix. I can particularly relate with your comment that “rugby union has been treated with utter contempt by most who profuse a great love for it – administrators, officials, coaches & especially players”. It always erks me that rugby seems to be forever at each others throats – eg. ELV’s, northern vs southern hemisphere, NSW Administrators vs the rest of OZ, The Force vs the rest of OZ, Sydney Clubs vs rest of OZ, etc etc.
With respect to the ELV’s – I have to admit that the S14 games this year just do not inspire me at all & the last World Cup was a boreathon – so I guess I am just confused….
If I really think about it I think I started losing interest in rugby when they banned rucking!! What ever happened to rucking??? For me it provided an important element of self regulation of the rules around the ruck. You flop on the ball and you get a good going over. Keeps it clean and tidy except for the very brave and stupid. Lets the ref officiate other stuff and the game flows. Also I think this is when the All Blacks lost their aura. They were always known and feared for their rucking…..
Not sure why they got rid of it except it for political correctness. I do not remember that many people being seriuosly injured. The odd zipper that needed stiches…
Anyway I also hope to find the love again some day. The Reds are giving me hope.
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Greg/Spiro,
I’ve had a long held suspicion, which I trot out occasionally in frustration, & supported by some of the anecdotes given here, that there is a bloody minded group of people in the UK & Ireland, who would gladly turn the clock back tomorrow, & have the rugby world play the “Eton wall game”!!!
And revert tries to one point, so they can “try” for a kick at goal, worth six points, or some other stupid value like that!
Gawd help us…………!
ohtani's jacket said | April 2nd 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
Can anybody name a positive that came out of the ELV trials?
They didn’t solve the problems at the breakdown and encouraged conservative play. Worst of all, they either bored people or confused them. The SANZAR trial was nothing short of damaging.
Ian Noble said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Spiro
I really don’t see your contention. The majority of the trialled ELV’s have been accepted. At last nights game between Quins and Worcester, albeit Worcester were weak because of injuries, 12 tries were scored in a 60-14 score. David Hands of the Times reported
“Always inventive, Harlequins did not aim a penalty at the posts all night. Instead they took quick taps and from one, Strettle ran with purpose and Ugo Monye finished powerfully”. He should added their kicking game for position was excellent.
To win the GP this year bonus points will be critical and the top teams will be going all out and it will create some very exciting contests. Teams have to find a way around the defensive line which this season have been stronger than ever with too many players clogging the midfield. If they fail then they won’t contest the end of season playoffs.
Quins at the moment are top of the GP which is very keenly contested with top 6 teams separated by only a matter of a couple of points.
As for the posting by Greg as I posted on another blog the most outspoken country against the trial of any ELV’s was Ireland followed by the Welsh. The RFU if you recall always said that some of the trialled ELV’s would be acceptable, all that was needed was hard facts not hearsay.
Sorry Sheek, butyour posting jis indicative of a lack of knowledge of the game in the NH as many posters from the NH have pointed out the game played in the Top 14, GP, Magners League et al isvery different from the international arena. There are signs that the internationals will play as they do for their clubs, but national coaches do have problem in that with the limlted time together it is difficult to blend players from different clubs and coaching regimes. At least in the NH the game is flourishing, albeit, there is an awareness of the difficult financial climate.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
“The view of the Irish professor confirms the view that there is a deep, indeed, profound lack of understanding of the zen of rugby in the UK. This lack of understanding is reflected in the very poor results UK teams have produced over the years. Scotland and Ireland, for instance, have NEVER defeat New Zealand in a rugby Test.
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland has a losing win-loss record against South Africa, Australia and New Zealand yet they tend to lecture us on how rugby should be played.”
Oh dear, this is a very, very lazy response. Clearly, the fact that the NH teams have been steadily crossing the divide since the advent of professionalism is irrelevant to the antagonistic. Implying pre-professional results is supremely shoddy. Oh,and you never did tell me if SA scored the most tries in the WC, Spiro?
Sheek, did you watch the Spring internationals? Please explain to me why SA and Australia played such boring, one-dimensional rugby? Are they fans of the Eton wall game? I’m perplexed, because the SH are innovators, always have been.. NZ played some great stuff and NZ are in the SH, so I suppose because SA and Australia share geography with NZ they must be as good? Yeah, I guess that’s right.
westy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s jacket I think the only competition that trialled the entire ELVs package was the ill fated ARC and even this may not be correct.
Rugby is an international sport and I understand the consequences of this bit the trialling of the ELVs were an embarrassment to the game and its management.
The ELVs were like them or not designed to be all implemented and trialled together as a package. Rugby could not even do that.
Rugby League is a much smaller game and more provincial but one has to respect their implementation of 8 new laws in their professional U/20’s competition including 2 referees and reduced interchange no video checking of lost balls , knock ons or forward passes except if resulting in a try over a full year for all to see and disagrre or agree. all videoed and anaysed
Why could not the Currie Cup/NPC / Tier2 rugby in France and second division in England and the Shute Shield been forced to play all the new rules as a package for one year. This would not affect test rugby or super 14 or European championships Six nations etc.
However the standard of rugby would have been sufficient to see what works if anything with some international empirical evidence.
Instead we had this unedifying spectacle of partial trialling bitching where we have ended up with ?
They really did not trial them in Europe as a package they just read them and picked the ones they might like irrespective of impact
you may be correct and none should have been adopted but remind me not to get IRB to trial anything in the future. It was simply inept.
westy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Ian Noble good to hear from you. I agree with you as to the relatively stability and potential of the game in England . Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales is a worry. I say this not to put you in your place. Some SH commentators mouth the mantra of all NH domestic club rugby in Australia.
Your English model is more relevant for us then say French 14 rugby. They lump it all together ie. everything is rosy in all NH
competitions or that some local multi millionaire will suddenly appear .
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
“The view of the Irish professor confirms the view that there is a deep, indeed, profound lack of understanding of the zen of rugby in the UK. This lack of understanding is reflected in the very poor results UK teams have produced over the years. Scotland and Ireland, for instance, have NEVER defeat New Zealand in a rugby Test.
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland has a losing win-loss record against South Africa, Australia and New Zealand yet they tend to lecture us on how rugby should be played.”
The more I think about this statement, the more things I find wrong with it.
i. The ‘professor’ had criticised the administrators of Irish rugby, not the players or the coaches. It is illogical, therefore, to make such a broad statement as “The view of the Irish professor confirms the view that there is a deep, indeed, profound lack of understanding of the zen of rugby in the UK.”
ii. I could employ the same logic and state that John O’Neill is an oaf, and thus there is a profound lack of understanding etc. in Australia.
iii. Broad statements are a sanctuary for the misinformed. To suggest the UK lacks a rugby understanding is a suggestion completely compromised by their domestic competitions and the fact that the game is growing year by year.
iv. Ireland have never beaten NZ but they have beaten SA twice, and Australia twice, on the past few occasions they have played them at home. I also recall Australia being quite fortunate to beat Ireland prior to the 3N. Therefore the pre-professional record is completely irrelevant to the modern game. The record books don’t lie but if we examine the recent Spring tour: Australia literally stumble home against Italy, Matt Giteau kicks 18 points against England, David Skrela misses 5/6 kicks in Paris and Wales were unfortunate not to thrash them. Those 4 games will show 3 wins and a single loss, yet in every game Australia were mediocre, bland.. just plain average and indeed very, very fortunate not to have lost 3 games out of 4. I suppose it suits the misininformed to paint in black and white, however.
v. If the UK lacks a rugby understanding then why has every professional WC final had a European participant?
vi. If the UK lacks a rugby understanding then how did England manage to dominate world rugby for 3 years? How did a test nation so ensconced in conservatism and weak traditionalism win in SA, NZ and Australia?
vii. You readily admit – clearly, only now that there is no option – that the ELVs were a failure. Does this make the European administrators stupid for recognising this, or the opposite?
katzilla said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
I’ve stopped caring about what stays and what goes.
Pre ELVs the best teams found a way to flourish and light up the game, post ELVs it will remain the same.
The cream will always rise to the top, true inovators will revolutionise the game within the parameters set for them.
Adaptability is the key.
katzilla said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
‘how did England manage to dominate world rugby for 3 years?’
Come now KO, i’ll give you 2 years on a scrape. But three is taking the mick.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
viii. Scotland is in the UK, no? Scotland supported the SH ELVs. Why let accuracy get in the way of some good ol’ xenophobia, eh?!
Katzilla, 2000-03. You can only beat what’s in front of you and the SH didn’t win at Twickenham for a long time, and England won away in that period – consistently. I agree with your ELV assessment, btw.
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
KO,
I’ve been following rugby union since the late 1960s. The story that Australia is a disciple of running rugby, is a myth. The only time it happened with any consistency in my experience, was when a couple of guys named Ella & Campese were in the Wallaby backline.
So I’m talking 1980-84 & again 1989-93. And apart from a couple of other flare-ups here & there, that’s about it.
The ABs were dour for most of the 70s & 80s, before re-discovering running rugby in the 1990s. At present they the only ones who consistently talk the talk & walk the walk.
The Boks have the athleticism to play running rugby, but they’re much happier just bumping into people. This saves having to think!
The French start each game full of brandy, & play with elan. When the brandy runs out, they fight with everyone, including themselves.
The British & Irish teams’ occasions of running rugby can be described like island atolls in the Pacific ocean – few & far between.
Apparently, a British team calling themselves Barbarians played a wonderful brand of running rugby back in 1973 – so rumour has it.
I believe there is a conspiracy out there, I just haven’t figured it out. Those people running the game who profess to love it, actually want to destroy the game, & being sadists, are adopting the slow torture method while they thrash out the final rites. Apparently, the devil is in the detail!
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Katzilla,
USMC motto – “adapt, improvise, overcome”.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Sheek, I believe those people are called the IRB, formerly the IB.
Colin N said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
I agree with your points KO, and to expand, even if the hierachy’s in England, Ireland etc, are/were backward thinking, it doesn’t make the players, coaches or fans think the same way. From my viewpoint the GP has produced a fantastic brand of rugby, and even if the games have been low on quality, they’ve at least shown the ambition to play what you call ‘positive’ rugby, something that some super 14 teams don’t seem to have done. But what you seem to understand is that teams in a league will play different ways, but it’s almost as though some commentators and pundits want rugby to have a standardised style and one of the only sports where that is the case is Rugby League. I dismiss that because of the ELV’s the game is becoming like League; I think that theory is bollocks, but the way some people want the game to be played by every club/country, suggests that that the games various styles would be taken out and a monotonous, one-dimensional practice taken by everyone could become prevelent, or at least that’s some people’s ideology.
DJ said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
The pass back to the 22 rule is a dumb rule. Too many bombs aimed just before the 22 reduces the incentive to keep ball in hand. While a good idea, in practice it hasn’t worked. Don’t know why the different numbers in lineouts wasn’t retained.
katzilla said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Without going too far away from the subject KO, your guys didn’t slam in 01 and didn’t even win the 6N in 02.
The back half of 02 through to early 04 is all yours and impossible to argue with. Although pulling you up on the length in the first place is a bit pedantic of me anyway lol.
Sam Taulelei said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Sheek I vehemently disagree with your comment that NZ rediscovered running rugby during the 1990’s. We won the world cup in 1987 playing running rugby and dominated the game until 1990 playing attacking powerful rugby. The influence of John Hart, Alex Wyllie and conditioner Jim Blair was very evident in the All Blacks of that era.
Ironically the best exponents of running rugby when I was growing up as well as listening to my older generations were the French and British teams and they usually came unstuck against the power, pragmatism and dour rugby of the All Blacks and Springboks. If the ELV’s were proposed during that era of British rugby, their opinions may have been different.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Colin, I think a decade after the dawn of professionalism, the UK is finally catching up. The GP has seen more teams willing to be less narrow in their outlook. (I nearly laughed the other day when I read a quote from Richard Cockerill saying that he really wanted Leicester to entertain and throw the ball around. I also nearly laughed when I saw a quote from either Mumm or Caldwell saying that NSW didn’t care how they won.) There are fewer foreigners playing in the GP than when England won the WC, and the foreigners are of a far superior quality. Younger English players are playing regularly, and even if the EPS agreement is far from perfect it is at least a start. The ML is geared toward the HC and test rugby, and the inclusion of the Italian teams represents a great opportunity. The HC is improving year after year, also. If the Lions win in SA – a big if, certainly – then things could start to look far rosier than anything anywhere else bar the great gardens of NZ. What the great Australian fans forget is that if British rugby starts to properly get its act together then only NZ and SA could challenge it.
I think the ELVs can be summed up pretty aptly by the phrase, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’. The ELVs have not improved SH rugby as a spectactle. They have in fact created confusion amongst referees and a generic style of play. It has been embarassing to see such stupid throwaway lines about how mauling is possible and how the ball is in play. I really have to question people’s intelligence or comprehension of rugby whenever I hear those beauts.
Tim Sheedy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
I just thought I should take the opportunity to voice my support to the Northern Hemisphere’s dumping of the ELVs – particularly the the sanctions ELV – which downgrades many offences from a penalty to a free-kick.
One thing I find about Super 14 now is that there is no time in the game to do anything else. What was a great fact about Rugby Union played under the old laws was that you could make yourself a cup of coffee, go to the loo, surf the net for a bit and come back and essentially you have not missed anything – maybe just a kick to the line and some players strolling to the lineout, or maybe someone lining up a kick for a penalty.
Obviously there is also the fact that there are far fewer opportunities for advertisements in the game – how am I expected to make an informed decision about which bank to use, which mobile company to try, or which rail service I should use should I happen to be in Queensland if I don’t get all those chances to see those ads that they play during the game? And the other good thing about watching a game of rugby using the old laws is that it gives you the chance to watch two sports at one time – as there is just as much time in rugby with nothing happening – so I can keep my eye on an AFL match I might be interested in watching. The other choice is to watch a professional kicker place a ball on a tee, line it up, and take a kick for goal? What is more entertaining than that?
What I am particularly fond of the fact that the decisions about what is “exciting” in the game of rugby are being made by the British – a culture where they often decide on a plain digestive biscuit over a chocolate digestive because the chocolate one is a “bit too extravagant”. Having a jammy dodger with your cup of tea is viewed as “a real treat”. The British GET excitement. Nothing really can be better than a 0-0 draw really!
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
It’s ok, Katzilla. I’m not one to eulogise about Sir Clive (Suppresses laughter). IMO his tenure saw far too many failures, but in the context of world domination it’s arguable that apart from a few lapses, that England were pretty untouchable at Twickenham. They also won in Argentina, SA, NZ and Australia. That is what makes that period special, IMHO.
Sam, funny you should say that. I read Jean Pierre Rive’s book the other day, and Peter Bills (Yawn) spent some time being nostalgic about the French win over Mourie’s side in NZ. Interestingly, that French side progressed from being all out running merchants to being a 10 man team with a huge pack.
Sam Taulelei said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
KO I’m a child of the sixties and I remember the Lions in 71 came over and taught NZ a real lesson in 15 man rugby, ironically Carwyn James learned a great deal from watching the Fred Allen coached side in their UK tour in 1967. I’ve read many touring books from the early 20th century and many former All Blacks had written that if the British sides got their act together and developed strong forward packs they would be a force to be reckoned with.
While NZ always possessed talented wingers, midfielders and halfbacks our victories were usually forged upon pressure, pressure and more pressure. We may not have always been the best team on the field in terms of individual talent but we hid our weaknesses better than any other side and played very patterned rugby that was difficult to combat unless you took us out of our comfort zone and disrupted our patterns of play.
The influence of the Pacific Island migration and their second and third generation children being integrated fully into NZ society as well as the rise of sevens rugby brought about a change in the attitudes and coaching of rugby during the 1980’s and beyond.
ohtani's jacket said | April 2nd 2009 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
Westy,
I agree that the way the global trials were handled probably doomed the ELVs to failure (or should I say the free kick sanctions), but they should’ve thought more carefully before trialing them in the first place.
Of all the problems rugby has right how, how many of them are because of the laws? All the ELVs did was exasperate the frustration people already had with the game.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
That’s a concise and interesting brief history of NZ rugby, Sam. Thanks.
sheek said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Sam,
You’re absolutely right. Forgot about the 1987 ABs. Greatest turn around in history – NZ rugby from 1986 to 87.
BTW, you would have noticed (I hope) a bit of tongue in cheek in my comments. With respect to learning from each other, as the saying goes, “there’s nothing new under the sun”.
Except an opportunity to dust off a long forgotten tactic/strategy/ploy used by such & such way back when. And some people say, “history NEVER repeats”.
Those people wonder why they remain in the dark……….
Sam Taulelei said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Yeah I did Sheek. You usually have a great knowledge of the game that I thought it was rare oversight of yours to miss the 1987 AB’s. It all seems such a long time ago now………..
Tim O'Connor said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
It may interest Spiro to know – although, given that it’d spoil his conspiracy theorising, I doubt it – that the IRFU trialled all the global ELVs at all levels, and then asked the players, referees and spectators what they thought of each one, and whether it should be kept or binned. The IRFU then voted on that basis.
We tried them, and they didn’t work. The administrators didn’t engage in some bizarre conspiracy; they reflected exactly the opinion of those who had to play under the damned things, which was, simply; they didn’t work.
But then, that’d stop rants about how Stephen Jones, the RFU and the Illuminati of Bavaria are all engaged in a conspiracy against the poor little ARU, wouldn’t it…?
LeftArmSpinner said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Personally, i am glad that it appears to be all over. If there is one thing i cant stand, it is admin with their snouts in the trough.
59 people attended the session. Imagine the travel and accom bill. cost benefit please boys.
Anyway, its over. Now we can get back to watching some rugby inbetween the penalty kicks, forwrds walking to the ensuing lineout, waiting for the ref to count the players in each side of the lineout and then, if closer to the posts, penalty goal attempts.
I suspect that a short term change in strategy to the Argie style (kick, kick, kick) used at RWC 2007, and which got them to the semis may have had an impact, or been used as an outcome of the ELV’s. Of course, it wasnt and as a strategy, doesnt work unless, like all strategies, it is executed well and consistently.
As regards league, it is not the answer either. Union is too complicated. League is not sufficently complicated. Too predictable.
Knives, could you explain your photo to us, the club, your playing position, the reason for the boxing gloves etc?
ohtani's jacket said | April 2nd 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
I don’t think Knives Out is Tony Woodcock, but if it is — big ups Tony.
Knives Out said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
My name is Tony Woodock, I play loosehead prop for Auckland (rarely) and the Auckland Blues, and god willing the New Zealand Adidas All Blacks. The reason for including the boxing gloves is to show other tightheads – especially Andrew Blades – that I’m not a softy.
Thank you Ohtani. Your continued support means a lot to the Adidas All Blacks.
Tim, I believe that the SRU did as well. The full laws were also trialled in the Cambridge Uni. league. So that#s 3 of the 4 home nations. Not sure about Wales.
Ian Noble said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Spiro I really don’t understand your contention. The majority of the ELV’s trialled worldwide have been accepted and the retention of the maul is a good thing as it prevents the midfield from being clogged and releases more space for the runners.
Last night I was at Quins v Worcester which produced 12 tries and a 60-14 score line. I accept Worcester were weakened by injury but this quote from David Hands in the Times is probably illustrative of the way many GP clubs are playing at the present.
“Always inventive, Harlequins did not aim a penalty at the posts all night. Instead they took quick taps and from one, Strettle ran with purpose and Ugo Monye finished powerfully” He could have added that their kicking out of hand for position was excellent.
Quins are top of the GP separated from two other clubs on point’s difference and the top 6 are separated by a couple of points. Bonus points will critical this season if a team is to get into the top 4 play off. Teams at the top have to be inventive to get the extra bonus points and have to find a way round the defensive lines which are stronger this year and congested by players released from the maul. There will be an exciting finish to the season with some cracking games.
As for Gregs posting, as I pointed out on another blog the Irish have probably been the most outspoken on ELV’s together with the Welsh. The RFU have always indicated their support for the majority of the ELVs being trialled based upon fact not hearsay.
Sorry Sheek, but you sadly your posting is perhaps indicative of the lack of knowledge of the game in the NH. The club game in the top 14, GP and the Magners league is different from the international arena. The problem all the international coaches in the NH have is to blend the club players with different coaching regimes into a national game plan. There is more rugby played in the NH and players coming together will find it difficult to change style to meet the game plan of the national side. There are signs that the “club” environment is beginning to take shape in the England game but it will take time: consistently of selection etc will help enormously. Interesting I saw a stat that over 80 players have played for England since 2003, no wonder they find it difficult to play to their potential.
Oikee as a season ticket holder for Quins and Quins RL perhaps I can speak with some authority on both codes in the NH. Your contention that “poms are switching to league” is just not true. For a professional game that has been in existence for over 100 years it is lagging badly behind the union game which has only been a professional game for 14 years. In years past many union players switched to play professional league, particularly from Wales, this doesn’t happen any more. Brian Noble of the Wigan Warriors has suggested recently that there should be more money on the table to attract high profile union players to the game to raise its profile in the UK. Why should they move? Albeit, professional rugby union is an infant compared to RL it generates more money than league; hence the need for RL to import profile players from the NRL and elsewhere to bridge the gap and improve the package. Profile players I might add known the RL fraternity but not to the greater mass of rugby followers in the UK, who would notice if another Jonathan Davies, Scott Quinnell etc switched to RL
I get very angry at the compliancy of RL and the missed opportunities to grow the game in the UK when it was the only kid on the block. Now it is trying to catch up.
As an example, Quins when it went professional in 1995 they attracted crowds of circa 2500 now they are averaging 12000 and a major decision will be made this month whether to expand the ground to 15000 to meet demand. Quins RL in its various guises has been in existence for over 20 years and the gate at the last game was 3800. Last weekend there was only one game of the Super League were the gate was over 10,000, whereas in the GP there was only one below 10,000. The TV viewing figure for the 6Ns on BBC 1 was 6.78M only beaten by Eastenders a popular soap on FTA. RL in the UK has to smarten its act, present to the paying public players who are articulate otherwise it will remain in its 20th century time warp. Gestures to grow the game in Wales, France and London should have happened along time ago when RL was shown on BBC every weekend at prime time and attracted decent audiences.
I enjoy watching league as it is different to union and presents a different set of challenges and it will grow as union has grown because rugby as game is becoming more popular. However, unless it becomes more organised and raises it profile it will always lag well behind union.
Westy the professional game is aware of the financial pressures and is continually looking at their financial models to make sure they survive. The underlying strength of the product is the underlying attractiveness of the game to the paying public. Judging from the gates this season there are clubs holding their own, but Bristol and Newcastle have struggled probably because of their position in the GP. Saracens will lose money as their performances have been patchy not helped by continual changes at the top. Bath and Wasps need to urgently move or redevelop their existing stadia to meet demand and generate the income.
bozo said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
Great. Round 2 this weekend, of a season of junior rugby being played for the first time under the ELVs, and they are gone!
westy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Not all bozo but appreciate the humour . good luck to the junior coaches. just run with the ball son . I have to tell you it has made no difference to my sons team thet still got flogged. defence is a work in progress.
Rhino said | April 2nd 2009 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
Sam
“While NZ always possessed talented wingers, midfielders and halfbacks our victories were usually forged upon pressure, pressure and more pressure. We may not have always been the best team on the field in terms of individual talent but we hid our weaknesses better than any other side and played very patterned rugby that was difficult to combat unless you took us out of our comfort zone and disrupted our patterns of play.”
Exactly! Isn’t that precisely what rugby is about, and the reason that the ABs are so consistently good at it. Its a simple game – physical confrontation for possession, do what you can to make space, then have the ability to make use of the space to score (or at least try to). Good teams will succeed whatever the laws in place.
Laws which reduce the physical confrontation will inevitably end up in less players commited to a break-down, hence less space…….and therefore more kicking (unless you happen to be brilliant!). Re-introducing rucking would do more to change our game for the good than any ELV.
Rhino
Rowdy said | April 2nd 2009 @ 11:26pm | Report comment
Some day, hopefully within my lifetime, the clowns in the media will realise that most rugby lovers don’t line up blindly in an NH – SH form; there are plenty of people up here in the evil NH who like the ELVs, just as there are plenty in the sunny progressive uplands of the SH who dislike them.
Personally I think that sport is for the participants, not the spectators, and if the players and refs agree that something is allowed then it should be allowed and don’t worry how complicated it is. Players and coaches will always find a way to play almost within the laws in a way to suit their strengths; so we see, for example, NZ teams fielding the kick in the back 3 and then running it back with the back row in support, whereas every NH team will of course punt the ball aimlessly to and fro until someone knocks on.
In the meantime, Spiro and SJ just cancel each other out.
Knives Out said | April 3rd 2009 @ 12:35am | Report comment
I doubt it Rowdy because that would actually necessitate being involved with the game. Nobody wants to bring muddy boots back into their ivory tower, now do they?!
LeftArmSpinner said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
KO, geezzzz, You pronounce on The Roar and expect us to take you seriously and yet you are just an All Black Prop. Geezzz. I’m not listening or reading another thing you write.
Jokes aside, thanks for blowing your cover and coming out. But, it will never be the same………..
But, here is a serious question. When you compare the stats for props:
1. looseheads seem to do more work than tight heads around the park, tackles, runs, etc Why?
2. Why do both have, statistically, what appears to be such a low amount of involvement in the game in tackles, runs, etc?
These questions arise because, on occasion, players such as Benn Robinson, will put in an effort that is far beyond his typical effort and those of other props. In the 2009 season, he has made 32 runs, 5 tackle busts, one off load, 49 tackles and two forced turnovers in seven games. So, on average, 4 runs a game, and 7 tackles a game.
3. Is the day coming where props of both persuasions do more around the park, stats wise, more general play involvement or is this already happening?
Don’t take this the wrong way. It is simply an observation (by a non tackling fullback) that needs a reality check. The stats I use are the Fox Sports fantasy comp stats.
Knives Out said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
LAS, I’m sure you know all this and are just being talkative but if you want to be bored, so be it..
1. Simply because the 3 jersey is arguably the toughest position in the game, hence the dash for Hayman. The tighthead is the first point of contact and tends to set the tone for the rest of the match. The tighthead’s role has changed since professionalism but the basic truisms remain. The tighthead has weight on both shoulders thus his load is effectively double that of the looshead. The looseheads can also disengage from the scrums more quickly because of this fact. Because of this need for durability props are heavier and less athletic than the rest of the players. Therefore they defend around the ruck and involve themselves less in open play.
2. Scrummaging is an incredibly hard business. The only way it could be replicated would be to do something that builds up a tremendous amount of lactic acid in the legs, perhaps deep and heavy squatting, and then jog about throw yourself on the floor, hit a punch bag for 30 seconds, do some more squatting, then jogging etc. and repeat, repeat, repeat. That is why you see so few props really making punishing runs or tackles or turnovers. It is gut busting.
3. Props do far more than they ever did previously but if you can’t scrum then you can’t play prop. Certain players have conned their way through lengthy careers, but these players are exceptions to the rule. No scrum, no dice. To that extent the body shape requirements must remain constant and so whilst props may become incrimentally fitter their role will never really deviate. It is unlikely that we will ever see props regularly turning over ball at the ruck or chipping to the corner. Players like Hayman are one in a million but a player like Robinson may have not had the scrummaging capabilities of Hayman, thus it makes sense to set your stall out differently to other props. Take David Sole, for example. Not a monster scrummager, but a very good runner. He loved sevens, for instance. Jason Leonard did not like sevens but then he never got pushed off his own ball. If you can do what Robinson does then great, but the scrum must be numero uno on the props agenda. Everything else is a bonus.
Knives Out said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
2. Also, props will tend to be last to the breakdown due to their positioning from scrums. You can’t really affect a game that much when you’re always behind the 8 ball, so to speak.
oikee said | April 3rd 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Ian Noble, I agree with you, its dissapointing that league has not grown as well as union overseas. What you have to remember is the money on offer the last 16 years has become enormous, union has capitilised on this very well.
I would not be skiting about a 12 thousand crowd either, in australian league with 8 teams in sydney, we call that a dissapointing crowd. So your London team with a population of 10 million gets 12 thousand, wooa, the Broncos who i keep telling you are a powerhouse get 30 thousand average for 1 million occupants, 50 thousand this weekend for a club match.
Just think yourself lucky you dont have to contend with a game like Aussie rules, we have a city who treat the game like a religon over here and has 80 thousand crowds week-in week-out, we have soccer who attracks kid’s all wanting to be david beckham’s, and then we have union , which, if it was not for the international game would be just a pass-time for university teams. Once the money runs out is when you need to worry. Just remember that league and aussie rules are in the era of making money, t/v deals around the world is the targets, does not matter where the game is played really, if the product is good, exciting, then you can sell it. And the league is very good now, extremely good.
League have over 100 thousand memberships and rising, Aussie rules have 600 thousand.
The splitting up of the league t/v deals will prove a final factor in the dominance of rugby league in the southern hemisphere.
Also the emergence of the super league on free to air t/v in oz will sway some more weight behind super leagues future in Europe.
So as i have said in my previous post , union will just be the same ole same ole, you will still be complaining in 10 years time about the rules.
They also have expansion for 2 new teams come 2013, both with 1 million area supporter base who love league and want league teams. Rugby Union will find it hard to put a team into a city with 4 million, Melbourne, because of fear of failure.
Yes league has failed and not really grown outside its heartlands, but it always bounces back bigger than before. This time last year people were saying league was dead, buried be gone in 5 years.
Anyone looking forward to Murryfeild magic.
We get a few of these games free to air this year.
oikee said | April 3rd 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Go read some of the rugby league posts of late, not one complaint about the rules. The next 100 to 200 post blog on the league site will be about the America NRL push. I dont see union making waves in america. Just another college and university push for union, trying to go for the dollars again, thank god we have murdock over there calling the shots.
LeftArmSpinner said | April 3rd 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
knives, first you call me too positive, too simplistic now too talkative. Nope, a genuine attempt, and the first in more than 40 years of playing/watching rugby, to get an understanding of the prop.
I really appreciate your input and I am sure the backs among other roarers do also.
We Roarers love to sprout forward our opinions. Always, the beauty of rugby is that the basics, the fundamentals, apply. But, all the time, the basics are surrounded by the complexity of each position and the variables.
I have no understanding of the front row or the skills/tactics that are required. Some mates of mine, props and hookers continually pound me on it, but to no avail. But then I began watching the stats for my fantasy team more closely. With your “coming out”, I thought it was a good opportunity to learn from the expert. I have recently been through the agonies and subsequent debate on the need for scrummaging during the Jones era and the long damage done to the team, the individuals and the game, until Foley came along to Wallabies and now the Tahs.
Roger said | April 3rd 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Oikee, seriously, give us your opinion, not League propagnda…give it a break mate. Union has 50,000 players registered in USE with an existing comp…its all pie in the sky stuff from League. You comments would be well received elsewhere, but I am starting to think you just like stirring the Union fans…passive agressive?
oikee said | April 3rd 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Well then Roger, when the league site starts up again with all its expansion plans and american expansion i can take it i wont have to put up with your ugly mug on our site then, or your league bashing mates as well. Thanks, just checking.
USRugbyFan said | April 3rd 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
You keep league away from our shores, you hear! Rugby league is honestly the most boring sport on the face of the Earth next to TV poker. If Americans want to watch a one-off runner smashing into the defense again and again, we’ll just watch a football game, thank you very much.
Bryan Ferrie said | April 3rd 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
USRugbyFan – looking at the popularity of NFL compared to RU in the USA, I think I’d rather be in the rugby league camp with this than RU. You seem to be in the minority. Let the running backs of rugby league run free!
Roger said | April 3rd 2009 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
dont know about the ugly mate, but as you know from this site, roar rugby fans arent interested in rugby league threads, esp getting on a RL threads just to ’stir the possum’.
WorkingClassRugger said | April 3rd 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
Everyone don’t worry about Oikee. He talks nothing but manure, lives in a alternate reality and holds a great xenophobic belief towards any other sport than League. Just ignore him life’s too precious to waste your time. But before I take my own advice. League’s dominance in the southern Hemisphere. Oikee are you aware there are more than just two nations in the Southern Hemisphere. League is only played in three of them and one of those countries is Third World. US expansion? Where? You should start writing fairy tales. Rugby is growing rapidly in the US and Worldwide. Not League. Get over it, grow up and get lost.
USRUGBYFAN
Haven’t seen you here before. Welcome.
KO
So your Tony Woodcock. Call me a skeptic but if its not too much trouble I would like confirmation. A signal. Maybe a “That’s Gold” as you run onto the pitch on your next match. I don’t mean to offend but its not the first time someone’s claimed to be someone they are not. Agree with everything you said about the front row especially. Backs don’t get it.
Colin N said | April 3rd 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
“Just think yourself lucky you dont have to contend with a game like Aussie rules, we have a city who treat the game like a religon over here.”
Ever heard of soccer? Yeah, that’s pretty big over here and in London. You only have Arsenal, Tottenham, West Ham, Chelsea, Fulham. All top division clubs in England. You also have Charlton, Barnet, Leyton Orient, Dagenham and Redbridge, QPR, Crystal Palace, Watford, Millwall, Brentford, Luton (sort of). These are clubs who are in and in Luton’s case close to London. Could possibly put AFC Wimbledon in that list as they get crowds that are better than many League 2 sides. They get around 2,500 and that’s a league where away attendences aren’t huge. So there is competiton and the game compared to attendences 10 years ago the game is expanding. Sale, for example were averaging around 2,000 only six or seven years ago, but now average 9,000. This is also up on last years average attendence, despite the recession and our recent poor form.
Ian Noble said | April 4th 2009 @ 1:57am | Report comment
Colin N
Not really interested in a cheap shot from Oikee. As a relatively new professional sport it is not doing too badly and certainly seems to be going in the right direction in terms of growth in spite of the competition. I know that RL is very envious.
By the way it will be interesting to see how many turn up for the England v Argentina test match @ Old Trafford, which is in your neck of the woods (ie close to Sale for our Aussie friends). This is one of the “home” test matches for Argentina so they can raise some badly needed income. The last time there was a test match at O T, didn’t they get gate of 50,000? By the way I don’t see any of Sanzar offering to do the same probably because they too concerned with their own interests.
My nephew plays for the Sydney Swans so I have a little insight into Aussie Rules but it doesn’t travel well. Rugby Union in Oz will have to find it’s own level. I don’t believe the latest recommendations are the death knell of the game OZ. It will have to be more inventive, play more rugby, the S14 season is not enough. Both Oz and NZ should bolster their club structure as SA do, with the S14 being the icing on the cake.
Colin N said | April 4th 2009 @ 2:43am | Report comment
I think the Old Trafford test will be a sell-out. Sale have only been given a few tickets and have probably sold out. The RFU allocate tickets to various clubs and if they don’t sell out then they’ll go on general sale, but most tickets will go immediately. Because I’m not part of a club, it’s virtually impossible to get a ticket for an England six nations game. I assume it will similarly difficult for this game.
pothale said | April 4th 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
Hmmmm
I met an Austrialin professor who knows something about Australian rugby. He said that John O’Neill doesn’t have a clue about the real needs of the game, and is only interested in serving his own interests.
This, therefore, proves conclusively that Australians don’t have a clue about rugby and what’s good for them.
For a seasoned journalist, to repeatedly get confused about including Ireland in the context of UK rugby, is pretty irritating and sloppy, particuarly when most posters on here can recognise the difference.
colin – you keep saying that Ireland were the most outspoke against ELVs followed by Wales, and that England seem to have been a model of balance and equaniminty in comparison. Where’s the evidence for your assertion? It doesn’t ring true with me.
pothale said | April 4th 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Sorry that last query should have been addressed to Ian Noble, not Colin N.
Siren's Call said | April 4th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
To Ian Noble. Incredible stuff there mate!!! (not!).
YOur solutions to rugby’s ills in this country, which are all based upon the game BEING BORING to watch at the moment, is to play more games of boring rugby??? What the??!!!
Rugby’s better off going for less games with more quality, than serving up more and more of the same boring rubbish. All the latter will do is permanently confirm to all the non-believers that our game of rugby IS ALWAYS boring!
Mart said | April 4th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Eddie Jones writing in the UK today on the ELVs….
“Talking of which, I think next season’s rugby will make for better watching after this week’s decision to reject the most damaging of the Experimental Law Variations. Common sense has prevailed, thankfully, but this does not for a moment mean that the IRB’s judgement in all of this should go unquestioned. The process has been a monumental failure, driven forward by people who no longer operate at rugby’s business end, against the firm advice of those of us who saw the pitfalls right from the start.
Union is an old sport, but a very young professional game. If you force through changes that don’t improve it, you run the danger of setting it back years. Many of us knew that the majority of the ELVs were outdated even before they were introduced, but too few administrators chose to listen. The lesson? Don’t tamper with the laws without a hands-on input from people directly involved at the high end. It seems obvious enough, but sometimes, those in authority don’t do obvious”
Luc said | May 29th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Union supporters have been operating under this illusion of “running rugby” for as long as I can remember. The only competition I have seen it employed successfully was the National Rugby Championship a few years back. That was the best rugby I have seen and, as rugby people like to do, it was abandoned.
RWC 07 was about as boring as anything any human should have to endure. Outside of the Fijian’s bright approach it was all a case of “sometimes you kick…and sometimes you kick.” Argentina, low on talent across the board, almost made it to the final on an endless supply of gary owens. That was the last straw for me and a lot of people. No more Waratah season tickets for me.
If the IRB can accept these laws and, as equally important, manage to have the officials apply them then I will watch the game again. At the moment rugby league offers the only real spectacle. And don’t it just eat way at all your union types who know it is true?