We need to make rugby more exciting, says IRB chairman

Hi Gno, I am presuming that what you are saying is correct, but when one thinks of the 6 Nations one would think they would always vote as a block - so that equals 12 votes. They will of course protect their patch/interests over all else as their first interest is to protect the 6 nations. The papers over here in the UK have stated that the new TV deal done with the 6 nations is worth about 120 million pounds for England over the next 5[?] years and one would presume about the same for the other countries. That's not small change and remember none of that goes to the development of the game outside their sphere. Then you have Australia, NZ and Sth Africa another 6 votes plus a casting vote of the Chairman who comes from one of the 9 countries mentioned so that equals 19 of your 28 votes. Don't think they don't vote as a block because they do. Usually it takes a two thirds majority to overturn the existing status quo. Where is going to come from? Self interest will perpetuate the status quo for some time to come. Remember the stink that unfurled after Australia voted against NZ's bid to host the 2011 RWC and for Japan? NZ of course won easily. IT'S CALLED POLITICS! If you can convince me otherwise I'm certainly prepared to listen. However, if EVERY Rugby playing country in the world had one vote until they achieved say a place at the RWC -where upon they could achieve an additional vote - then perhaps meaningful change could occur. Over to you.

Bob McGregor -- re your first piece, England/The RFU has two votes out of 28 on the IRB Council. The world moved on a long time ago from their control of the game and the laws, shouldn't you?

After following the Wallabies around France and Wales for 44 days I am regathering my strength in London prior to my long journey home. I've just read in the Daily Express that the "Kiwis will not top that show" and "NZ doesn't have the stadiums". Syd Millar - retiring IRB chairman - is reported as saying 2007RWC was best ever! Really???? Certainly if crowd attendances were the only criteria then this could be so. The average was about 48000. But one has to determine how many freebees were included in this total. For example at the third/fourth playoff the stadium appeared full but the crowd was swelled by about 30,000 children, about 10 years of age. An accompanying teacher informed us "one class from each Paris school was given free tickets to this match" by the government. Where else did this go on? The fervour of the French was fantastic even though most lost faith in their team after losing to Argentina, but got back onside once they beat the AB's. Sadly they were dudded by digusting refereeing in their semi against England. Even so they were very cordial towards Australians and went out of their way to make us most welcome. Now the negatives we experienced on tour at the Rugby games. Outside of the Stade de France and Park de Princes, the seats were very small and uncomfortable. You were literally wearing the next person on your shoulder so line of sight to the action was scant. Food at the grounds - both inside and out - was poor but I applaud them for refusing to sell alcoholic drinks inside the stadium. This applied to Paris grounds as well. But my biggest beef about the other French Stadiums - Lyon, Montpellier and Marseille in particular, was the lack of toilets and general cleanliness of both them and their surrounds. In Marseille for two-quarter finals, a stream of urine was winding its way across the walkway under the stands and within metres of some very poor food outlets. Obviously, the IRB would not have observed this as they would have been dining on 5 star cuisine elsewhere. Also our Coaches taking us to the various grounds were forced to drop us off eons away from the grounds forcing us to walk vast distances. For day matches this caused one to arrive in a lather of sweat, which probably added to the stench at the game. Most unsatisfactory! I would certainly not rate RWC2007 as the best ever! The title remains with Australia.

chas, There are many other factures confounding your assertion that the ELVs are in some way a cause of low crowd figures for the ARC. In my opinion the crowd figures may well have been lower if the ELVs weren't in place. For all you club die-hards out there, where were these complaints/fears about the ELVs when the Toohey's New Premiership was running? Were there no comments because no one was watching? Or are we confusing the ELVs introduction with people's prejudice against the ARC?

The ELVs have not made a great impression in the ARC if crowds are any measure...1818 and 1525 for the semi-finals and 4187 for the final. I wouldn't suggest that they've had the impact that some of you are stating. If the ELVs are to make a better game where were the supportors?............ and this with no competition from the NRL or the A-League.

Shahsan, In answer to your question as to whether the rule changes would still be an issue if Australia or NZ had won the RWC...Of course they would. You're talking rubbish. Have you watched any games played under the ELV's? It's still rugby...any claims to the contrary come from people who have their heads stuck in the sand. If you're going to mount such a passionate argument at least do it with some objectivity and stop painting the ELV's as only being the brainchilds of Australia and NZ. These rules will NOT change rugby as much as you might think...they will speed the game up by allowing more actual playing time...surely that is a good thing. Chas, A "hotchpotch of delusion"? What does that mean? As I said to Shahsan...Have a look at the ELV's in action, and I mean several games and not just one or two. Watching the ARC there was still alot of kicking so Jonny would have been in his element. There are still scrums that are a contest. There are still proper lineouts...I really don't get all this dramatic "It's the end of rugby as we know it" rubbish. People who know a whole lot more about the game than any of us are out there testing these laws so give them the benefit of the doubt before you go slagging them off. All you people who think these ELV's are a bad thing and think they're aimed at ending Northern Hemispherre dominance (Not quite sure where Stephen Jones pulled that one from???)...You are selling your countries short if you think they will not adapt to any new laws brought in. England are actually at the forefront of quite a few of the "innovations" (if they are even that) in the game. The trend towards these athletic, agile, multi-skilled forwards actually started with England. That the Wallabies learnt from it and then forgot about the basics is their problem but England were certainly innovators in this regard. The rushing defence that was used so well by England in the RWC 2007 whilst not being overly radical was pushed heavily by Shaun Edwards who adapted it from...rugby league. The way England attack the driving maul at one side and then open up the other was by far the most effective defence to the maul seen in a while. Don't get too worried about England they're alot smarter (as the evidence shows) than most people give them credit for...the Northern Hemisphere teams will adapt very well to any new laws that may be adopted...give them some credit. Cazza, I watched plenty of the ARC and agree the lineout wasn't ever a problem...I'm still not convinced on the hands in the ruck rule but take your point. There wasn't really much of a change to the rucks as far as I could see...Maybe more committed as a whole but still a dockyard brawl...the good thing is that there aren't as many "long arm" penalties. Bob McGregor, Good point in regards to cricket...It took Kerry Packer and a wad of cash to get them to think laterally. Rugby at least has people in the right places experimenting with change.

Hi again everyone, especially "still miss it". I don't know why ANYONE cannot question a referee's decision - especially when it is plainly WRONG and logic demands it should be reversed. We are told that the archaic acceptance of authority is in the best interests of the game but slowly the wheels of change are getting louder. The Nazi party had a similar approach to always being right and look where that took us. Officialdom must always be challenged otherwise we will lose our free will about most things over time. The IRB - controlled by the Rugby Football Union [that means England] - fought the concept of the RWC concept initially but when they discovered that it could be a veritable cash cow they wanted ownership/control. Until the IRB becomes truly democratic - allowing all playing countries of RWC to have equal voting rights the game will stagnate. It is time for this to be implemented NOW! Soccer -or football - was originally “owned” by the inventors of the game {England} but once it spread across the globe, control passed to the masses. I'm not naive to think that everything is perfect in the soccer church, but at least Rugby would head in the right democratic direction if it followed Soccer’s lead. Rugby - unfortunately - was "born" in an elitist English school system and the English Rugby Union. believe that they - and only they can make the rules and ETIQUETTE of the great game of Rugby. You only have to look at the title of the game in England - RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION - to understand where they are coming from. Change without their say so is NOT POSSIBLE. It's like the child in a game who owns the ball who declares if you don't play by my rules I'll take my ball home and the others can go to hell. It belongs to the world where each and every one of us who supports it with our toil and money [fans and sponsorship etc] can feel it is an inclusive operation and not just run for an elitist few. Which brings me back to use of video for all International games [TESTS]. Cricket did not progress until the establishment was brought kicking and screaming to the negotiation table. Cricket changed for the better and they continue to explore new horizons for the game. There is something in it for the fans whether it is 20/20, ONE DAY or Test Matches. The use of video is SLOWLY being utilised - but it is being used more frequently. The screams it will slow the game up are nothing more than disinformation from the protected elitists. It is time for Rugby to embrace these forms of technology without delay.

Off the cuff comment in the Irish Times today contained in the rugby correspondent's wrap up of the tournament just gone: "the raft of daft rule changes being proposed wouldn't be necessary if the existing ones were applied more rigidly." Amen to that.

Shahsan: There's no doubt that you are on the money. These ELVs will make RU a hotchpotch of delusion.

I believe there are nine law changes. That doesn't sound incremental to me. It took years to change the lineout laws to allow lifting, and the law on who gets the throw in if you kick it out off a penalty, etc. Yes, they have been discussed for two years but I bet if Australia or NZ had won the World Cup playing their brand of rugby, and I believe they should have, would we still want to change the laws? I doubt it. It would have died a quiet death. So while we're at it, why not make it neat and have 10 law changes, the tenth being: " We shall henceforth call this sport 'The game formerly known as rugby union'."

Shahsan, The "Stellenbosch Laws" or ELVs were implemented 2 years ago in South Africa, so the discussion on whether Rugby needs to be more spectator and player friendly must have been going on a lot earlier than that. The ELVs are incremental. Can you please highlight where they're not? What in your opinion is so revolutionary that it ruins the game?

As i said in another post on this site, if New Zealand and Australia had not been so cocky and overconfident before their quartefinals this year I wonder if we would even be having this conversation today, about how rugby needs changing. They both should have beaten their inferior opponents, played off in a semifinal and beat whoever had come through on the other side. But they were cocky. After the game against Canada, Hugh Mcmeniman was interviewied on Foxtel and he let slip that “we have 3 games to go”. I wonder if such a sentiment was held among his teammates as well. And Graham Henry said, on picking Keith Robinson for the game against France, that “we need to give Robinson game time before the semifinals”. If that doesn’t give ammo to your opposition I dont know what does. I am not opposed to change but I beleive it should be incremental and if it doesnt ruin what isn't really broken.

Matt, I think the intention behind allowing unequal numbers in the lineout is to give the initiative to the attacking side to play at a pace that might catch the opposition off guard, other by having superior numbers of forwards in the lineout, or by having an overlap in the backs, but won't result in a penalty for unequal numbers. I think it's a good thing. It's up to the teams on the field how they want to play it rather than for the ref to decide. I watched a heap of live and televised ARC games and the lineout was never a problem. Regarding the ruck rules. The ARC showed that the referees' subjective opinions still have a heavy influence, but the consequences of their decisions aren't so deadly. Playing the ball on the ground and killing the ball were still common, but they seemed to be less of a problem since turnovers to either side were more common due to the new hands in the ruck rule. From what I've observed I think the hands in the ruck rule provides an incentive to commit more forwards to the breakdown contest as there is a much better chance of turning over the ball. It adds another level of dynamism to that part of the game.

Chas, I'm getting the feeling that you're a bit of a league fan. I've got to disagree with you...I stand by my statement that rugby's strength is it's internationals. You can't seriously say that rugby league is strong internationally. Only Australia, NZ and England play it to any real standard...Leagues greatest assets are the NRL and Super League in England and the State of Origin...apart from that there isn't much interest, certainly not internationally. The last time a rugby union match achieved great interest was the weekend...the RWC final...Did you miss that one? Boring as it was it was still a spectacle and was watched by a truly international audience. How many viewers worldwide watched Australia v NZ? I don't agree that the new ELV's are sending rugby towards rugby league...what's the point? I think you really have to watch a number of these games played under the new rules before you tag it as moving towards rugby league. There are still meaningful scrums, lineouts, mauls and the ruck is still a contest...there are still different ways to approach the game tactically...don't be too quick to judge.

Mick B who wrote "Imagine them [England] winning the World Cup and not scoring a try in the last 3 games??". What a funny fellow you are. Imagine South Africa winning the world cup twice without scoring a try in the final! Oh and while you were asleep , Tait made a fantastic break, beat five or six, Matfield made a magnificent tackle, Cueto thught he'd scored and it took nearly four minutes to discover he was 5 cm away from a great try. Hope you had a good nap, though.

In regards to the maul can someone please clarify what is permissible for the defending team. I know attacking the legs is out of bounds. What about attacking the upper body? Is any "pulling down" motion classified as a deliberate collapse?

Matt: RU has made many changes to its game in the last ten years. Everyone of these seems designed to bring it closer to RL Even on this blog writers are inferring the same thing. You suggest that the greatest strength of RU is its internationals. When was the last time a RU test match achieve great interest. After the 2003 world cup Oz RU was going to "take over" RL. Has that happened at any level? Whether we like it or not the truth (painful though it may be) is that RU has never challenged RL as a spectacle.Why is it that the ELVS are being suggested? After the totally boring 2007 world cup we need to do something. I wonder if the 2011world cup was duplicated in France would the same crowds appear?

Chas, Your comment about the NRL is way off the mark...Australian rugby fans are sick and tired of league and the saturation marketing it recieves. Spend any time in the eastern states during winter and you'll see what I mean. Rugby League is a game that is only seriously played in 3 locations world wide...despite the ARL/NRL/NSWRL best efforts to market it as an international game it still only has a minor following world wide in comparison to rugby. The great strength of rugby, especially in Australia has been it's internationals...they're the showcase of the game here, if we're dished up the kind of rugby we were in the RWC finals then it does rugby's image in this country at least considerable harm. Add this to the Wallabies poor showing and there is a need to revamp the game a little. Having said that these ELV's were well into the testing stage before the RWC started so it is just coincidental that they are such an issue now. In regards to the ELV's there are plenty that I am not a fan off but in my opinion it is the state of the breakdown that needs attention and I'm not 100% sure hands in the ruck is the way to go...On the evidence presented by the ARC the rucks are still a sh*tfight and David Crofts prominence during the competition should serve as a pointer that the ruck laws needs looking at. At the risk of sounding old school my recommendation would be to eliminate hands in the ruck and allow rucking again...it seems to me that the rucks were much cleaner when the scavenger knew that if he held on too long he'd get a lesson in why he shouldn't hold on ie. He'd get rucked. Ask any coach where the best opportunity for turnover ball is and they will tell you the ruck, there are far too many rules open to interpretations there and coaches and players are taking full advantage of them. The value of a scavenger/pilferer in todays game cannot be overstated...a good scavenger gets the turnover ball that allows teams to attack against disorganised defences... In todays game of ultra-sophisticated defences...pure gold! I'm not a massive fan of pulling down a maul, it opens up alot of safety issues as far as I'm concerned. Having said that the challenge is for the attacking team to build a better maul. Having watched Englands excellent work at defending the maul during rthe final series I'm not sure that pulling it down is the best tactic anyway...the way England attacked one side of the maul to open up the other was fascinating to watch and shows that there is more than one way to disrupt it. As far as the numbers in the lineout goes there wasn't too many incidents where the attacking team stacked the numbers during the ARC. It's a strange rule and I'd love to know why they think it is necessary to change this. I agree with Robb Roi, the lineout is a great part of rugby in to my mind shouldn't be tampered with. From a coaching point of view there are a myriad of opportunities opened up at lineout time as was clearly showcased at the RWC Wales in particular showed some great imagination from lineouts while the Wallabies showed glimpses but then mysteriously shelved them when they needed them most. I think I speak for most southern hemisphere fans when I say we don't want to go down the path of being too much like rugby league...one is more than enough! It is rugby's unique qualities like the lineout, maul, scrum and contest at the tackle that make it unique...take that away and we are becoming too much like league to be a viable alternative. We are not looking to change the game because we had a poor RWC...We are looking at ways to make the game better...these ELV's may or may not be the right path and it depends where you're from as to whether you support them or not. But I would say that even though we may not approve of the actual ELV's we should at least support the idea of trying to improve rugby and secure it's place in the competitive sporting market...Just a thought!

The best news ever for any defence is the "5 metres behind the back foot at the scrum rule" More time to react, more time to assess drift or rush, more time to view and close down offensive patterns. I think defences will be pleased with the extra couple of seconds they're going to get. Remember this is from a set piece not open play. Without seeming to support RL or wanting to end up like it. Their defensive sets seem to work quite effectivly at 10 metres distant in open play. The rucking law sounds like chaos waiting to happen. If you can use your hands I presume you can still also use your feet. The only plus will be the emphasis moving away from knee and ankle ligament injuries to broken or dislocated fingers. The collapsing of the maul I fully support. Legalised offside and totally undefendable at the moment. Hate it, always have since they (once more ) changed the rules to accomodate it. The guy with the ball shouldn't be obstructed. Yup I'm English and Yup I'm a retired prop............Strange days indeed :D More players in the lineout......Why ? Defensivly you're always going to mark what's there. Over cook it and you'll leave yourself short elswhere on the field. In a game that's become man to man marking how does this help anything ?

Some thoughts on the Final - best game of Aussie Rules I've seen in years. Those high marks & unerring kicks were breathtaking. Setanta-USA must have had a crystal ball by not showing the final live. Some thoughts on the RWC: - As I predicted, more like Football W C every time. - Lesser teams were a joy to watch. - Argentine was Team of RWC for their 100% commitment. - NZ was robbed by the law-student ref - a bloody disgrace. Even as an OZ I say they're stil the best in world - count their victories! - Thank God we've four years of better (?) rugby to enjoy, especially South, before more RWC brain damage. Jools-USA l