It's time to commit to running rugby again

The time it takes for goal kicking and then restarts is the thing that pains me! non-rugby people always whinge to me that they hate rugby becuase it is so "stop-start". ELV's definitely had flaws but at least they were a step in the right direction, every sport modifies its rules, why is union so different?

OJ are you real?? and what game of rugby do you follow, the ruck is governed by law 16 with seven sub sections, so how the other 21 laws can help a defending team at the ruck is beyond me, the facts are this SH players, refs and supporters are playing some sort of hybrid rules ie what you don't like in the real world of rugby you change to suit, maybe it's too hard to coach, play and watch the actual the game with the actual rules, this is proven by the fact that every time McCaw and Smith hit the ruck they do not stay on their feet, hence penalty against, check out Law 16.3 (a), in the SH your Unions and your ref's are to blame for allowing changes to suit TV and its non rugby audiences, if anyone out there either in the NH or SH can't comprehend the game in the in the simple format of the 22 laws, get another sport and leave ours alone.

If the ball is still in the ruck, there are opportunities for the defending side to win the ball. These opportunities are governed by the 22 existing laws. To say you can't win turnover ball without hands in the ruck isn't true.

Thousands of hours. NH refs shouldn't ref Test matches between SH countries and vice versa. SANZAR should just use their Super 14 refs for the Tri-Nations regardless of whether they're on the elite panel or whatever they call the top referees. I do not like watching a NH referee's interpretation of the SH game.

Ooop's OJ,if the ball is out of the ruck, it's out, so what's your point!!!, the above scenario is ball still in the ruck, are you getting confused again with interpretation and law???

You're on form today. Careful, too much of that wit and you may well be labelled a 'pretentious wanker', and I may well also be labelled that simply through association. Elephants don't forget!

And in response - SH reffing goes something like this: Oh, oh a NH player has got the ball in his hands - that can't be right. Phweep - Penalty! Oh, oh the scrum keeps collapsing - must be the NH team. Phweep - Penalty! ruck formed, NH have got turnover - Phweep penalty. No way the NH team could have got that legally. NH have scored a try - Phweep - consult touch judge - Phweep - must have been foot in touch - lineout to opposition. Etc, etc.

You must have spent hundreds of hours scanning all games over the past two seasons that included NH referees and touch judges to have reached such a firm conclusion, OJ. Why bother investing so much of your time when you could as easily just offered some banal stereotype?

Could you maybe explain that again? NH reffing goes something like this -- team A going forward in attack, player tackled goes to ground, ruck forms, slow/or quick ball coming out, defenders see ball is out of the ruck and attempt a legitimate turnover, ref thinks that can't be right and awards a nonsense penalty. Touch judge says nothing, replays are damning.

Here's a scenerio for all to ponder regards the ELV's and attacking rugby, team A going forward in attack, player tackled goes to ground ruck forms, slow/or quick ball coming out the attacking Halfback put his hands into the ruck retrieves the ball, delivers a pass and Team A continues to attack=continuity, defending team B see the ball in the ruck BUT ARE NOT ALLOWED to put their hand in to retrieve the ball because it's against the law???, how then do we get turnover in some rucks outwith a knock-on and it's play on?? Hmmm, the ELV's did not address the key issue of the referees abilty manage any such incident, the above being just one of them, NH refs have in the main tried to stick with the 22 laws that are the governance of the game, hence SH disapointment of decision making by them, a law is a law, the confusion arises by people who try and interpretate and then fail to understand the original concept.

There can still be penalties given in a rugby league scrum although they are now rare since rugby league improved the scrum.

Full marks, Pothale. What's your billing address? This crusty old NH rugby fan spat out his dentures and lost his wig upon reading the above.

Hmmmm....... Why do we continue to humour the bloated opinions of know all know nothings such as SledgeandHammer on this site? Sledge claims that the majority of the ELVs were voted into permanent law changes, and yet ignorantly forgets to mention that the critical ones like pulling down maul, free kick sanctions were dropped . By his own definition Sledge must think that rugby itself is now acceptablel? Or perhaps it’s just his typical lack of logic. The reality is we don’t need to start awarding more points for tries, or any other left field changes. There is a tried and tested solution right in front of us - play the game by the Laws that have been adopted by all countries. Opposition to them from officials and fans from the SH countries should be treated with the contempt they deserve. And no, this is not an anti SH rant. One of the biggest detractors of the ELVs I ever met was a grubby old man who had lived for many years in Ireland, and whose son coached one of the clubs team in Dublin. He also happened to be Australian. I asked him why his brothers in the South were so blindly supportive of the ELVs and he gave me a simple answer - parochialism. It seems many of the small minded folk who spoke for the ELVs were judging the new laws purely on the perceived benefit they would have for their own county’s playing fortunes. The good of the game came a big second.

Do try and play the ball and not the man. 'KO claims that he ELVs were laughable from conception, and yet ignorantly forgets to mention that the majority of the ELVs were voted into permanent law changes. By his own definition KO must think that rugby itself is now laughable? Or perhaps it’s just his typical lack of logic.' That is incorrect logic. It just doesn't work or make any sense, I'm afraid. The two aren't connected. You conveniently forget to mention that the the controversial ELVs were rejected and the ones kept were already de facto, such as gripping in the lineout. 'The reality is we don’t need to start awarding more points for tries, or any other left field changes. There is a tried and tested solution right in front of us - bring back the sanctions ELV. Given the NH countries (aside from Scotland and France) didn’t trial this law, the opposition to it from officials from the NH countries should be treated with the contempt they deserve.' This doesn't work either, I'm afraid. You previously stated that ELVs were voted in which suggests that there was a democratic process. If that is the case then no rugby nation should be treated 'with the contempt they deserve' simply because they don't deserve any, as defined by their right to vote for or against. The NH was completely within rights to act as it did. 'And no, this is not an anti English rant. One of the biggest champions of the ELVs I ever met was a crusty old rugby man who had played for many years in England and Canada, and whose son coached one of the Eastern Suburbs clubs teams in Sydney. He also happened to be English. I asked him why his brothers in the North were so against the ELVs and he gave me a simple answer - parochialism. It seems many of the small minded folk who spoke against the ELVs were judging the new laws purely on the perceived benefit they would have for their own county’s playing fortunes. The good of the game came a big second.' Well, I'm glad that this one man can speak for the entire anti-ELV group. What wondrous logic. Obviously Warren Gatland, Eddie Jones, Declan Kidney, Ian McGeechan, Victor Matfield and Fourie du Preez are all very narrow minded too. Back to the drawing board for you, sledgeandhammer.

"There is a tried and tested solution right in front of us - bring back the sanctions ELV" Are you suggesting they worked? Because from where I was watching, they didn't. Many people on here stated so as well. Suddenly, there's been a couple of bad tri-nation games and people are clambering for the return of the ELV's.

I'd like to hear Pothale's ideas about improving the game.

England did the same against Scotland. The France v Wales game was v.good also, as was the Ireland v France game. I didn't say that that made the game any better than in the SH, but I can't see the point in an aimless criticism of NH rugby. Nobody has said NH is excellent, in fact Colin N has openly stated his criticism of the past two 6N's, but just because people are happy with their lot does not mean they cannot see any room for improvement.

The England match was one game. I also thought Ireland winning a Grand Slam was brilliant. Don't see how that makes the rugby up North any better than what we've seen in the past two Tri-Nations.

The game is not quick at a scrum. Not being an ex-forward, I usually hope that someone like Phil Kearns will be able to explain some of the more mysterious decisions. He's a bit more qualified than me. But Phil seems as mystified as the rest of us a lot of the time.

Why do we continue to humour the bloated opinions of know all know nothings such as KO on this site? KO claims that he ELVs were laughable from conception, and yet ignorantly forgets to mention that the majority of the ELVs were voted into permanent law changes. By his own definition KO must think that rugby itself is now laughable? Or perhaps it's just his typical lack of logic. The reality is we don't need to start awarding more points for tries, or any other left field changes. There is a tried and tested solution right in front of us - bring back the sanctions ELV. Given the NH countries (aside from Scotland and France) didn't trial this law, the opposition to it from officials from the NH countries should be treated with the contempt they deserve. And no, this is not an anti English rant. One of the biggest champions of the ELVs I ever met was a crusty old rugby man who had played for many years in England and Canada, and whose son coached one of the Eastern Suburbs clubs teams in Sydney. He also happened to be English. I asked him why his brothers in the North were so against the ELVs and he gave me a simple answer - parochialism. It seems many of the small minded folk who spoke against the ELVs were judging the new laws purely on the perceived benefit they would have for their own county's playing fortunes. The good of the game came a big second.