Too many powers stifling rugby’s progression

Roar Guru

By rugbyfuture, 21 Dec 2009 rugbyfuture is a Roar Guru

Tagged:: ELVs, International Rugby, Rugby League, Rugby Union

Related coverage

The times they are a changing. Unfortunately, the IRB isn’t and many people feel that rugby was halted in its tracks thanks to the code-schism (by both Mungos and Ruggers).

Now that the national rugby unions that objected to the ELV’s so openly and aggressively are waking up to themselves slowly, the game is still being stopped from progressing thanks to a stubborn minority.

Even with calls from the crowds by the fans of rugby in the home nations, those in power deny any problems. Conservatism is a natural instinct when there is not a universal opinion.

This is what happened to the IRB with the ELVs. In changing the rules, with even the smallest amount of objectors, all movements were halted, because the common consensus is not enough.

This leads to one point, that because of the spread of power amongst the 28 delegates of the executive council, and that the law committee is headed by old Englishmen, progression cannot occur.

This is the strength for rugby league, where there are two countries that hold the swing of power. The same boasting factor for rugby, that it is more global than the other contact football codes, is a hindrance.

For rugby league, when it needs change, change occurs, smoothly and hastily, leading to the progression of the game. That is something that all can admire about rugby league.

Although I think that rugby cannot give up the forwards game, which the other codes do not have, I do think that a progression of laws is the only way forward.

Those who doubt the progression should remember that conservatism is what caused the schism in the first place and it’s most likely that changing some rules will not hinder the game to the extent of extinction.

The safe option is not always the best option, in the long term, as seen by the ELVs, and it might be what it stopping rugby’s growth.

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.

The Crowd Says (34) | Page 1 of Comments

Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment

‘This leads to one point, that because of the spread of power amongst the 28 delegates of the executive council, and that the law committee is headed by old Englishmen, progression cannot occur.’

Who are these old Englishmen? What are their names?

Reply
- rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
  
  Bill Beaumont, those on the laws committee
  
  Reply
  - Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
    
    That’s one old Englishman. Who are the others?
    
    Reply
    - rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
      
      okay, a bunch of cenile old rich men rather, synonyms, synonyms
      
      Reply
      - Rickety Knees said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
        
        The Stellenbosch Laws (ELVs) were devised on behalf of the IRB by Rod Macqueen who coached the 1999 World Cup winning Australian side, Pierre Villepreux of France, Richie Dixon of Scotland and Ian McIntosh of South Africa. The experiment was managed by the IRB’s referees manager Paddy O’Brien of New Zealand, a former Test referee. It was unfortunate that the English were left out of this group – in hindsight I am sure that including the RFU would have been a better strategy – given the role that they played in the demise of the ELV’s.
        
        Reply
King of the Gorganites said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment

rugbyfuture did you watch the last 2 seasons of super 14 rugby, particularly the Waratahs? that was the worsst season of professional rugby i have ever seen.

as an aussie who also follows european rugby i much enjoyed magners league and H cups games. how can u argue that the ELVs were a good thing? they produced rubbish. thats not to say that laws shouldnt be ammended, but IMHO those bunch of ELVs were bad for the game.

Reply
- rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
  
  the reason they were bad was because there was only a half arsed take up, there needs to be major reinvention and movement, not just picking and choosing what everyone can agree on
  
  Reply
  - King of the Gorganites said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
    
    so the full ELVs used in the super 14 were not as much as you would have liked? wjat else could have been done?
    
    Reply
    - rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
      
      2 points for all kicks, woulda changed it a bit back to forwards being forwards.
      
      Reply
      - Dogs Of War said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
        
        You should have added 6 tackles as well..
        
        Reply
        
        rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
        
        common misperception that the ELV’s were creating rugby league in rugby union
        
        Dogs Of War said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
        
        I understand what they were trying to do, but really the game has been fine before under the old laws, all that changes is how they are interpreted. So take a look back at what happened in the game 97-01, this period had some fantastic games in it, and that’s where the game needs to get back to.
        
        If you think changing penalty kicks to 2 points will reduce that blight on the game, think again, it will just means teams will give more penalties cause they are worth less. You need to analyse the cause of people giving away these simple penalties, too much latitude is given to the team who is defending to spoil things.
        
        rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
        
        i understand your point, but i think the actual thing which should happen with the game should be the FULL take up of the laws. if these were taken up, with a lowering of the goal points, then the game would be even better than it was in the first instance of the proffesional era.
        
        Dogs Of War said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
        
        Debatable whether that is true. Short arm penalties were interesting though, something I would like to see in Rugby League, offside at dummy half could just restart the tackle count, rather than give away free field position.
ohtani's jacket said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment

Who cares about the growth of rugby? What satisfaction do people actually get from knowing there are grassroot programs in various corners of the globe? Why do people spend so much time and energy mapping out the future of rugby on the pages of this blog?

I’d love to know what is actually at stake here.

Reply
- rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
  
  the people at threat of their game dissappearing from their country, it gives them knowledge that if the game does not live in the country it will live somewhere else, because they are passionate about it and care about it in the same vein as politics because it reflects on their community and values and like to have their say and opinion ousted, to even a small number of people.
  
  as for whats at stake, passion for the game dieing in australia.
  
  Reply
  - ohtani's jacket said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
    
    So are you telling me that if rugby dies out in Australia, people won’t mind because the US and China are taking it up as another sport they can win a Gold Medal in?
    
    Reply
    - rugbyfuture said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
      
      no im saying people find solace in the spread of the game, not that they won’t mind, but right now, there is not enough growth within australia to use it as a defined argument
      
      Reply
      - ohtani's jacket said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
        
        Well, I’m confused.
        
        Whatever is hindering the game from growing in certain countries is specific to those individual countries and has very little to do with the laws of the game.
        
        Reply
sledgeandhammer said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment

“It was unfortunate that the English were left out of this group – in hindsight I am sure that including the RFU would have been a better strategy – given the role that they played in the demise of the ELV’s.”

Rickety Knees, sorry mate but you are completely 100% wrong. Bill Beaumont (who someone else referred to as an old fart) was actually on the Laws Project Group, and a big advocate of the ELVs. His views are pretty clear – http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/news/274765

King of G – The full ELVs were rarely trialled, and when they were actually produced great rugby. The ARC was a good example, and no the forward battle was not diluted, in a way it was even more spectacular. I hazard to think what brutality would have occurred if hands were allowed in the rucks during a full international, but it would have been fun.

The laws of rugby clearly are a problem, despite what a few crusty old kiwis may say. There is now consensus on this I believe in both hemispheres. It is not an argument made just by people ‘seeking to grow the game’, but from passionate supporters like me who love the game, but are running out of patience.

Reply
- ohtani's jacket said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
  
  Well, if you’re talking about me, I’m not old enough to be crusty.
  
  I’m sick of Australians acting like everyone shares the same problems as they do. It’s your own backyard not ours.
  
  Reply
  - rugbyfuture said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
    
    sphere of influence, if you’re throwing crap, some always goes over the fence
    
    Reply
sledgeandhammer said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment

In my view the key point of this article, that having too many stakeholders gets in the way of progress, is 100% spot on.

Reply
captain nemo said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:07pm | Report comment

One thing i noticed regarding the European spring tour this year is that the refs were rather quick to blow the pea, what happened to playing an advantage??

Reply
Damo said | December 22nd 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment

I agree with sledge and hammer and future. We never trialled the ELV’s fully so we still don’t know if they would work. And to differ with those who argue for “NO CHANGE” how do they think rugby got to where it is today?.
Do we play by Webb -Ellis rules today?
No. Why not?
Because the rules changed. Why?
TO MAKE THE GAME BETTER.
We need some historical honesty in this debate.

Reply
sledgeandhammer said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment

“I’m sick of Australians acting like everyone shares the same problems as they do. It’s your own backyard not ours.”

OJ – to be honest, and this is not a dig at New Zealanders, but some of the most bitter anti rugby comments I’ve read in the past year have come from New Zealanders. Apparently super rugby is boring, domestic rugby is dying, and the All Blacks aren’t good enough no matter how many games they win.

Ironically there have recently been a lot of negative comments in the English press regarding the negative rugby being played. The consensus seems to be that the risk of playing attacking rugby is just too great, hence teams are relying on the kicking for position. I sincerely hope you are right, and this type of rugby is just a phase, but am not convinced.

They say truth is the first casualty of war, and that was certainly the case in the ELV debate. I think in years to come when the dust has settled people will look back and realise we missed a pretty big opportunity.

Reply
- ohtani's jacket said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
  
  Well, you should know how the NZ rugby public are. They’d moan if they were on fire and they’d moan if someone came and put it out. I’m not particularly satisfied with the way rugby is going either. I think it’s a grind for players and fans alike. One big laborious march towards another World Cup. I don’t see how law changes or more attractive rugby will alleviate that. There needs to be an attitude readjustment that rugby counts on a season by season basis.
  
  Reply
  - rugbyfuture said | December 22nd 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
    
    the consensus though is that, even if the laws cant change those attitudes, they can nudge the players, coaches and admin, in the right direction, or finally make sure they realise what they’re doing, so the new laws would be put there to guide them, into that common slot of positive rugby
    
    Reply
    - ohtani's jacket said | December 23rd 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
      
      The ELVs were trialed and promoted conservative play. They were a waste of time and did more damage than good.
      
      Reply
      - AndyS said | December 23rd 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
        
        More accurately, those particular variations were trialled briefly/patchily and were found to promote conservative play. The whole exercise was arguably a waste of time, but for mine it was a failing of execution rather than concept. Even if the laws are fine as they are, it doesn’t mean something doesn’t need changing to encourage positive play. The issue may in fact lie with law interpretation, but clarifying that would still mean a variation to the current law.
        
        Reply
        
        ohtani's jacket said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
        
        Do you really think hands in the ruck would’ve allowed for more open play? Isn’t the problem with modern rugby that sides can’t recycle the ball quick enough? I could see how it might lead to counter attack opportunities, but in all likelihood it would give even more leverage to the defence.
sledgeandhammer said | December 23rd 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment

The only competition I saw in which the full ELVs were used was the ARC, and yes it did lead to more open play, even with hands in the ruck. Using this rule in full internationals would have been pretty scary, and incredibly brutal. Having hands in the ruck is a bit like saying ‘ok boys, go for it.’ It really is no holds barred.

Last year’s Shute Shield was also a very open, free flowing competition played under some but not all of the ELVs. In fact in some club games there were nearly twice as many tackles, rucks and mauls, then in the internationals being played at the same time. The players mostly enjoyed playing under the ELVs too, at least according to the surveys that were released.

That’s not to say opinion was unanimous, I remember Chris Latham wasn’t thrilled with the full ELVs but I think that was because he had to run so much. The younger guys such as Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale really excelled, as did some of the forwards – Dean Mumm, Polata-Nau etc really came into their own.

Reply
DELL said | December 26th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment

I just hated the tap and go style the ELV’s produced. but would it produced more tries if refs used half-arm penalties like they did under the ELV’s and team’s could kick for touch and get the lineout feed? – would reduce the number of penalty shots at goal but still punish the offending team. But in saying that the biggest problem remains the breakdown.

Reply
- AndyS said | December 26th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
  
  That was the sort of thing I was thinking of above. Whether or not you liked the reduction of penalties to short-arms, the main failing was that there was no mechanism for reviewing the effect, modifying the variation and then subsequently trialling the modification. The law variations were either perfect (or relatively insignificant), or they were out. It was certainly a nonsense to think that an interwoven set of changes conceived as a group would all work perfectly and without any adverse side effects, so to have no feed-back mechanism was a collosal oversight dooming the process to an ineffectual end.
  
  Reply