Before he went away to the IRB conference on the future of Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) as one of 60 rugby administrators, coaches, referees and players’ representative, a leading Australian told me that the likelihood was that most of the ELVs in operation during the current European season would be confirmed.
He conceded that there was no chance of the sanctions and free kicks reform being accepted because the hostile British and Irish unions, particularly, had torpedoed this reform by defying the IRB (once again) and refusing to allow any of their senior competitions to trial that particular variation.
So the fix was in against the spirit and practice of the ELVs despite the fact that they were the most analysised and trialled set of sports laws of any sporting code. Over 800 matches involving 3000 players from the highest levels of Test rugby to the muddied oafs of social players have participated in the trialling of the ELVs.
The same lobby of British and Irish unions (who have opposed every reform and modernisation of the laws of rugby since the 1890s), together with Italy whose game was based virtually entirely on rolling mauls (like the Queensland Reds before the ‘use-it or lose-it’ reforms in 1995) were instrumental in getting the ELV allowing the maul to be pulled down to be abolished.
Steve Hansen, the All Blacks forward coach, one of the 60 delegates, makes the point that this decision needs ‘a little bit of work’ on it: ‘Before the ELVs the rule was very stacked in favour of the attacking team. It was difficult to stop and to me was more like an illegal obstruction. I think they will look at ways to make it a more even contest.’
One change that comes to mind immediately is for the law to be strictly applied that if the maul stops a second time, the ball must be released or the defending side gets a tap penalty. In previous years referees have allowed the maul to stop up to five times and then penalised defending sides when it collapsed.
This made rolling mauls, as Hansen suggests, unstoppable. Hopefully he is right when he indicates that some sort of ploys will be made available, short of pulling the mauls down, to the defending sides.
Hansen is also disappointed, and rightly so, about the decision to require even numbers in the lineouts, dictated by the side throwing in.
As he said, the All Blacks and a number of other inventive sides had worked out clever attacking and defensive plays based around their freedom to juggle their lineout number.
So some of the cleverness has been taken out of rugby which is a pity.
The good news is that despite the rantings and predictions of all the ELVs possibly going under from The Usual Suspect, the IRB looks set to retain the bulk of 10 of them, dish 3 and review the two most contentious ELVs, the sanctions and free kicks ELVs and the matter of infringements at the tackle/ruck area.
The review will surely work out a simplified and effective system to be applied by referees at the tackle/ruck area which was the intention of the ELVs requirements.
So, presuming that in May the full board of the IRB will ratify the conference recommendations and also the clarifications to the tackle/ruck and the further examination and results of the sanctions and free kicks ELVs, we can claim that most of the best ELVs, one way or another, will become part of a new era of rugby.
The enthralling and thrilling Wales – Ireland Six Nations match, which was played with the retained ELVs (aside from the maul variation) showed how vibrant rugby can be if teams are allowed by the laws to play rugby.
The comparison between this fateful match, certainly Ireland’s most important since its last Grand Slam in 1948, and the dire and dreary 2007 World Cup final under the old laws, is very invidious to the case of those who have ranted against the ELVs as somehow taking ‘our game’ away from them.
With minutes to play and having drop-kicked his team into the lead, Stephen Jones, under Irish pressure kicked out on the full a ball that was passed back to him inside his 22. Ireland had a lineout inside the Welsh 22 and converted their lineout possession into a match-winning Ronan O’Gara dropped goal.
The point about this is that in 2007 Wales would have forced a lineout inside the Ireland half and the counter-attack to set up the winning kick would have been that much harder. Just as importantly, the old law rewarded teams like the Springboks in 2007, and England in every year (except 2003), who played the touchlines more than the middle of the field.
These team played football rather than rugby.
There are complaints that the non-ground kicking from balls played into the 22 ELV actually encourages kicking.
This disregards two main points: first, the worst kicking matches rugby followers have had to endure were those played before the ELVs came into force. That Australia – South Africa kickathon at Sydney, in John Connolly’s early career as the Wallaby coach, is a case in point. Also, in the RWC the teams that invariably kicked the ball rather than play rugby, South Africa and England, were the finalists in the tournament.
Second, under the ELVs the team with good systems to run the ball back (the New Zealand, Wales and South Africa) and a good defence against the high ball have done very well.
In this year’s Super 14, the South African and New Zealand teams are dominating the tournament (with the NSW Waratahs being the only other real threat), these teams have generally kept the ball in hand running it back and when they have kicked it has been skilful kicking.
It was always going to be an incredibly difficult task to modernise the rugby laws to take into account the growing size of the players and their speed and the desire of spectators to have a contest and a spectacle. The diehards, especially in the British unions, have always resisted making rugby a more accessible and skilful code.
Some of the ELVs were actually flagged in the 1890s and rejected by the Home unions but accepted by the new Northern Rugby League which broke away from the Rugby Football Union (the England union) in 1895.
The kicking directly into touch sanction against a team taking the ball back into its 22 was played in Australia and Auckland (two rugby league strongholds) throughout the 1920s. The rule was called ‘the Australian dispensation’ and was the generator of a generation of brilliant Australian and Auckland running backs.
I once had a discussion with Dr Danie Craven, arguably the most profound thinker about the laws of rugby who ever lived. He told me that the laws of rugby are ‘wrong’ because they are too complicated and there are too many of them.
‘How will know we have the right laws?’ he asked me, and then answered his own question: ‘We will know when we have the right laws when they can be written down on a piece of paper like the football rules.’
We are nowhere near Dr Craven’s right laws yet. But slowly (too slowly unfortunately) and not always surely, we are getting there. The IRB conference decisions was a step, small but significant, along this path to the right way for rugby to go.
IRB Announcement on ELVs
Top Rugby Stakeholders Agree ELV Recommendations
Senior stakeholders from the international Rugby community, including a number of the world’s top coaches, referees and administrators, met in London on Monday and Tuesday to review the Game’s Experimental Law Variations (ELV) programme. The four-year programme culminates in a decision in May by the IRB Council as to which ELVs might be accepted permanently into the Laws of the Game.
The aim of the Conference was to assess the impact of the global ELV trial and the additional variations being trialled by the SANZAR Unions, as well as to evaluate other ELVs being trialled by individual Unions. The Conference was hosted by the IRB Rugby Committee and Laws Project Group (LPG).
“We held a positive and constructive meeting at which all stakeholders were able to share their opinions on each of the ELVs. This was an important milestone for the ELV programme and it was crucial that robust discussion was entered into and that all positive and negative impacts of the ELVs were raised,” said IRB Chairman Bernard Lapasset.
“Naturally opinions differed in several areas of the ELV programme. The IRB regards this as a healthy and positive state of affairs as the Game’s Laws have always and should continue to allow coaches and players to interpret Law so that different styles of play can be employed.”
“The Unions tabled detailed research and analysis to support their views. Everyone had the opportunity to air their views. What was clear was that there was agreement on many aspects of the ELVs and a collective will to see a return to one set of Laws to govern the Game as soon as possible.”
“This conference was not a decision-making meeting but at the end of the day the conference provided a set of collective recommendations on the ELVs to assist the IRB Rugby Committee in formulating its final recommendations for the IRB Council meeting on 13 May. Council will then decide which ELVs, if any, should be fully integrated into Law,” added Lapasset.
The Conference was the latest step in the extensive global ELV consultation and evaluation process. Attendees were also presented with Game analysis and statistical surveys from over 800 matches, involving more than 3,000 players, coaches and referees at the Elite and Participation levels of the Game from 15 IRB Member Unions.
“It is has been a long road since the genesis of the ELV programme at the Conference on the Playing of the Game in Auckland in January 2004 when national coaches and administrators gathered following Rugby World Cup 2003 to debate the state of the Game,” said Lapasset.
“Collectively the participants requested that the IRB look into the Laws of the Game and mandated it to undertake a major review in areas such as the lineout, maul and sanctions, including turning penalties for technical offences into free kicks. The Laws Project Group was subsequently conceived, as were the Experimental Law Variations with initial trials starting in 2005.”
“In the past Law changes were discussed in theory and implemented without on-field testing but importantly this ELV programme has included global practical trials. The entire process is now coming to an end and the IRB would like to sincerely thank its Member Unions for their participation in what has been an unprecedented review of the Laws of the Game,” added Lapasset.
Recommendations for the IRB Rugby Committee
The following is recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
Law 6 – Assistant Referees allowed
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
Law 19 – Quick Throw permitted in any direction except forward
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from lineout and the line of touch
Law 19 – Pre-gripping of lineout jumpers allowed
Law 19 – Lifting in the lineout allowed
Law 19 – Positioning of Receiver must be two metres away from lineout
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the Scrum
Law 20 – Scrum half offside line at the Scrum
Law 22 – Corner Posts no longer touch in goal
The following is not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law:
Law 17 – Maul – Head and Shoulders not to be lower than hips
Law 17 – Maul – Pulling Down the Maul
Law 19 – Freedom for each team to determine Lineout Numbers
Sanctions and Free Kicks (subsidiary recommendation for further examination)
Tackle/Ruck Infringements (subsidiary recommendation for ruling in law to be sought by a Union to clarify interpretation of current Law)
Other Union-specific ELVs
Up to 15 minutes half time – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Rolling substitutions for Community Game – recommended to Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Use of Under 19 variations at the scrum for Community Adult Game where agreed by the Union – recommended to
Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
Protocol to extend the remit of the TMO – not recommended to the Rugby Committee for adoption into Law
ELV Conference attendees: Bernard Lapasset (IRB Chairman), Bill Beaumont (IRB Vice Chairman and Laws Project Group), Mike Miller (IRB Chief Executive), Oregan Hoskins (IRB Executive Committee), Giancarlo Dondi (IRB Executive Committee), Peter Boyle (IRB Executive Committee), David Pickering (IRB Executive Committee), Jean Pierre Lux (IRB Rugby Committee), Geraint John (IRB Rugby Committee), Francis Baron (RFU), Rob Andrew (RFU), Kevin Bowring (RFU), Chris Cuthbertson (RFU), Roger Lewis (WRU), Joe Lydon (WRU), Bob Yeman (WRU), Phillip Browne (IRFU), Eddie Wigglesworth (IRFU), Owen Doyle (IRFU), Roy McCombe (SRU), Frank Hadden (SRU), Colin Thomson (SRU), Andre Watson (SARU), Johan Prinsloo (SARU), Peter de Villiers (SARU), David Nucifora (ARU), John O’Neill (ARU), Robbie Deans (ARU), Santiago Phelan (UAR), Ricardo Garcia Fernandez (UAR), Marcelo Toscano (UAR), Steve Tew (NZRU), Neil Sorensen (NZRU), Steve Hansen (NZRU), Nick Mallett (FIR), Francesco Ascione (FIR), Carlo Casagrande (FIR), Rene Hourquet (FFR), Jean Louis Barthes (FFR), Didier Retiere (FFR), Bill Nolan (Laws Project Group Chairman), Dr Syd Millar (Laws Project Group), Bruce Cook (Laws Project Group/IRB Development Manager), Ian McIntosh (Laws Project Group), Dr Mick Molloy (Laws Project Group/IRB Medical Officer), Graham Mourie (Chairman of IRB Rugby Committee & Laws Project Group), Paddy O’Brien (Laws Project Group/IRB Referee Manager), Pierre Villepreux (Laws Project Group), Richie Dixon (Laws Project Group), Rod Macqueen (Laws Project Group), Steve Griffiths (IRB Head of Technical Services), Corris Thomas (IRB Game Analysis), John Feehan (6 Nations), Derek McGrath (ERC Rugby), Ian McGeechan (British & Irish Lions), Lyndon Bray (NZRU Referee Manager), Nigel Owens (IRB Referee), Rob Nichol (IRPA), Damian Hopley (IRPA).
*At the conclusion of the Conference the FFR tabled its proposal to deal with the issue of uncontested scrums. This will be further discussed by the Rugby Committee and Unions will be able to give further feedback before the May 13 Council meeting.
Luc
Guest
Union supporters have been operating under this illusion of "running rugby" for as long as I can remember. The only competition I have seen it employed successfully was the National Rugby Championship a few years back. That was the best rugby I have seen and, as rugby people like to do, it was abandoned. RWC 07 was about as boring as anything any human should have to endure. Outside of the Fijian's bright approach it was all a case of "sometimes you kick...and sometimes you kick." Argentina, low on talent across the board, almost made it to the final on an endless supply of gary owens. That was the last straw for me and a lot of people. No more Waratah season tickets for me. If the IRB can accept these laws and, as equally important, manage to have the officials apply them then I will watch the game again. At the moment rugby league offers the only real spectacle. And don't it just eat way at all your union types who know it is true?
Mart
Guest
Eddie Jones writing in the UK today on the ELVs.... "Talking of which, I think next season's rugby will make for better watching after this week's decision to reject the most damaging of the Experimental Law Variations. Common sense has prevailed, thankfully, but this does not for a moment mean that the IRB's judgement in all of this should go unquestioned. The process has been a monumental failure, driven forward by people who no longer operate at rugby's business end, against the firm advice of those of us who saw the pitfalls right from the start. Union is an old sport, but a very young professional game. If you force through changes that don't improve it, you run the danger of setting it back years. Many of us knew that the majority of the ELVs were outdated even before they were introduced, but too few administrators chose to listen. The lesson? Don't tamper with the laws without a hands-on input from people directly involved at the high end. It seems obvious enough, but sometimes, those in authority don't do obvious"
Siren's Call
Guest
To Ian Noble. Incredible stuff there mate!!! (not!). YOur solutions to rugby's ills in this country, which are all based upon the game BEING BORING to watch at the moment, is to play more games of boring rugby??? What the??!!! Rugby's better off going for less games with more quality, than serving up more and more of the same boring rubbish. All the latter will do is permanently confirm to all the non-believers that our game of rugby IS ALWAYS boring!
Derm
Roar Guru
Sorry that last query should have been addressed to Ian Noble, not Colin N.
Derm
Roar Guru
Hmmmm I met an Austrialin professor who knows something about Australian rugby. He said that John O'Neill doesn't have a clue about the real needs of the game, and is only interested in serving his own interests. This, therefore, proves conclusively that Australians don't have a clue about rugby and what's good for them. For a seasoned journalist, to repeatedly get confused about including Ireland in the context of UK rugby, is pretty irritating and sloppy, particuarly when most posters on here can recognise the difference. colin - you keep saying that Ireland were the most outspoke against ELVs followed by Wales, and that England seem to have been a model of balance and equaniminty in comparison. Where's the evidence for your assertion? It doesn't ring true with me.
Colin N
Guest
I think the Old Trafford test will be a sell-out. Sale have only been given a few tickets and have probably sold out. The RFU allocate tickets to various clubs and if they don't sell out then they'll go on general sale, but most tickets will go immediately. Because I'm not part of a club, it's virtually impossible to get a ticket for an England six nations game. I assume it will similarly difficult for this game.
Ian Noble
Guest
Colin N Not really interested in a cheap shot from Oikee. As a relatively new professional sport it is not doing too badly and certainly seems to be going in the right direction in terms of growth in spite of the competition. I know that RL is very envious. By the way it will be interesting to see how many turn up for the England v Argentina test match @ Old Trafford, which is in your neck of the woods (ie close to Sale for our Aussie friends). This is one of the "home" test matches for Argentina so they can raise some badly needed income. The last time there was a test match at O T, didn't they get gate of 50,000? By the way I don't see any of Sanzar offering to do the same probably because they too concerned with their own interests. My nephew plays for the Sydney Swans so I have a little insight into Aussie Rules but it doesn't travel well. Rugby Union in Oz will have to find it's own level. I don't believe the latest recommendations are the death knell of the game OZ. It will have to be more inventive, play more rugby, the S14 season is not enough. Both Oz and NZ should bolster their club structure as SA do, with the S14 being the icing on the cake.
Colin N
Guest
"Just think yourself lucky you dont have to contend with a game like Aussie rules, we have a city who treat the game like a religon over here." Ever heard of soccer? Yeah, that's pretty big over here and in London. You only have Arsenal, Tottenham, West Ham, Chelsea, Fulham. All top division clubs in England. You also have Charlton, Barnet, Leyton Orient, Dagenham and Redbridge, QPR, Crystal Palace, Watford, Millwall, Brentford, Luton (sort of). These are clubs who are in and in Luton's case close to London. Could possibly put AFC Wimbledon in that list as they get crowds that are better than many League 2 sides. They get around 2,500 and that's a league where away attendences aren't huge. So there is competiton and the game compared to attendences 10 years ago the game is expanding. Sale, for example were averaging around 2,000 only six or seven years ago, but now average 9,000. This is also up on last years average attendence, despite the recession and our recent poor form.
WorkingClassRugger
Guest
Everyone don't worry about Oikee. He talks nothing but manure, lives in a alternate reality and holds a great xenophobic belief towards any other sport than League. Just ignore him life's too precious to waste your time. But before I take my own advice. League's dominance in the southern Hemisphere. Oikee are you aware there are more than just two nations in the Southern Hemisphere. League is only played in three of them and one of those countries is Third World. US expansion? Where? You should start writing fairy tales. Rugby is growing rapidly in the US and Worldwide. Not League. Get over it, grow up and get lost. USRUGBYFAN Haven't seen you here before. Welcome. KO So your Tony Woodcock. Call me a skeptic but if its not too much trouble I would like confirmation. A signal. Maybe a "That's Gold" as you run onto the pitch on your next match. I don't mean to offend but its not the first time someone's claimed to be someone they are not. Agree with everything you said about the front row especially. Backs don't get it.
Roger
Guest
dont know about the ugly mate, but as you know from this site, roar rugby fans arent interested in rugby league threads, esp getting on a RL threads just to 'stir the possum'.
Bryan Ferrie
Guest
USRugbyFan - looking at the popularity of NFL compared to RU in the USA, I think I'd rather be in the rugby league camp with this than RU. You seem to be in the minority. Let the running backs of rugby league run free!
USRugbyFan
Guest
You keep league away from our shores, you hear! Rugby league is honestly the most boring sport on the face of the Earth next to TV poker. If Americans want to watch a one-off runner smashing into the defense again and again, we'll just watch a football game, thank you very much.
oikee
Guest
Well then Roger, when the league site starts up again with all its expansion plans and american expansion i can take it i wont have to put up with your ugly mug on our site then, or your league bashing mates as well. Thanks, just checking.
Roger
Guest
Oikee, seriously, give us your opinion, not League propagnda...give it a break mate. Union has 50,000 players registered in USE with an existing comp...its all pie in the sky stuff from League. You comments would be well received elsewhere, but I am starting to think you just like stirring the Union fans...passive agressive?
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
knives, first you call me too positive, too simplistic now too talkative. Nope, a genuine attempt, and the first in more than 40 years of playing/watching rugby, to get an understanding of the prop. I really appreciate your input and I am sure the backs among other roarers do also. We Roarers love to sprout forward our opinions. Always, the beauty of rugby is that the basics, the fundamentals, apply. But, all the time, the basics are surrounded by the complexity of each position and the variables. I have no understanding of the front row or the skills/tactics that are required. Some mates of mine, props and hookers continually pound me on it, but to no avail. But then I began watching the stats for my fantasy team more closely. With your "coming out", I thought it was a good opportunity to learn from the expert. I have recently been through the agonies and subsequent debate on the need for scrummaging during the Jones era and the long damage done to the team, the individuals and the game, until Foley came along to Wallabies and now the Tahs.
oikee
Guest
Go read some of the rugby league posts of late, not one complaint about the rules. The next 100 to 200 post blog on the league site will be about the America NRL push. I dont see union making waves in america. Just another college and university push for union, trying to go for the dollars again, thank god we have murdock over there calling the shots. :)
oikee
Guest
Ian Noble, I agree with you, its dissapointing that league has not grown as well as union overseas. What you have to remember is the money on offer the last 16 years has become enormous, union has capitilised on this very well. I would not be skiting about a 12 thousand crowd either, in australian league with 8 teams in sydney, we call that a dissapointing crowd. So your London team with a population of 10 million gets 12 thousand, wooa, the Broncos who i keep telling you are a powerhouse get 30 thousand average for 1 million occupants, 50 thousand this weekend for a club match. Just think yourself lucky you dont have to contend with a game like Aussie rules, we have a city who treat the game like a religon over here and has 80 thousand crowds week-in week-out, we have soccer who attracks kid's all wanting to be david beckham's, and then we have union , which, if it was not for the international game would be just a pass-time for university teams. Once the money runs out is when you need to worry. Just remember that league and aussie rules are in the era of making money, t/v deals around the world is the targets, does not matter where the game is played really, if the product is good, exciting, then you can sell it. And the league is very good now, extremely good. League have over 100 thousand memberships and rising, Aussie rules have 600 thousand. The splitting up of the league t/v deals will prove a final factor in the dominance of rugby league in the southern hemisphere. Also the emergence of the super league on free to air t/v in oz will sway some more weight behind super leagues future in Europe. So as i have said in my previous post , union will just be the same ole same ole, you will still be complaining in 10 years time about the rules. They also have expansion for 2 new teams come 2013, both with 1 million area supporter base who love league and want league teams. Rugby Union will find it hard to put a team into a city with 4 million, Melbourne, because of fear of failure. Yes league has failed and not really grown outside its heartlands, but it always bounces back bigger than before. This time last year people were saying league was dead, buried be gone in 5 years. :) Anyone looking forward to Murryfeild magic. We get a few of these games free to air this year. :)
Knives Out
Guest
2. Also, props will tend to be last to the breakdown due to their positioning from scrums. You can't really affect a game that much when you're always behind the 8 ball, so to speak.
Knives Out
Guest
LAS, I'm sure you know all this and are just being talkative but if you want to be bored, so be it.. 1. Simply because the 3 jersey is arguably the toughest position in the game, hence the dash for Hayman. The tighthead is the first point of contact and tends to set the tone for the rest of the match. The tighthead's role has changed since professionalism but the basic truisms remain. The tighthead has weight on both shoulders thus his load is effectively double that of the looshead. The looseheads can also disengage from the scrums more quickly because of this fact. Because of this need for durability props are heavier and less athletic than the rest of the players. Therefore they defend around the ruck and involve themselves less in open play. 2. Scrummaging is an incredibly hard business. The only way it could be replicated would be to do something that builds up a tremendous amount of lactic acid in the legs, perhaps deep and heavy squatting, and then jog about throw yourself on the floor, hit a punch bag for 30 seconds, do some more squatting, then jogging etc. and repeat, repeat, repeat. That is why you see so few props really making punishing runs or tackles or turnovers. It is gut busting. 3. Props do far more than they ever did previously but if you can't scrum then you can't play prop. Certain players have conned their way through lengthy careers, but these players are exceptions to the rule. No scrum, no dice. To that extent the body shape requirements must remain constant and so whilst props may become incrimentally fitter their role will never really deviate. It is unlikely that we will ever see props regularly turning over ball at the ruck or chipping to the corner. Players like Hayman are one in a million but a player like Robinson may have not had the scrummaging capabilities of Hayman, thus it makes sense to set your stall out differently to other props. Take David Sole, for example. Not a monster scrummager, but a very good runner. He loved sevens, for instance. Jason Leonard did not like sevens but then he never got pushed off his own ball. If you can do what Robinson does then great, but the scrum must be numero uno on the props agenda. Everything else is a bonus.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
KO, geezzzz, You pronounce on The Roar and expect us to take you seriously and yet you are just an All Black Prop. Geezzz. I'm not listening or reading another thing you write. Jokes aside, thanks for blowing your cover and coming out. But, it will never be the same........... But, here is a serious question. When you compare the stats for props: 1. looseheads seem to do more work than tight heads around the park, tackles, runs, etc Why? 2. Why do both have, statistically, what appears to be such a low amount of involvement in the game in tackles, runs, etc? These questions arise because, on occasion, players such as Benn Robinson, will put in an effort that is far beyond his typical effort and those of other props. In the 2009 season, he has made 32 runs, 5 tackle busts, one off load, 49 tackles and two forced turnovers in seven games. So, on average, 4 runs a game, and 7 tackles a game. 3. Is the day coming where props of both persuasions do more around the park, stats wise, more general play involvement or is this already happening? Don't take this the wrong way. It is simply an observation (by a non tackling fullback) that needs a reality check. The stats I use are the Fox Sports fantasy comp stats.