ELVS could have fixed problems at breakdown
Roar Rookie
By RugbyThinker, 31 Oct 2009 RugbyThinker is a Roar Rookie
England's Phil Vickery, center, tries to muscle his way through the Italian defence during the Six Nations rugby union international match at Twickenham stadium in London, Saturday Feb. 7, 2009. AP Photo/PA, David Davies
I’ve heard it all now. The North is bemoaning the Laws of the Game. What audacity, as it was these conservative, blazer wearing buffoons that derailed the Experimental Law Variations project last year.
In the Sunday Times in London last week, Stephen Jones, one of the architects of the ELVs destruction, unbelievable stated, “That the problem with the modern game is the breakdown. It is killing rugby, it is destroying the flow, it is boring the pants off everyone.”
Stephen Jones, shame on you.
If you had not totally ignored the first few years of the ELV project that started in Stellenbosch University – instead of waiting until the ELVs were due for trial at a more senior level in UK territory – you might have understood that the Law Project Group had the primary intention of reviewing the breakdown, rectifying it and then looking at the wider effects on the rest of the game.
The knock-on effect of simplifying the breakdown was to ensure it could be better refereed.
In fact, they went right back to the beginning and played matches at the University with no Laws at the breakdown to understand player behaviour and how the breakdown operated under such conditions.
Naturally, they had to tweak it, as no Laws meant it was all too easy to kill the ball and to go to ground.
The next step was to slowly add in Laws that would see the breakdown operate functionally. This included keeping players on their feet.
This is what transpired and included the trialling of use of hands in the ruck by players on their feet which had its merits.
The next stage was to take the trial out of the University to higher level competitions around the world. So what happened?
When the Project Group asked for permission, an ELV ambush happened. Jones and his fellow media cronies and the union blazers in the Northern Unions choked on their warm beer at the thought of such trials and decried the ELVs as a southern conspiracy.
The continuing ELV program was cherry-picked: no breakdown ELVs were allowed to be trialled and what we ended up with was a watered down bunch of new Laws that have not really solved anything.
And now the north is belly-aching about the breakdown.
The poor old IRB must not know whether they are Arthur or Martha at present. Having seen the ELV breakdown trial derailed so early, they now see Jones blathering such absurdities as: “When is the International Rugby Board going to do something about it? (the breakdown) We have the rampaging inconsistencies and illegalities, the different interpretations by different referees, we have the cheats who go unpenalised. This stemmed from the early years of the Super 12, where continuity of possession went on for hours. It must be said again: the IRB have spent years on the barking law experiments and they have scandalously taken their eyes off the ball when it comes to refereeing and playing the game at the breakdown.”
The only scandal here is the blinkered, conservative, anti-southern hemisphere thinking by Jones and the rest of the north, which was clearly negligent in understanding the original objectives and intentions of the Law Project Group.
Not once apparently did any of the media attend the early trials or deem it appropriate to speak to the members of the Group to understand what the trials were attempting to remedy.
We all know the game has its problems as defence dominates attack, brute force is preferred to skills and players continually breaking the Laws at the breakdown. The IRB had the right intentions must revisit the breakdown ELVs.
And Jones and his cronies should put up or shut up.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (178)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (171)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales and France the early stars of the Six Nations (48)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (2)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (12)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition (3)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (21)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (18)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Rowdy said | October 31st 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
There’s some nasty, blinkered, old-fashioned anti-Northern Hemisphere writing here. If you talk to people who follow rugby, you’ll realise that not every NH supporter hates the ELVs and (this may come as a shock to you) not every SH fan loves them unconditionally. SA fans especially didn’t seem to happy about them.
I really don’t want to support Jones as you’ll then feel obliged to support Spiro and we’d get into a stupid NH – SH shouting match, but the breakdown is killing the game, and all it needs is for the refs to ref it properkly and consistently. This means, among other things, calling Ball Out when it appears at the feet of the SH, instead of allowing the little b*gger to meerkat up and down for 7 minutes while he waits for his forwards to line up ponderously either side. Yes, I’m looking at you, Harry Ellis.
Not every fault in the game has to be fixed by a rule change. Didn’t you watch the Lions games ? Were they rubbish ?
Working Class Rugger said | October 31st 2009 @ 2:09am | Report comment
I have no real qualms about the current laws of the game. Though I was a fan of the ideals behind the ELV’s. I think they should have been given more time asnd tweaked further. Currently defensive dominance, tactics employed in attack and the ugly result of these ‘cheating’ around the breakdown are spoiling the quality of the game at the moment. In both Hemisphere’s by the way. Just look at the GP and ML this year. The quality is down from previous season, the only saving grace so far has been the HEC. And let’s not mention the SH. I think some radical changes may need and could be made and still keep the essence of the game in tact.
First of all, I have come around to the argument of cutting the numbers on the field to 12. Let’s face it. Since professionalism was adopted the overall fitness and defensive capabilities have killed the free flowing attacking nature of the game. I watched highlights of the 1984 Wallabies GS yesterday and they were a joy compared to today’s game. Put simply player’s are much fitter now and defense lines have grown to become a blight on the game. Remove 6 players from the field would hopefully bring a return to the free flowing nature of Rugby.
Secondly, the advantage rule. It’s too open to individual interpretation by ref’s. Too often a team either loses it too quickly or has far too long. It slows the game and frustrates spectators. A few change’s are needed. The first. If you kick it then advantage is played, no matter the result. Second. With the help of the TMO using similar tech to the NFL broadcasting graphics (the yellow line that defines the downs) a set and defined advantage line say 5m past the offence will appear on screen. As soon as the ball crosses the TMO informs the ref and it is played.
Re-introduce the short arm for everything under professional fouls. On top of that limit the number’s in the breakdon to 3 a side not including the tackled and tackler.
I’m likely to be bombarded with reasons why these won’t work. And I’ll accept that. I’ll probably be accused of not really being a real Rugby fan and being Australian get told to watch League instead. Well, here’s the thing. I honestly believe with all conviction that Rugby is by far the superior game. A great game of Rugby is leaps and bounds ahead of a great game of League. The problem is since the adoption of Professionalism in Rugby and the high quality of training and fitness that accompanies the full time athlete the high qualioty games have become far less frequent. It may be time for some big changes to give the advantage back to attacking free flowing Rugby.
Bay35Pablo said | October 31st 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
WCR, agree with all of your suggestions, at least on a trial basis to see how they work. ELV2 please!!. My only point is keep in mind they have ti be used at the lower levels, so TMO involvement must be kept to a minimum. Having said that, I think most park refs should be able to pick what a 5m advantage is.
Working Class Rugger said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
Bay
Good point about the TMO. Perhaps at the lower levels the ‘assistant ref’s’ could move forward 5m of the penalty to set the advantage line with some sort of marker. But at the professional level they should use the TMO to inform the ref of whether or not advantage has been achieved.
hayden said | November 1st 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
The yellow line that defines the downs is there for tv viewers only. They still use the antiquated ten yard chain between two poles to actually mark the place where the down is placed.
Working Class Rugger said | November 2nd 2009 @ 1:46am | Report comment
Hayden
Yes, I know that. But we have a TMO who could monitor that graphic to inform the ref. So no need to have the marker’s at the elite level.
Aljay said | November 3rd 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
I for one think the idea of limiting the number of players in the breakdown has merit when combined with less players on the field. Perhaps reducing the number of players pushing in the scrum might reduce the number of collapses too!
Incidentally I am also in favour of the defensive line retreating 5m behind the tackle (but not the scrumhalf), with the players immediately left & right to the breakdown allowed to breach this for the purposes of join the breakdown.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 4:03am | Report comment
This is such a nonsense article.
“The North is bemoaning the Laws of the Game”. No, it’s not. The generic term of North is not represented by the view of one writer in an English newspaper. He’s one writer in one newspaper in one rugby nation in the NH. Get some perspective, chappie.
Secondly he’s not bemoaning the Laws of the Game, he’s bemoaning the state of the breakdown and that it’s not being policed properly – a point made pretty much by everyone – including Jones – over a year ago.
To attribute to Jones as being one of the architects of the destruction of the ELVs is to give him false status. No he isn’t. He argued that all of the ELVs would be turned down – he was wrong.
The union blazers in the Northern Unions didn’t choke on their warm beer – since this metaphor really only applies to English – you ignorantly forget that there are 5 other unions involved.
“and now the north is bellayching about the brakdown” Well, no it isn’t. As you point out, Stephen Jones is, And not for the first time.
“blinkered, conservative, anti-southern hemisphere thinking by Jones and the rest of the north,….” Oh please, this is schoolyard writing – give it a rest.
2 out of ten.
Next!
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 4:06am | Report comment
I always cringe at the way that Jones is perceived to represent the conservative gin swillers of England when actually he is Welsh.
kingplaymaker said | October 31st 2009 @ 5:25am | Report comment
Rugbythinker I agree with you completely. But you should remember Jones is only the violent tip of the iceberg: most of northern hemisphere rugby agrees with him on this although they express themselves more calmly and moderately.
The ELVs should have been continued and tinkered with until they were right. The game now is terrible.
I feel it’s likely the southern hemisphere will break away for their competitions and go with the ELVs though. They are in too bad a commercial situation not to. O’Neill’s silence when the laws were voted out was suggestive.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 5:44am | Report comment
‘I feel it’s likely the southern hemisphere will break away for their competitions and go with the ELVs though. They are in too bad a commercial situation not to. O’Neill’s silence when the laws were voted out was suggestive.’
Spoken like a true blue English rugby union fan. Where are you from in England, btw? I’m really very interested. What club do you support? Do you play rugby union?
P.S. I think O’Neill was silent because he had loudly and widely proclaimed the necessity of the ELVs and how they would improve the spectacle of the game. Unfortunately for him the ELVs were a woefully constructed concept and only served to further consolidate increasingly conservative brands of rugby, with the free running Wallabies being one of the worst culprits. I think that is why O’Neill was silent, and not because he was biding his time to remove Australian rugby from contests with the NH. I mean… you must have heard that SA rugby was loudly anti-ELV despite how they voted. Did you know that, KPM?
Pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:05am | Report comment
But you should remember Jones is only the violent tip of the iceberg: most of northern hemisphere rugby agrees with him on this although they express themselves more calmly and moderately.”
agree with him about what, KPM? The breakdown is a mess? This is hardly news. The relevant ELVs proposed to address this failed to do so – in SH and NH. What exactly is the iceberg that remains hidden from view?
kingplaymaker said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:07am | Report comment
Polhole I mean they agree with him about the ELVs, and with most fundmental questions concerning the game: rules, competitions etc..
My point being that he’s not that different and isolated in what he basically thinks from the rest of northern hemisphere rugby.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Who agrees with what? There is no single journalistic entity in England, and what are these fundamental questions about competitions and ‘etc’? You might not know this but Scotland was pro-ELV and SA was anti-ELV, so I’m not sure that the stereotypical NH v SH is anything but a lazy analysis in this instance.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
No need for doubt, KO. This is lazy analysis by RugbyThinker and all his SH cronies who like to delight in NH conspiracies to hide the fact that SH rugby has been crap for the most part this year and are looking for excuses anywhere but at home.
“Violent tip of an iceberg”….. gimme a break.
It’d be serious if it wasn’t so funny.
Dean Pantio said | October 31st 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Good post pothale. If I could rep you, I would.
I’m getting sick of the ELVs and Australian Provincial Competition posts. Read one, read them all.
Bay35Pablo said | October 31st 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
Dean, and here I was going to write another one about the ARC ….
I think you mean poor quality posts, or posts be newbies that haven’t read the last 10 on the same topic.. I’m sick of them too, but that’s the price of a blog. You don’t have to read them, or post on them.
Working Class Rugger said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
Bay & Dean
They do get repetitive especially when they begin to recycle the same argument and methods from previous articles. The only thing it does say is that it seems to be what the Rugby public wants. Expect many more yet. I think its about time the Rugby Roarer’s start looking to post article’s about the game on the international scene. Those stories tend to be more interesting. I enjoy writing and reading them.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Hey I’m being moderated. Was it something I said?
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Lighten up big man. It’s the way of the world. Next you’ll be trying to tell us that you’re not a wife beating, illiterate, drunken, tarmac laying Dub and that I’m not a sheepskin coat wearing, lager drinking, cigarette smoking, “Darhn tha booza, mate!” thieving cockney slag. There’s no way on earth that we could ever be two regular open-minded rugby union fans simply because that demographic doesn’t exist in Europe. Pull your head in man.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Bejaysus – aren’t you the smartass Brit – you have me down to a tee. The current Mrs Pothale has been known to use those exact words as she empties the washing machine next to the bed and feeding her 13th child of dubious parentage, whilst I look at the pictures in the Sun with my pint in my tar-stained hand each Tuesday lunchtime.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Fridge freezer in the front room… Rosary beads… I can’t even bring myself to go on.
Arsenal to win 3-1. It could be a long day at the office.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Moving swiftly on. Spurs 5-1 against the Arse tomorrow. Tempting. Must go and see what accumulator would put together.
Spiro Zavos said | October 31st 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Rowdy, Pothale and others on this thread have demonstrated why the ELVs were not given a decent chance to show their value in the northern hemisphere. The whole idea of the Stellenbosch project was to take a holistic (sorry about the jargon) approach to the laws and instead of making piece-meal changes that often contradicted each other bring in changes that were unified and coherent.
But the Rugby Football Union (the English rugby union) particularly and the other ‘Home’ unions insisted on trialling only some aspects of the ELVs. This antagonistic approach was supported very vehemently by every senior British rugby writer. They invented the nonsense that the ELVs were an Australian plot to undermined the British game when in fact that were an IRB initiative that happens after every Rugby World Cup.
After 2007 the IRB decided to have a total look at the laws instead of adopting the piecemeal approach. Experts from the major rugby power bloc, including northern hemisphere officials, worked out a coherent re-writing of the laws to provide for an easier game to referee and to play, one that kept all the main features of rugby union with the constant struggle for possession and a game for all physical shapes.
They trialled their ideas at Stellenbosch Univeristy and took videos of all the matches played and analysed them and worked out refinements to their original reforms. Incidentally, Stellenbosch University is the cradle of South African rugby and where Danie Craven (two Ph.Ds) lectured. Craven once told me that he trialled experiments to the laws with his students. When I was shown videos of the early trials I wrote an article about them (one of the first) for the Sydney Morning Herald, and in a reference to Craven dubbed the proposed changes the Stellenbosch Laws, a tag that seems to have stuck.
The trialling of the Stellenbosch Laws was the most extensive trialling of any law changes in any sport. All grades of rugby were involved. But when it came time for the northern hemisphere part of the trialing, the rugby community there essentially rebelled and refused to take part in the project in its entirety.
Having taken this approach, the rugby community, especially the British rugby writers, then proceeded to lambast what changes were allowed in. This vehement and brain-dead opposition was effective. The IRB scrubbed the essential parts of the ELVs, kept some of them and the notion of a total package was disregarded.
Now the British rugby writers and television commentators are decrying how defensive rugby has become – the very point after the attritional Rugby World Cup final in 2007 that encouraged the IRB to put in place laws that redressed the balance between defence (favoured by the laws) and attack.
One of the points that I made during all of this argument about the ELVs is that the British rugby community has opposed EVERY innovation suggested for rugby. The northern unions were booted out of the RFU in 1895 because they wanted to pay the costs of time off work by miners and other manual workers injured in rugby game. They opposed New Zealand’s suggestion of an ‘advamntage rule’ in the 1890s but were over-ruled. They opposed changes to the points from drop goals and penalties to make tries more valuable for decades, again until they were eventually over-ruled. They opposed a Rugby World Cup, until this was forced on them by the ARU and NZRU.
From some of the fevered arguments against this very well-informed and incisive article, that merely tells the story about the ELVs as it is, we can get some of the flavour of how the rugby community in the northern hemisphere just does not get the understanding that rugby is an evolving, clever game that needs to adjust its laws to take into account bigger and faster players and new defensive tactics.
Hopefully, after the 2011 Rugby World Cup the rugby community in the northern hemisphere will be more accepting of the ELVs reforms. But for the mean-time, they will have to look to southern hemisphere countries to play the exciting and expansive rugby all of us, from the north and south, want to see and play.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Your anti-NH agenda colours everything you say, Spiro, which is unfortunate for a man with your influence, albeit quickly waning, within the Australian rugby union/NSW community.
Professional rugby is just that. Professional. Therefore it is a business which means that there are countless vested interests. The NH unions were well within their rights to demand compromise of the ELVs and they were in no way obliged to trial them. I fail to see why, therefore, resistance to change can be perceived as antagonistic. The response that they were morally obliged to trial the full set of laws is wonderfully naive. I can only presume that you have never worled for a major corporation? With all due respect your opinion is firmly rooted in the amateur era, and we see this with your constant references to the past and the conservative, convervative NH. Are you not aware of Scottish rugby and Scottish attempts at revolutionising the game over the past two decades? I doubt that you are. It is sweetly ironic that you would lambast the NH for being rooted in the past, and yet by highlighting this alleged fact you are revealing just how stuck you are in the past.
The ELVs were an embarassment to the sport. They were poorly conceived and poorly trialled and the results were terrible, with a host of misinformed journalists glibly accepting they would solve various questions that needed to be answered. You forget that the key ‘hands in the ruck’ rule was rejected by the SH, the rule which dovetailed with the short arm ruling. Thus from the very beginning the changes lacked credibility. Had the genesis of the ELVs been engineered by major and current rugby figures then perhaps they would have deserved greater attention, but they didn’t and subsequently they were the major failures that most top European coaches predicted them to be, something that figures like you and John O’Neill were unsurprisingly reticent to admit. In many ways it is likely that your excessive and melodramatic championing of the ELVs only served to reduce their credbility in the eyes of many.
As for your suggestion that rugby fans will have to watch SH rugby teams for their fix of fast and laissez faire rugby then I would be intrigued to hear your analysis of the rugby that Argentina, Australia and SA play and have been playing for the best part of 5 years. You were, much to the chagrin of the SA community, very quick to label the effective but boring Springbok brand as horrific. Conversely, you have been rather slow to acknowledge the kick inspired, defence orientated dross that the Wallabies have been serving up for the past few seasons. In light of your effusive praise about the technical ability of the Lions players then I don’t think I’m that far off in suggesting that you are the antagonostic one much the same way that you would claim Stephen Jones is. I’m not sure how you fail to recognise this, but there is no NH and SH in terms of exciting and expansive rugby. There is NZ and then Wales, Ireland and currently England. These teams like to throw the ball about. Watch a game now and then, Spiro. Try and make it a European one. That might wake you from your 3N-induced coma.
Bay35Pablo said | October 31st 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
KO, “Professional rugby is just that. Professional. ” Since 1995 yes.
That explains knocking back the ELVs then. What about the 100 years before that … ?
Bay35Pablo said | October 31st 2009 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
(per KP) “The ELVs were an embarassment to the sport. They were poorly conceived and poorly trialled and the results were terrible”
vs
(per Spiro) “The trialling of the Stellenbosch Laws was the most extensive trialling of any law changes in any sport. All grades of rugby were involved”
I’m with Spiro here, KO. But maybe that’s my SH prejudices showing. From everything I have read it was a multilateral/bipartisan (ie NH & SH) attempt to test some changes to the law.
Also from memory, the ARC trialled all laws and it was some of the best rugby anyone who did see it had seen. Mind you, they didn’t have enough time to work out how to play it cynically and defensively. Which happens with every sport and rules change. League is an example – contantly tweaking. AFL similarly.
What program of development and testing for the next set of ELVs do you propose, if the last didn’t meet your high (and apparently never met to date in 150 years of the sport) standards?
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
Bay, my point is that the triallling involved no current ‘greats’ and the changes were developed by no current ‘greats’. The extensive trialling is irrelevant as the changes were developed by has-beens. You might as well have funded monkeys to the tune of £50 billion.
Attacking team gets benefit of doubt. Regular ‘change and review’ sessions held with test coaches, captains and analysts. Referees have more thorough training in technical aspects = perhaps introduction of NRL 2nd ref. Drop goals worth 2 points.
Bay35Pablo said | November 1st 2009 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
KO, any current “greats” would probably too busy with being “great” I.e. their current jobs. The seasons are such that you would have trouble getting people from both NH & SH at the same time.
Further, define “great”? Does that mean former “greats” (in your opinion) weren’t involved. Or that former “greats” are good enough, only current “greats”.
Once retired, is everyone a “has been”.
This seems to be “I don’t like them therefore they are has beens”. As with any large organisation, you have to be able to delegate it out, which is what occurred. They then trialled it, etc.
I was asking what process for developing the rules you proposed as an alternative, not the actual rules. So that we don’t have people questioning the process as well as the rules.
Regular change and review sessions is a bit broad. Further, it also needs a process of bringing it all together from the different countries to work out what the feedback is.
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
‘KO, any current “greats” would probably too busy with being “great” I.e. their current jobs. The seasons are such that you would have trouble getting people from both NH & SH at the same time.’
Not true at all. The genesis of the ELVs lay in a meeting which included lots of top coaches.
Let me retract the word ‘greats’ and instead specify: a test coach, captain, and player representatives (a forward and a back) from every top IRB nation, and also club/province/franchise/league representatives.
Rugby moves quickly. If you’re out of the game for any lengthy period then you’re a dinosaur. Have a look at the people in the LPG. A woeful collection of dinosaurs. If you have regular meetings with all the top coaches and players then you have regular dialogue with those who have their finger on the rugby pulse. Regular dialogue should also be stablished with fans and the appropriate representatives from that side of the game. Once it has been established what is considered problematic with the game then any new rules established should be trialled at a low level and for a period of two seasons. However, any trialling is fraught with problems simply because no low level rugby has similarities with test rugby, and so game outcomes would be different at different levels. That problem is hard to avoid but with constant dialogue with the aforementioned coaches, pros and analysts their opinion could be sought on the data and trends collected.
RugbyThinker said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Spot on Spiro.
My short narrative on the ELVs simply had the aim of reminding everyone that the ELV project had the major aim of sorting out the problem area of the breakdown but it was undermined badly by influential administrators and media in the north. The Game had the chance to sort out the breakdown but threw it away and we are now back to square one. And by the way I have my family roots in Europe and to say this is blinkered, old-fashioned anti-northern hemisphere writing is way off beam. To think that the northern hemisphere Unions all operate independently is a fanciful dream. Wales, Ireland, Scotland and RFU are thick as thieves when it comes to IRB Council voting. And throw in France. Sure Scotland were pro-ELV but let me tell you the my research found that the Chairman of the Law Project Group sold out to his Six Nations mates when push came to shove on the ELVs. What we really need is a change to the constitution of IRB in terms of Council representation and voting structures…..how democratic is it when the Six Nations plus AER-FIRA (the European regional association) control 12 of the 26 votes on Council…SANZAR has 6 votes……..now that is a whole new can of worms!!!
Colin N said | November 2nd 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
“The Game had the chance to sort out the breakdown but threw it away and we are now back to square one”
What rules that the North ‘rejected’ helped the contact area in particular?
Knives Out said | November 2nd 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
The ELVs were undermined by people like you, ‘RugbyThinker’.
kingplaymaker said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Spiro the problem lies in the comfortable commercial position of rugby in Britain: whatever the rules and however boring the matches, stadiums will always be full for internationals and even club matches and so there is no outward necessity to make the game more entertaining.
As for the British press and even supporter base, the social element of the game is overwhelmingly middle-class and non-metropolitan, so essentially the most conservative group in England and this is why they are against any innovation whatsoever, even if it’s obviously in their interests.
As I said above because Jones is so vocal don’t think that he’s more conservative than the rest of them who are just as bad.
I think the southern hemisphere should play the Tri-nations and Super 14 under the ELVs. It seems unbelievable the IRB would throw them out of the World Cup for it. I don’t think the southern hemisphere can afford to wait nor should they. Besides I’m afraid it’s highly unlikely the northern hemisphere rugby community will be more open to the ELVs after 2011. So the time to act is now.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
‘Spiro the problem lies in the comfortable commercial position of rugby in Britain: whatever the rules and however boring the matches, stadiums will always be full for internationals and even club matches and so there is no outward necessity to make the game more entertaining.’
Rugby union has that magic ingredient that provides a bulwark against the recession? Perhaps Gordon Brown should get in touch with the RFU. My perception is that clubs like Sale, Leeds, Saracens and Newcastle are far from comfortable. Do you know what their average attendances are? Are you aware of the balance sheets of all GP clubs?
‘As for the British press and even supporter base, the social element of the game is overwhelmingly middle-class and non-metropolitan, so essentially the most conservative group in England and this is why they are against any innovation whatsoever, even if it’s obviously in their interests.’
A comment like this requires qualification. Where are you from in England and whatrugby club are you linked with/to?I have asked you thos perhaps 5 times and you have never responded. You either have connections to the club scene in England or you don’t.
pothale said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Can’t argue with that, Spiro. You must be right if you were there at Stellenbosch.
In the meantime, you tell us that we’ll have to look to southern hemisphere countries like Australia and South Africa to play the exciting and expansive rugby for us. I wait in hope this Autumn. So far this season, the Boks and Lions have achieved that in the SH along with a match involving NZ and one involving Australia.
I thought the plot was an Australian one to jizz up the game to counteract its falling TV viewing figures and stadia attendances with the added benefit of undermining the British game. (but not the Irish or French one, thankfully.)
One minor point. Every senior British writer does not constitute the entirety of the Northern Hemisphere rugby nations – or even the 6 Nations. An inaccurate generalism used in this “well-informed and incisive article” to paint all NH rugby and its unions as the same. A point that seems to be lost on SH commentators or who simply ignore it in their desire to have a handy moniker on which to hang all things bad about NH rugby.
Knives Out said | October 31st 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
We’ve already been over this you dizzy Paddy. If ‘Educating Rita’ has taught us one thing and only one thing it is that we are not meant to ever – and I mean ever – ascend from our social stereotypes.
Dan said | November 2nd 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Pothale,
You didn’t honestly think the ELVs were an “Australian plot” did you?? I thought that had been debunked ages ago…