The rules under which the Tri Nations series will be played remain up in the air after the International Rugby Board endorsed a global trial of some, but not all, of the experimental law variations (ELVs) being used in the Super 14.
Meeting in Dublin, the IRB agreed to trial 13 of 23 proposed new laws for 12 months from August 1, a result Australian rugby boss and ELV-advocate John O’Neill described as “better than we expected”.
“What is important … is that there was widespread acceptance to many of the ELVs when the perception in some markets was that a number of northern hemisphere countries would seek to block almost all of them,” O’Neill said.
“The outcome is, in many ways, better than we expected.”
Several of the proposed ELVs – designed to make rugby more entertaining – are currently being trialled at their highest ever level in the Super 14 tournament.
But the change that has perhaps had most influence on the tournament has been banished from the global trial to an as yet unspecified “elite European competition”.
That competition will trial the replacement of penalties with free kicks for all offences except offside, not entering “through the gate” and foul play.
Of the rules not currently being trialled in the Super 14, the most significant addition to the worldwide experiment is a law allowing the pulling down of a maul.
“Hopefully by November next year when the IRB council meets to review the ELV trials, we will all be able to talk from the same position in terms of experimentation and analysis,” O’Neill said.
“By the end of the trial period I trust we will be united and world rugby can move forward strongly with a consistent set of laws.”
While the SANZAR nations of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have been given a licence to continue using all of the Super 14 rules for their competitions, the decision about which set of laws will be adopted for the Tri Nations series is far from straight forward.
The series could be played under the current Super 14 rules.
Or it could be played under the Super 14 rules plus the extra experimental laws now approved for global use.
Yet another option would be to play the Tri Nations under the global experimental rules only, which would help the southern hemisphere teams prepare for Tests in Europe later in the year.
Either way, Australia’s players will be expected to play under three sets of rules in 2008 – the current Super 14 rules in that competition, rugby’s traditional rules for the inbound Tests against Ireland and France which are before the trial’s August 1 start-up, and the global ELVs which will be in force during their spring tour of Europe.
O’Neill said discussions with Australia’s SANZAR partners would resolve the Tri Nations issue within the next couple of weeks.
While the ARU chief executive was putting on a brave face, English media reports described the outcome as a major watering down of Australia’s preferred position.
The Guardian called it “a considerably diluted dose” with “virtually all of the contentious elements … either rejected or confined to a single to a single tournament”.
The Telegraph called them “scaled down”, and added: “The IRB claimed this as a success. That is far from the truth, for several of those laws are fairly mundane.”
French IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset was certainly touting the positives.
“Not one of the council representatives was against the global implementation of an ELV program of some description,” he said.
“Many of the ELVs received unanimous approval.
“The laws project group had recommended a global trial of all of the ELVs but there were differing opinions between the council members on some.
“The key point here was that the members did not dismiss these ELVs outright but believed that further consideration and trials were necessary.”
O’Neill, meanwhile, confirmed SANZAR would “engage” Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Argentina, Japan, USA and Canada as part of its planning process for the future of Super rugby.
Rugby’s global trial of the experimental law variations (ELVs):
TO BE TRIALED WORLDWIDE
Assistant referees (formerly touch judges) can assist referees in any manner required.
Corner posts are no longer considered to be in-touch, in-goal except when a ball is grounded against the post.
If a team puts the ball back into their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain of ground.
A quick lineout throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team’s own goal-line.
There is no restriction on the number of players who can participate in the lineout from either side (minimum of two).
The receiver in a lineout must stand 2m back from the lineout.
The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball may stand in the area between the 5m line and touch line but must be 2m away from the lineout.
Lineout players may grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in.
The lifting of lineout jumpers is permitted.
Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down.
Heads and shoulders can be lower than hips in a maul.
Introduction of an offside line 5m behind the scrum.
Scrumhalf offside lines (must be in close proximity to the scrum or must retreat 5m).TO BE TRIALED IN AN ELITE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE COMPETITION
Global approved ELVs above plus the following:
For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate and foul play, the sanction is a free-kick.
If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free-kick.
If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a free-kick.TO BE REFERRED BACK TO THE LAWS PROJECT GROUP FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND POSSIBLE EXPERIMENTATION
Incorrect lineout throw sanctioned by a free-kick.
Offside line occurs immediately at the tackle.
Players who are on their feet can play the ball with their hands in a ruck.
There are only two penalty kicks that can be awarded at the tackle and ruck – offside and foul play.
Players are only put onside after a tackle when they retreat past the tackle or the ball has moved 5m away from the tackle.
Incorrect kick-offs and restart kicks result in a free-kick for the opposition.
Dublin Dave
Guest
Spiro What are you talking about? "There is no defence against a well constructed rolling maul!!!" Of course there is. You put enough forwards into the maul, you'll stop it. It's merely a contest of strength and co-ordination. There's no defence against a rolling maul if every one of the defending team wants to fanny about in midfield like mannequins in a shop window. But that's a different matter.
hayden
Guest
Jock The only reason there is now no contest for possession is that Northern types whinged loud enough for real rucking to be removed from the game. Since then it has ceased to be a spectacle.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Jock M The contest for possession in all the Super 14 matches with the ELVs was as ferocious as any of the contests under the 'old' laws of rugby being played in the NH. The point is that these laws are experimental variations. If they don't work out - most unlikely on the evidence so far in the 2008 Super 14 - then it's back to the past. No set of laws of any sports game have had as much review as the ELVs. I don't think anyone could make a case that the rugby in the 2008 Super 14 hasn't been as tough, rough, ferocious, as keenly contested, hard, and thumping as the NH games. Much more so, I'd suggest. There were 25 scrums in the Crusaders-Sharks match, more than enough to warm the cockles of the heart of Stephen Jones and Paul Ackford, I'd suggest. So much for the ELVs taking scrums out of the game.
Jock M
Guest
As far as I am concerned you are all bloody text book rugby academics. The crux of the problem with Rugby is that the contest has been destroyed in the name of making the game more attractive-these stupid ELV's would be neither here or there if forwards were engaged in an all out contest to either steal possession,retain possession or to engage the opposition pack in an effort to either impede their impetus or to create space for their backs.THE ENGLISH CREAMED AUSTRALIA IN THE WORLD CUP BY ENGAGING THEM.GEORGE DID NOT KNOW WHAT HIT HIM AS HIS FORWARD PACK WAS DRIVEN BACK OVER THE TOP OF HIM. Now I will say it again-THE TACKLED PLAYER MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PLAY THE BALL ON THE GROUND-IT GIVES THE ATTACKING TEAM TOO MUCH ADVANTAGE.IT IS ALMOST CORNY TO WATCH THE TACKLED PLAYER ROLL OVER AND PLACE THE BALL.IN AFFECT RUGBY IS BARELY ANY DIFFERENT TO LEAGUE WHERE THE TACKLED PLAYER PLAYS THE BALL BETWEEN HIS LEGS.
USRugbyFan
Guest
Another consideration could be disallowing the pulling down of the maul at U19 or whatever it's called now level, just like the altered scrum laws for youth safety. That way certain laws could be tried at the elite level, while the youth game would still remain safe.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Sledgeandhammer, the reason why a maul is penalised when none of the opposition is engaged is because the front ranks of players bound in the maul, when the ball is at the back, are off-side when the maul charges forward. The charge can be made legally, even if the opposition does not engage, if the leading player is holding the ball. The fact that an offside becomes onside at a maul when the opposition engages immediately is one of the reasons why I think the maul should be allowed to be pulled down. There is no defence against a well-constructed rolling maul, save for stopping it twice. But most referees, but no Stuart Dickinson (to his credit), allow mauls to start and re-start a number of times thereby making it virtually impossible to stop. Then they will award a penalty try when it collapses near the tryline (Paul Marks) or yellow card frustrated players for pulling it down. I think we'll have faster and more dynamic rolling mauls, more rolling passing/mauls rather than the slow slod maul we get now with the ball hidden away somewhere. Incidentdally, the pulling-down-the-maul ELV has had 100o hours of play with no major injuries and fewer minor inuries than the non-pulling down law creates. Yet the so-called 'danger' factor was one of the arguments raised against it. Yet another case of the facts not being considered and ideology being preferred.
Ian Noble
Guest
Spiro I hadn't forgotten but I think you must accept they were refering to the ELV's in their totality On the maul I believe in spite of Dean Richards reservations I believe the elite game will adapt, but everybody forgets about the grassroots or community rugby. For obvious reasons the standard of referring is lower, fitness levels, knowledge of the new rules etc will be considerably less than the elite game and it is at this level I am concerned. Over the years rugby has made great strides in protecting it's players from serious injury, but in th heat of battle players who are not as disciplined as elite players will be tempted to tackle/pull down the maul below hip level with the inevitable consequences. It also raises the question of insurance, some players at grassroots level do take out insurance, if there is spate of injuries then it will have an obvious effect on the cost of insurance
Yikes
Guest
Can I just clarify a major point - collapsing the maul will still be illegal. But you can "defend the maul by pulling it down". You will NOT be able to pull people's legs, or "speedhump" the maul or dive at people's legs. You can only pull it down by grabbing the torso of a player in the maul and bringing him to ground. This was altered by the Laws group following ARC and other comps and this is the interpretation being played in FULL ELVs in Australia currently. The following is quoted from the ELV document all club coaches received: "Players can only collapse a Maul by pulling another player down from between the shoulder and the hips. Other actions (e.g. jumping on the Maul, pulling players out of the Maul, diving at players legs) are dangerous play for which the penalty is a PK." So, the "dangerous" element of collapsing a maul is still relevant.
DT
Guest
It's not a maul until someone from the defensive team is involved. If the ball carrier is bound behind other player from his team, but no opposition player is in contact with any of them, it's technically obstruction. Several teams have tried this trick successfully on occasion the super 12/14 in past years, but it never really caught on. Some refs have refused to enforce the rule. You're exactly right about the lineouts, Sledge. Anyone defending a lineout with only 2 men is asking to be busted by rolling mauls. One of the more irritating arguments put forth by the anti ELV crowd is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but in the case of the rolling maul, they're %100 right. It's not like that facet of play happens a lot in most games, and crowds love it the world over. Anyone with 2 eyes can see that the breakdown is too complicated and needs to be fixed, and that the ball should be in play for longer. The maul works very well as it is right now. It should be left alone.
Sledgeandhammer
Guest
Regarding the maul, it is worth considering that the majority of (successful) mauls are currently pulled down -the only difference under the ELVs will be that no penalty will follow. Regarding the lineouts if the defending team only places two men in the lineout and spreads the other forwards across the field, the attacking team will be able to make a lot of ground using the maul from the lineout (which will suck the players in). Should be interesting to see how teams adapt. It's a shame the ELV that says there are only two penalties, offside and foul play is not being trialed more widely. Not only would this suit the stronger NH teams (who could choose the scrum each time rather than the free kick) it also removes the referee from the contest to a degree and lets the players decide the outcome - in other words you need to play for tries or drop goals, not play for penalties. As an aside in the recent world cup, one of the pacific nations refused to engage in the maul on several occasions in one game (from memory they were playing a strong home nations side). When the opposition set a maul, the islander team moved away from the contest and the maul was then penalised. Does anyone else remember this or know why the unopposed maul would be penalised?
Jock M
Guest
THE TACKLED PLAYER MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PLAY THE BALL ON THE GROUND_IT GIVES THE ATTACKING SIDE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE AND TURNS THE GAME INTO A MINDLESS REPETITIVE PREDICTABLE JUNKET.HOW BORING IT MUST BE TO PLAY.I LOVED RUGBY-NOW I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A SICK ANIMAL.
DT
Guest
The fact that people persist in framing the ELVs as a North v South fight is ridiculous, but the maul part of it is beyond the pale.I'm yet to speak to one Australian rugby fan who wants the new maul law to be implemented. There must be a few of them somewhere, but they're so far in the minority that they might as well not exist. As long as the sanctions (free kick) ELV is being given a fair trial in an elite European competition, I'm happy. Now we just need people up there to assess that trial in an honest way, and not buy into the seemingly endless stream of propaganda being written on the subject.
Frank Man
Guest
Dublin Dave - you said: "it will inevitably lead to a game that is shaped as two lines of players strung across the field crashing into each other because there is no space in which to play. Like league, only worse because there are four more players on the field." This doesn't make any sense. In league the defence is back 10m. Just how much space "in which to play" are you looking for? A 20m rule? League's problem of players "crashing into each other" is arguably because there is too much space. League teams simply look to take the 10m every tackle with a crash run, and if they come out the other side, look for a support. In rugby, with no 10m, the players should be passing the ball and stepping to make gaps. There would be more gaps, but if forwards don't need to commit to the breakdown, then they will just spread across the field in the defence line, filling the gaps. IMO, both codes have stuffed themselves up in the search to create a faster and more entertaining game. The answer is probably in the middle of the two codes, probably with 11 players on each team. Given the way the SANZAR nations are freaking out over money, as are the Leagues clubs in NSW, the merging of the codes is closer at hand than we think. If the SANZAR nations can bankroll a World Super competition, they will turn to league players, which will force the league bodies and News ltd to talk turkey with the rugby union counterparts about a merged code, it will run like cricket's IPL. That will in turn force the IRB's hand.
Dublin Dave
Guest
Spiro, That is what Basil Fawlty would call "A statement of the bleeding obvious" The proposed changes to the maul and the removal of the penalty kick for most offences WILL change the game hugely. That's a perfectly fair comment for Ackford et al to make and for many of us to agree with. What is not fair is to suggest that all those who oppose such overwhelming changes to the law are by implication opposed to all the changes. The granting of more advisory power to touch judges is common sense, welcome and long overdue. But that's more of an administrative change aimed to beef up enforcement of the laws and is applicable regardless of which laws are in place. Ditto, the 5m offside line at the scrum is worth experimenting with. Pulling down the maul is a ridiculous concession that will rob rugby of one of its characteristic facets. Taken in conjunction with the new line out laws regarding numbers in the line it will inevitably lead to a game that is shaped as two lines of players strung across the field crashing into each other because there is no space in which to play. Like league, only worse because there are four more players on the field. And three versions of the game in existence, depending where you are in teh world is just bonkers.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Ian, you seem to have forgotten that Paul Ackford, Stephen Jones and the RFU were arguing that the ELVs mean the end of rugby as we know it.
Ian Noble
Guest
I really don't what O'Neill is bleating on about, as the RFU and indeed many of the NH correspondents, even Ackford and Moore, accepted that a number of ELV's would be trialled and if succesful will added to the game. However, one of the major concerns in the 13 to be trialled is the maul and as Dean Richards remarked 'Being allowed to collapse the maul is bound to take away a lot of its power,' said Harlequins' rugby director Dean Richards. 'One of the reasons why we in the Premiership didn't want this introduced was because of concerns about the safety aspect. Why are they prepared to heighten that risk by allowing it to be collapsed?' A point a number of us from the NH have made on Roar a many times.