ELVs need to encourage more running rugby

Sorry Andrew but Eddy Jones is not against the ELVs, he is against the Global ELVs which are being used in the UK. When interviewed by Rupert Guinness in the SMH Jones was asked which laws he would support. His answer was: 1st choice - same laws as were used for last world cup IF you added an extra ref to monitor the offside. 2nd choice - the ELVs including the FREE KICK SANCTION! It's also worth noting that if you go back all of Eddy Jones' rants in the last year his views have not been consistent. After one match Saracens won he was extolling the virtues of the ELVs.

great thread an excellent point Andrew. the last season should have been spent trialling hands in the ruck /law of the jungle and NOTHING else. without any other variables we would have been able to determine its benefits and drawbakcs in islation and make a decision. and as just one change to the laws there probably would not have the political fallout between hemispheres. everyone knows the breakdown is rugby's biggest problem for referrees and spectators and there really has been zero progress since the last world cup

One thing that never gets mentioned in these discussions is the quality of the backs. I'm looking around but I'm not seeing a lot of quality backs, especially halfbacks. If you wanna see great rugby from set pieces or even from a ruck, you at least need a decent halfback. The best halfback in NZ right now is playing first five.

I said the above in an earlier post.Too early in the morning.Sorry.

Find a way to play Rugby,not League ,by removing two players from each team. There simply isn't enough room on the paddock for todays superfit athletes.

I wrote last week that its too early to know where the rules will take us. For example,I cannot believe the erratic up and under lottery will remain a feature (has this horror been mentioned ?) If the players respect the ruck by not diving in you get faster ball and greater likelihood of running it. This area has not really changed but is erratically policed. Part of the problem is 'clearing-out' which often involves players intentionally leaving their feet to end up on the other side of the ruck. It is critical that only superior numbers and concerted counter-rucking of the most vigorous (but ordered) type should have any chance of turnover, not chaos induced by diving over/closing off or other negative tactics which I believe are contrary to the spirit of the game and must incur a full penalty. It is also critical to state the avowed purpose of the rule and try to get refs to play to the spirit of the law l .Is this expecting too much? The head of Refs should indicate each week what they'll target and what outcome they are seeking. In the Brumbies game and the Reds game this week the rucks were more ordered, with smaller numbers committed at the breakdown and faster recycling-all reminiscent of an earlier era. Steve Larkham used to cop it for not putting the ball out years ago. when tactically kicking he'dstop it short of the try line and count on the Muggleton defensive line to capture territory buy forcing a hurried kick. Nothing new under the sun. I'm enjoying the new contests this year and even found the Tahs game interesting. I want them to run it but in the end you must control the ball. They did !

Knives Out - Jones' comment (out of context in this article) had to do with the ELVs. Andrew has co-opted that comment in a discussion of the ruck under ELVs. My point is that there was no law change played in the Northern Hemisphere at the breakdown. If it was being refereed differently, it's only because of some IRB directive of which there are tonnes and they come each year, saying mostly the same stuff and not much changes. Sheek - I think what you make of it, is to finally realise, as I have, that rugby is always great to play, and only sometimes great to watch! And the more people tinker with it to make it commercial, the more they're chasing at rainbows.

It's interesting when you read the origins of rugby, the game was basically one long maul interrupted at regular intervals by kicking. Backs had no other role than to 'clean up' ball that squirted out of the maul. They did this by falling to ground & calling "down", or kicking for goal. Passing the ball under pressure of being turfed was considered cowardly, & anyone who did so was an imbecile. The game was designed for the fitness & fun of well-to-do gentlemen in their leisure time, who otherwise weren't employed in manual labour jobs 6 & a half days of the week. Furthermore, the game was never intended for spectators to enjoy. They could come & watch out of curiosity, but it was the fellowship of the contestants only that mattered. A 19th century form of networking! It can therefore be construed that those of us arguing for an open game of rugby whereby the ball is passed through multiple hands leading to spectacular tries are the real imbeciles. Because we are trying to remove the game further from its origins. Furthermore, to suggest rugby should be an enjoyable spectator sport demonstrates that not only are we incredibly stupid, but we have lost our marbles. Now I don't know if anyone reading this is going to feel any better knowing that what they are arguing for today is as useless today as it was 130 years ago. Some may argue that rugby league was created for those people who believe the feelings of the spectator ought to be considered. As for myself, I have no idea what to make of all this!!!!! Except that now I think I have a headache....................

Regarding Sheek's "laws of the jungles" point, last year while watching a Spring tour test with a few mates and having witnessed the billionth scrum collapse, I said something like,"I wonder what would happen if there were no scrum laws". A few tumbleweeds scattered through my living room, a coyote could be heard howling at the moon and there was a very, very pregnant silence. So I clarified with "Well only at this level, and of course you would have laws like 8 in the scrum, three front rowers, ball fed in the middle, but honestly if people collapse the scrum as a legitimate tactic they deserve what they get." More tumbleweeds, more howling at the moon. "Ok, what I mean is, you have three front rowers all charging in at each other, all wanting to impose themselves physically on each other, why not just let them scrummage if they want to and if they dont want to then great as well. They are professional athletes. If they cant keep a scrum up and scrummage they deserve any injury they get. " At this point I was sent to the fridge for more beers so the theory was not permitted to develop. What I was trying to say was though, lets take the referee out of equation and put more responsibility on the players. No laws would reward a dominant scrum, but an equal scrum contest would pretty soon see a situation where the ball was fed and won and quickly cleared. On reflection, what I should have realized is that laws are made to be broken but any contest needs laws. The less laws however the better. Player resolution is over rated because there always been new and improved ways of cheating. I am starting to consider whether the return of rucking is a definite solution. Witness the ferocity of clean outs with heads being twisted and ripped or "counter rucking", at the top level. Does this not provide a mechanism for removal of infringing players. I just cant see rucking being permitted again.

Anything that stops pick and drive pick and drive pick and drive hit it up one of the ruck hit it up one off the ruck

There is little relaitionship between todays athletic professional game,and yesterdays amature rugby. Todays players are bigger,faster,fitter with superstar back up reserves. But the grounds are the same size.There is nowhere to run.Not enough room. Consider ways of reducing each team by two players. No ,no, no ,not League,but fair dinkum rugby union with thirteen players a side. What positions could be cut, honestly, I have no idea, but its worth a chat.

In regard to kicking what would be the result of introducing a penalty instead of a free-kick for a mark in the 22? In other words you can kick the ball in the air but if you do not execute well you will be punished with a lineout somewhere around half way... I think it would make most teams re think their strategy but not sure of longer term implications. Coaches and tactic seems to adapt to changes and find ways around them.

I think the ELVs are ok and generally I have enjoyed all the games I have seen so far this year. One thing I would like to see cleared up is the defending halfback at scrum time being allowed to hang all over the half trying to clear the ball. At the moment they are there before the ball is out. I propose making them hang back keeping hand contact with their front row until the ball is out. This should give the attacking half back and No 8 at least a second or two to clear the ball cleanly. This should allow the scrum to become a better attacking platform.

Andrew, Spiro, Sheek, we're going to need several bottles.... Andrew, it's interesting you mention the original Stellenbosch Laws, and the allowance of hands in the ruck. We've all had our say on the pros and cons of the ARC (which allowed hands in the ruck, and also gave a turnover if the ball didn't come out), but the crux of the competition - the on-field action - was brilliant to watch, and was of course the first (and maybe only?) competition in the world to use all, or the majority, of the ELVs to come out of the Stellenbosch conferences. As more competitions have trialled the ELVs, more laws have been left out, including hands in the ruck. I firmly believe that Super Rugby in general is yet to emulate the ARC in terms of speed of the game and expansiveness, and a lot of that would come down to the fact that the breakdown is one area that hasn't necessarily changed much; it's quite obviously still a mess. If I recall correctly, Rod McQueen commented early on about the ELVs that a major motivation for coming up with the new laws was to simplify the game for players, supporters, and more importantly, referees. He cited the example of the breakdown, where he suggested that in any given ruck, the ref has in excess of 30 laws and interpretations to consider. And yet nothing's changed, because the changes in ruck laws were left out. It's no wonder the refs are no less involved...

Oops, wrong thread above!

Brett, This reminds me of another thing. Baseball, that most American of sports, has hardly changed the outward look of its outfits over a century. Sure, the shirts & pants are made of superior synthetic materials I would guess. The helmets & bats are latest technology. But to look at them from a distance, it could be 1920, or 1950, or 1980, or 2010. There's tradition & history there. Also, unlike football codes, baseball hasn't gone crazy with sponsor's signs all over its uniforms. Preserving tradition can be done. The trick is finding people with the will to maintain tradition without losing their souls to money!

Andrew, That was basically what I was aiming at - repeal most laws except for offside & foul play. In most instances, the players sort themselves out. The Dalai Lama actually advocates that people know the laws so that they can break them! Ditto human nature, we can't help ourselves trying to circumvent every law put in front of us. So remove the laws, & we might actually get on with the job of just playing rugby..........maybe? Re 'Bill Of Responsibilities', love it! Yeah, we're looking at a few bottles of red now..........

I think rugby has a bit of the chaos theory about it (ie butterfly wings flapping etc.) and I think that what happens at the breakdown can have an impact on how the whole game is played. If there is no rucking I don't have an answer to what I see as the 2 basic problems 1) breakdown ball is too slow which means that an attacking side cannot catch the defense on the backpedal 2) at its most simple you need 1 defender to make a tackle but generally you need 2 attackers (the ball carrier and the 1/2 or support player) to secure possession and transfer the ball away from the breakdown. The attacking side will never have an overlap.

Andrew, I think the game has gone downhill since the removal of rucking. If you bring back rucking you'll get quicker ball, players who cheat cleaned out the back and players that hold onto the ball, McCaw Smith et al, with big cheat marks across thier hands. The Ref has too many places to look now where an infringement will occur, take it back to simple offsides, foul play, forward passes and straight lineout ball and you'll see more attacking rugby. IMO, I believe rucking was ousted due to the amount of backs getting caught in it and getting their product hair messy and their pretty faces taged ;) Of course thats my theory.