The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Rugby: Growth and Turmoil

5th May, 2008
Advertisement
Roar Guru
5th May, 2008
24
5050 Reads

Incremental, progressive change is good. Wholesale, idealistic change is seldom so.

Regardless of your opinions on the relative value of the 13 ELVs approved for trial by the IRB, the fact is that rugby is now headed rapidly towards a period of upheaval and turmoil as the long term ramifications of the implementation of these rule changes slowly start to materialise.

When rugby went professional the phenomenal change in the physical attributes of the game’s international players caused the game to go through a period of massive growth and change. Perhaps a little of the game’s intuitive flair was lost as defences and tactics became, well, professional. The Super 12/14 gave the southern hemisphere teams an international platform on which to enjoy their open, attacking game and in the northern hemisphere with a little weight training, big forwards became even bigger until Sir Clive Woodward finally discovered the critical mass required to effectively suppress running rugby.

During the growing pains of professionalism, rugby did make some mistakes. In Australia the games’ clubs quickly lost their positions of prominence and in England some grand old clubs disappeared altogether. Something of the pride of the amateur ethos was watered down and it is unlikely the fierce integrity that so typified the leadership of Mark Loane will ever be found in a Wallaby jersey again.

However, that particular period of change, growth, turmoil and loss was absolutely necessary for the game of rugby to continue to exist under its own self-government. The situation facing the IRB in the early 1990’s was rather different to the one it is facing today. Back then the vultures of outside media interests were circling, the natives were restless and the rugby gods were angry. Something simply had to be done.

Rugby isn’t at such a point of crisis in 2008. In Australia, as a direct result of the poor management of the ARU, rugby has suffered in recent years. However, at an international level, rugby has arguably never been in a stronger position.

Despite the best efforts of Andy Robinson and then Brian Ashton to reduce English rugby to a laughing stock, the English rugby public continues to grow its all-singing, all-Morris-dancing army. Of the home nations only Scotland has taken a backward step in terms of growth of the game yet it still managed to sell out Murrayfield as the boys in blue proved a one trick pony can kick a sweet chariot into even sweeter defeat. Wales have a new redeemer, Ireland eagerly awaits its next wave and across the channel the insatiable beast of French rugby is quietly nurturing the growth of Italy, Georgia, Romania and other developing nations.

On the field the game is as diverse as ever. The Welsh Way has returned to flow across panicked defensive lines. English obnoxiousness still bullies and blusters up front and a new generation of inside backs who want to run the ball more than they want to kick it have slowly come to the fore. New Zealand remains the benchmark for all-round play. Australia can’t decide on which young, playmaking prodigy to hang its expansive hopes and France is throwing all the caution it can find to the wind in the search for a team that can bring back that Blanco feeling.

Advertisement

More importantly people are watching the game in ever increasing numbers. New frontiers are trying their hardest to get the IRB to open them up as old ones are further fortified. I see no sky falling, no bad moon a risin’ and no winters of discontent either approaching or currently engulfing the game of rugby union.

I’m all for the manageable growth of the game but to be honest I wouldn’t bank on the IRB’s managerial ability following the fiasco of its gifting New Zealand the 2011 World Cup. The implications of introducing all of the ELVs at once may prove to be well beyond the managerial capabilities of the game’s governing body. Hell, the procurement of a lass of questionable morals in an establishment of ill repute would probably be a stretch for this lot.

To look at it from another angle, if the ELVs are not to be brought in en masse, as was the original intention of the group that developed them, then surely they should not be brought in half en masse. Commentators who witnessed the early stages of the ELV trials noted that when introduced as a complete set the ELVs contained inbuilt counterbalances that mutually enhanced the game as well as worked together to smooth out the potentially negative side effects of some these changes to the laws.

The law changes were interdependent and would induce a paradigm shift towards a more free-flowing and attack driven game. Like converting to a new religion, we would have to accept all of the rules, not just pick and choose the ones that seemed nice. We had to have faith and trust in the wisdom of the rugby gurus who put the laws together.

I fail to see how, if 10 of the original set of 23 ELVs are to been removed, these counterbalances can still be in place.

What we have now is not a complete package but a rationalised selection of law changes. The sensible and proven approach to adopting law change, be it in a professional sport, in the government of a nation or in the work place, is via incremental progression. The failure to do so always results in a period of turmoil and upheaval, growth and loss.

Can this selection of ELVs only be introduced in on fell swoop or is there another way? Can these law changes be trickled out at a more digestible rate? Why is the IRB making the game such a slave to its own World Cup by forcing the deadline for the rollout of these law changes to meet the next version of the event? Have the best interests of rugby been served by this decision?

Advertisement

Complete our reader survey
Help shape the future of The Roar by completing our quick survey.

close