Rugby needs rules overhaul, says Henry

Interesting anecdote. Typical Irish, always got a story to tell.

You make me blush, stillmissit. Don't worry, I'm not a cricket fan either.

1. Then why would you refer to the ELVs? Why did Henry not refer to the ELVs? I can guess why. 2. That's complete speculation. I would suggest that you have absolutely no comprehension of the inner mental workings of a top NH coach. McGeechan, for example, said the ELVs were shambolic because they made teams more conservative, something that was borne out during last year's 3N. Anyhow, more to the point you cannot suggest that the NH undermined the ELVs when the SH rejected the key ELV 'hands in the ruck' rule. It's completely hypocritical. Don't you grasp that it was the right of the NH, in a democratic union, to reject the ELVs if they saw fit? 3. The Lions were incompetent? That's immature petulance. The Lions played some truly excellent rugby, which is probably why they captured the heart and mind of Australia's greatest ELV champion and most obvious 'Pom' basher, Mr Spiro Zavos. I would suggest that you check over some of the scores and some of the matches because you are badly misinformed. Regardless, the motivation of the Lions was to play a quick and loose game, and that is the key point. No such mentality exists in Australia. 4. The NH was proven right. The ELVs were nonsensical. Every change that as critiqued by the NH coaches rang true and they were, as I say, proven right. In any case, the NH could take in the Super 14 and form opinions from that. It's rather fascistic to state that nobody can form an opinion on something unless they have experienced it. 5. No, it was played with the short arm. The wonderful rule that sped up the SH game to a point of vibrant exhilaration. N.B. It is obvious to the most nascent rugby fan that nobody will copy SA and for myriad reasons. The first being that SA has always played in this manner, and no other teams copied them before. Teams play to their strengths. Hence Argentina has always played a similar game, and France, Ireland, Wales and Fiji do not. Martin Johnson's first act as England coach was to tell his players to do what they wanted. That failed badly so he streamlined the approach of the team and the improve was obvious. No mauling, no big booming kicks, just accurate counter attacking. Why? Because the England pack lacks heavy artillery like Thompson, Grewcock, Corry or Dallaglio and because the back division lacked the siege gun boot of Wilkinson. It is obvious, therefore, that teams evolve and play to their ever-shifting strengths.

Pothale - glad that we are on the same page and no you didn't miss anything in the 'Sp just for you' It was corrected in your post! Very politically aware of you, no wonder your lot got the non ELV's you wanted. I too will look forward to the end of year tests (hope they get televised) although we all know what the results will be. Although SANZAR 123 is some small comfort only the SA's are happy with their lot at the moment.

Stillmissit. Ok - that's your theory. Glad you finally got my point. I don't agree with your assumption, though. Declan Kidney or Marc Lievremont as sycophants? Don't make me laugh. I couldn't think of two individuals who are more unlikely candidates. Don't forget the NH has a long history of playing penalty kick-fests - because we've been doing it for much longer than SA have, (according to the SH commentators) and we have already come through that phase. It won't last. SA are just working through coming to grips with having a maul again. Aus and NZ have just thrown their toys out of the pram cos they can't compete at the moment. But it'll all even out in the end, don't worry. The scoreboard will still read 1,2,3 in favour of SANZAR at the end of the year, and everyone can look forward to what Santa will bring for the New Year. PS - SA will be coming to town in November - they haven't been since 2006. Am looking forward to it. Should be a cracking match of rugby. PPS - Ashes? What are they? Cricket is for nancy boys round these parts, I'm afraid. PPPS - What does 'Sp just for you' mean? Did I miss something?

Pothale - Its late over there and you must be pissed after the Ashes win assuming Ireland gives 'a'. To clear the decks for you as I can see I need to make it crystal before the point comes across, just so that you dont miss it. Coaches are by and large psychophantic (Sp just for you) bastards who follow one another around like cattle. If one of them seems to have an advantage and who can argue that the SA have an advantage at the moment then QED - You will have seven forwards boring down on your poor bastard back who was stupid enough to catch the ball and belt the crap out of him so that he wont do it again. Please enjoy! BTW even if you dont start SA's 'radical' plan this winter as I am not sure if SA is touring Europe this autumn then sure as hell you will get it next one. I am betting on the 09/10 plan as 2011 is coming around.

Stillmissit - if you want to berate me, then at least be accurate in your berating. I didn't say "you misunderstand the point" I said you 'miss the point' of what I was trying to say. Those are two different statements. One is not understanding it. The other is not seeing the point at all (because you're focussed on another aspect of the debate or argument.) Leaving that aside, I actually wanted to respond and say - who made you God to tell me what I should and shouldn't preface my remarks with? But I won't. You might misunderstand the point. :) So instead why not respond to what I asked you. The NH unions already played under some of the ELVs already this year. Of those that they played, some of them were retained. The rolling maul was reinstated - to cheers from most rugby supporters, not just NH ones. The only thing that people seem to identify with the ELVs is the free kick sanction. And there were complaints about those as well from every quarter - not just NH unions. Most of the NH unions didn't trial them. So nothing in the Laws of the game has changed substantially for the NH unions since the beginnng of the year. Why assume that they would suddenly start copying the way SA play? Some of them may only play SA once or twice a year at test level - they've little influence on the game in NH at club level. Aus and NZ are getting their knickers knotted over three games - some perspective is needed.

Pothale - both you and Knives Out make great and worthwhile comments here and I for one enjoy them. Please dont preface your quotes with "You misunderstand the point" you are both guilty as charged. We do understand the bloody point!

Yeah, but you miss the point, stillmissit. Why would you assume NH coaches will copy the SA way, when their own way works for them. For example, sticking with my own country, why would Kidney change the way Ireland plays having won the Grand Slam - allowing that new players will come in obviously? Italy might attempt it given their forward dominance, and lack of backline play. Horses for courses. SA play their way, cos it works for them. It doesn't follow that everyone will copy them. Surely you find a way to counter their play, as the Lions demonstrated during the series, and acknowledged by commentators on here. If nothing has changed for the NH unions - as you believe - then the ball-in-hand rugby they played last season will continue. NZ and Aus may have changed the way they play - not everybody else.

Who's getting smug? Don't think any SH commentators are - not that I've read on here. They've been wonderfully realisitic about performances to date. I wouldn't have thought Henry would be able 'to prove a thing or two' by beating any of the NH teams this year since they're even poorer quality opposition than the Wallabies or SA. 'We weren't able to beat the teams around us, but we're still able to beat the teams lower than us' isn't exactly something to crow about.

Absolutely Thelma. Only while they're moderated though.

Pothale And their covert sympathizers? :-)

Knives OUt - to answer your obviously obtuse points: 1. This is axiomatic as he is referring to law changes. 2. There were 2 different laws as your lot would not experiment with a rule change you considered you didn't need as the current laws suit your style of play you assume, without any practical knowledge whatsoever. 3. As I, like most in Australia don't watch any NH rugby apart from tests I can only comment on what I have seen. The Lions were incompetent for most of the matches. You can argue that Australia is the same OK. 4. To question and reject is fine assuming you have tried them. The NH did not do this. Boring and predictable, in fact I stated at the start of the ELV's that the NH would not accept any new ideas and I was howled down as being anti NH and even racist. 5. The last tri nations WAS boring as it was played under the old rules with the insignificant changes approved by the IRB in fact I struggle to see any comparison with the ELV's I watched and what is currently dealt up. See my reply to Pothale re coaches moving to the SA model of winning.

Lets wait and see how the NH tours go in November before we starting getting too smug, this is indeed intended for our NH bretheren sitting very smug up there I see even though the record against the South is below average. I would expect a few close calls but don't for a second think Henry and the ABs won't be out to prove a thing or two should they not win the Tri-Nations.

Pothale - Of course there are no changes you got the no changes you wanted. Very boring and very conservative. I am assuming that coaches being what coaches are will copy the South Africans tactic and go to the air with lots of chasers. I am looking forward to seeing what pleasure you get out of watching this level of boredom but given my xenophobic comment above I am assuming you will enjoy it.

Sorry mate but if anything this years NPC alone proves your statement to be a load of misguided tripe. the crowds are getting bigger and bigger. If anything New Zealanders are rediscovering their passion for the game. Please do not try to denegrate New Zealand rugby to make your post seem more newsworthy

If it wasn't for some very inept reffing the Naki would've won that game katzilla so I wouldn't sit there all smug champ because I don't remeber your side winning the match either. Actually I recall your much vaunted team relenquishing a 12 pt lead. Do explain Ranga-ism

QC. Although the Naki has the lowest player base they have the highest incident of Ranga-ism. Maybe thats why they feel like the ignored kid in the corner? Go the Magpies! Congrats on your win over us lol.

Last night's game was entertaining in the last quarter. The game was a spectacle because the score was close, and any team could have one. There was plenty of aimless kicking and "ball in hand" rugby that resembled headless chickens running around in circles. Bottom line, Aus and NZ are just not very good right now.

Pip - Would that include NH posters as well? :)