In response to a recent Spiro Zavos article, sure, this single game may support your argument. But rules are played over a season, and one must consider the mean of performance over a wide distribution of data.
1. ELVs encourage the breakdown of traditional rugby roles between backs and forwards. Every ELV game has seen the promotion of forwards running with the ball outside a back. This ruins attack. A prop just doesn’t have the same skill as a second five eight.
2. ELVs encourage bodies over the ball at the breakdown, awaiting the referee to determine who wins. The defending team know that the worse case penalty is a free kick to the opposition. That’s an easy trade off compared to slowing the ball down illegally to prevent a try.
3. ELVs saw the reduction of classical backline play. The only time that backs and forwards are completely separated are during scrums, and they were infrequent.
4. ELVs encourage the “field wide defensive trench”. The long horizontal line of players fanning out across the field became more dominate due to the fact that forwards didn’t need to go to the breakdown, as forward play has been eroded under ELVS and modern rugby.
5. ELVs promoted kicking to overcome (4) above. We all have seen this blight on the game. There will be less kicking when forwards return to their traditional roles and more space is found out wide.
6. ELVs destroyed the maul. Further traditional forward play removed from the rugby.
7. ELVs promoted short lineouts, with more opportunity for forwards to stand in the backline. I refer you to (3) above.
So I say, see ya later ELVs. And good riddance!
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ELVs, Rugby Union
May 28th 2009 @ 2:33pm
Ian from NZ said | May 28th 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Also for the record, 10 out of the 13 ELVs were approved, which were only cosmetic changes. The ELVs that mattere, that got the chop were:
1) Pulling down mauls
2) Uneven numbers in lineouts
3) Free Kicks for first and second offences at the breakdown.
,,,,Ok so percentage wise ELVs WON, effectness wise RUGBY WON !!
May 28th 2009 @ 2:33pm
Ian from NZ said | May 28th 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Dam can edit my comments to fix spelling misssstakkkesss
May 28th 2009 @ 3:23pm
Simon said | May 28th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
I don’t think you see the same sort of trial of new rules on such a large scale in other codes, but you do see the AFL and NRL tinckering with the rules all the time. It’s a lot easier of course, not be as global.
I did like the style of rugby in the ARC under the full ELV’s, but there were problems with the ‘pick n choose’ ELV’s. Having said that, I’ve seen some great games and some slow games under both. I think it depends on how you play it. The Crusaders under the old laws still played fantastic rugby – so seemless between the forwards and backs. They simply always backed up the man with the ball. And the flow was great. Their forwards were the masters of short passes, and even when it went to ground, the play hardly stopped before the ball was moving again.
Rugby was still growing in popularity under the old laws – so fear not about some of the more contentious ELV’s not getting through.
In any case, both Robbie Deans and Paddie O’Brien? (leading ref) have hailed the rule that allows the tackler or first person to the breakdown (from the opposition) to keep their hands on the ball after the ruck has formed, as the key to improving rugby. Apparently it will take the ambiguity and subjectivity out of the equation for the ref (and the spectators) at the breakdown.
Can anyone expand on this? Is this still to be trialled or am I way off? I’m sure I read Robbie talking about rugby being close to the perfect game a while back.
May 28th 2009 @ 4:29pm
Fragglerocker said | May 28th 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
If I might make a suggestion – How about if infringements stay the same as pre-ELV’s but just scrap the option of a kick at goal unless a card has been awarded. This would encourage refs to use the card early for deliberate offences, while lessening the amount of penalty kicks overall.
I just can’t stand it when games are determined by penalty goals which resulted from pedantic 50-50 decisions on little technicalities at the breakdown. Especially when the video replays show that the referee often gets it wrong. If you want matches decided by goals you should be watching soccer (and that isn’t intended to be a slight against soccer)
May 28th 2009 @ 4:32pm
sheek said | May 28th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
My head hurts……….
What do we want from this potentially great game anyway?
Back in the 80s, too many refs had the whistle stuck in their throat, blowing up penalties at the ruck/maul that only they knew the answer to. But at least we had fair dinkum rucks & mauls back then.
On the other hand, you had Ella-Hawker-O’Connor conjuring up tries from set play, which wasn’t supposed to be easy to do because of man on man marking. But the key here is the forwards, or most of them, were tucked up in the ruck/maul, making back line play a battle of skills between adversaries.
To see that trio of magicians hoodwink the defence for a beautiful try, was almost worth putting up with the 50 penalties!
My head still hurts……….
My otherwise meek contribution is to remember the Alamo, err, ’7 Pillars of Rugby’ as apparently espoused by Danie Craven. Which perhaps the good doctor saw as rugby’s equivalent of T.E. Lawrence’s ’7 Pillars of Wisdom’.
1. Scrum – this is where it all starts… & ends.
2. Lineout.
3. Ruck.
4. Maul – note, distinctly separate from ruck.
5. Handling – includes BOTH running (ball in hand) & passing.
6. Tackling.
7. Kicking – all types, kickoffs, restarts, line, tactical, goal, drop .
May 28th 2009 @ 6:27pm
Craig said | May 28th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
Ian,
The non ELV law on the line out is that you can have less but not more. The ELV actually encourages full line outs.
May 28th 2009 @ 8:13pm
Craig said | May 28th 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
Dexter, How do the ELV promote kicking for territory?
May 29th 2009 @ 3:58pm
Ian from NZ said | May 29th 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
To end with a quote from Senior Rugby writer Wynne Gray – NZ Herald
..”The continuing emasculation of forward play is the worst part about the modern game “…
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10563974
NOTE: Comments talk more about the ruck, but overall his comments on the reduction in the forward skills is pararmount. 20 years, PROPS never ran out side backs, and for good reason as they are to fat and slow. Yet today PROPS must practise there spiral pass instead of maulling skills. If YOU DONT see this as unbalance in the game, then I suggest LEAGUE and UNION merge, and be done with it. SPIRO you fool !
May 29th 2009 @ 4:11pm
Fred said | May 29th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Good for John O’Neill to have his publicist working for the Sydney Morning Herald and posting to the Roar. It seemed like a number of key journalists were briefed to back the ELVs whatever the cost.
If I want to watch Rugby league I’ll watch the NRL. By the way it’s amazing how many people from the northern hemisphere wind up watching the NRL instead of super 14 when they live down under. It’s not because they prefer league it’s because super rugby is a totally underwhelming experience on the field and in the stands.
The only time I have experienced an atmosphere down under similar to what I would in Dublin is at a State of Origin match in Brisbane and even that was Chicken feed compared to Munster v Leinster at Croke Park a few weeks back.
May 30th 2009 @ 8:37pm
Spencer said | May 30th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
From your comment Fred, we can assume you were at Croke Park? (didnt think so..) You sound awefully like a pom, not an Irishman. I would suggest that whilst you may find Super Rugby an underwhelming experience as a transplanted spectator (i.e. not having any tribal links) I can assure you that as a dedicated rugby fan with traditional links to a S14 province I dont share your feelings. I would also be extremely confident that any of the S14 teams would demolition either Munster or Leinster (with our without ELVs).
The ELVs weren’t given a chance to succeed (as Craig explained). It still amazes me that those people who took a positive attitude towards trialling the ELVs have been branded as the creators and promoters of the ELvs. Not true. It is so much easier to death-ride initiatives without giving them a fair showing. I was neither pro or anti ELVs, however I tried to keep an open mind.