When SANZAR introduced a number of Experimental Law Variations for the 2008 season, supporters were led to believe they would make rugby faster and more exciting to watch.
“We’re introducing the new laws to Super 14 to super-charge Super rugby,” ARU deputy CEO Matt Carroll gushed at the time.
“The SANZAR nations have always been at the forefront of the game and yet again SANZAR is to lead the world.”
Among the changes implemented was that backlines had to stand five metres back from the scrum and that quick throw-ins to lineouts were allowed to go backwards. All offences except offside and foul play were to be punished by a free kick rather than a penalty.
The main aim of the changes was to keep the ball in play longer with fewer stoppages and more running rugby, thereby creating a faster and more exciting style of play.
After two seasons of the anticipated adrenalin-charged rugby, has the promise been fulfilled?
It would be reasonable to expect that fast, exciting games would result in higher points scored and a greater number of tries. Let’s look at the evidence from the last ten seasons of Super rugby.
Firstly we have average points scored and average number of tries (in brackets) for teams which finished in the Top Four:
2000 31.9 (3.5)
2001 28.5 (2.9)
2002 34.3 (4.0)
2003 32.6 (4.2)
2004 29.8 (3.6)
2005 31.0 (3.8)
2006 28.0 (3.2)
2007 28.5 (3.3)
2008 23.2 (3.0)
2009 24.8 (3.0)
Looking at average points scored, we have the apparently perverse result that the application of the ELVs has resulted in significantly lower scorelines for the top teams.
The data on average number of tries is even more instructive. The high-water mark was reached in 2003 with an average of 4.2 tries being scored per team, after which it declined appreciably. 2006 is generally recognised as the year when defensive patterns became dominant. But there has been a further decline in the two ELV seasons.
The top teams are scoring fewer tries under the experimental laws.
The situation is quite different for the Bottom Four teams:
2000 22.6 (2.2)
2001 24.6 (2.5)
2002 20.8 (2.3)
2003 23.7 (2.6)
2004 24.7 (3.0)
2005 18.9 (2.2)
2006 18.2 (1.9)
2007 17.4 (1.6)
2008 18.8 (2.3)
2009 19.6 (2.5)
Since 2004 there has been a definite decline in both points and tries scored, but the introduction of the ELVs has apparently yielded an increased ability for lesser teams to score tries.
A possible reason for this could be the experimental rules taking a lot of structure out of the game; thereby introducing a greater element of chance.
But for many aficionados the great attraction of rugby is its complexity relative to other codes and the expectation that teams that master its structural requirements are rewarded.
Let’s look at the percentage of their games in which both the Top Four and Bottom Four teams earned a four try bonus (Top Four first):
2000 45.5 15.9
2001 36.4 27.3
2002 52.3 15.9
2003 61.4 29.5
2004 45.5 36.4
2005 45.5 15.9
2006 40.4 11.5
2007 40.4 7.7
2008 36.5 11.5
2009 34.6 26.9
Again it appears that Top Four teams have a lower propensity to earn a try-scoring bonus under the experimental laws. Although the pattern is less clear, it would seem that Bottom Four teams may be benefiting from the ELVs in terms of earning these bonuses.
A tentative conclusion is that rather than leading to more exciting rugby as measured by number of points and tries scored, the experimental laws have reduced the scoring margins between good and bad teams.
For those who prefer to watch close games this could be seen as increasing excitement. For the rest of us this is not necessarily a desirable outcome.
Yikes
Guest
Agreed. But it will only happen a few times before the referee bins a bloke and the player behaviour should change. Leading to quick ball. Whereas under your plan, Bakkies will be lying on the ball all day...
IronAwe
Guest
Waiting for the ref to do somethig about it = slower ball
Yikes
Guest
IronAwe - yes Bakkies would, eventually, and you would get slow ball because of it. Rucking player off the ball = slow ball.
Derm
Roar Guru
Let's face it - the ELVs were a crock of sh*t when it came to delivering on the hype of 'super-charged' rugby. Or improving the game sufficiently as an attraction to draw in better crowd numbers. I've read more pessimistic, negative comment on these forums from various people - 90% of whom at least are SH aficionados, commentators and fans of the rugby than I ever read or heard from what were meant to be the real anti-ELV brigade in the NH. The ELVs will be officially dead by the weekend - on May 23, according to the IRB. The revised Laws of the Game will start to take hold from that date, with I think only the S14 play-offs and final to have their last hurrah under the largely failed and flawed experiment. Roll on the Lions tour for matches to be played purely under the Laws of the Game, quickly followed by the 3N. Looking forward to them.
IronAwe
Guest
Yikes - Rucking would remove the player off the ball. 'Only a few stripes' doesnt mean it doesnt hurt, it just means theres no real damadge, which is true. They removed rucking to prevent injuries but injuries gained from rucking were always fairly superficial and not as bad as most of the head wounds some players sustain. It was probably just a trivial move to appease all the 'soccer mums' out there. If Bakkies was lying on the ball and a couple of forwards were rucking him, I promise you he would move, either from the rucking or of his own accord.
Yikes
Guest
The call to bring back rucking is a total furphy. If you want quick ball, rucking a player off the ball is not going to provide it. It is going to provide slow ball. The proponents of "bringing back rucking" cannot explain this fundamental contradiction in their position: 1) Noone was ever hurt rucking, only a few stripes! 2) Noone would be caught lying on the ball if you brought back rucking! One of these two points is obviously false. Because if you told Bakkies Botha that all he faced was a few harmless stripes on his back and he could slow the opposition ball, what decision do you think he's going to make? This leads to slow ball, not quick ball. Unless the referee intervenes, which he should be doing now anyway and so you haven't solved a thing.
JariusVII
Roar Rookie
I beleive that in a lot of the matches this year, i have seen teams preffering a high kick and chase game to gain metres than to punch it up. I think the reason behind this is that teams dont want to risk the possibility of giving away a quick tap free kick outside of the final third of the field. The ruck is a debacle with multiple infirngements from both sides at many breakdowns and i cannot recall ever seeing so many yellow cards produced for ruck infringements. With the maul as good as dead the options are limited. I say bring back rucking, as a player i know not to get caught with my hands on the wrong side, or any part of my body on the wrong side for that matter, as it will be dealt with by the opposition boots, letting the ref worry about more pressing issues. Probably not a popular idea, but these untidy infringement riddled rucks really arent doing the game any favours.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Bruce, very interesting analysis, and my understanding is that this is exactly the sort of data that the IRB looks at in evaluating the effect of law changes, etc. I have always said that the ELVs have delivered only incremental change (in the right direction) rather than seismic change, however your data challenges even this view. Some further wonderings from me (scientifically unsubstantiated!) would concern the role of referees in the scoring of tries. Specifically, a yellow card used to be a very heavy penalty in that it often resulted in the opposition scoring 2 tries while a side was down to 14 men. I have the impression that there are not as many yellow cards as before (with the exception of the odd match refereed by Matt Goddard!), and further, that in the age of organized defences, teams are now much better able to cope with having only 14 men to defend. So I'm wondering whether the decline in tries scored by the top sides is related to yellow cards. The point from Y about tiredness is unlikely in the sense that fitness levels are ever increasing (due to more knowledge and more professionalism), but on the other hand tiredness is also a consequence of the fierceness of the collisions, which is also ever increasing. So for me the jury is out on this idea.
Yikes
Guest
Bruce, interesting take. Your conclusions are indeed tentative, but thought provoking. Here's something to consider: could it be that rather than being due to a lack of structure, it could be due to increased tiredness of teams toward the end of games that allow losing teams to score? Not to mention that the lesser team in the table like to "play" the game using width and attacking flair. (You know, the way your recent article wants the Waratahs to play!) It could be this helps them score points, just not win games.