An Australian-driven cheats' charter

[travelling_gerry]

The ELVs have received a positive response in the Super 14 - but
northern hemisphere countries believe they will destroy rugby
union, writes Paul Ackford in London.

Enjoy your rugby while you can for the remainder of this season because from August the game as we know it now may cease to exist.

On Thursday, the International Rugby Board will vote on a series of experimental law variations that, if implemented, will dramatically affect the way rugby is played, will heap an intolerable educational burden on all those splendid, unpaid officials who referee the community game in all areas of Europe, and will pander to those who believe that rugby is a sport where ball-in-play time and try-counts are the only indicators of value. Crazy.

The prospect is so appalling that British Premiership directors of rugby, referees and Rugby Football Union officials, never the most compatible of bedfellows, have collaborated in an alliance of condemnation against the proposed changes. Leading figures in Wales and Ireland are also dead set against the variations, which have been driven by Australia and trialled (some of them) in this year's Super 14 competition.

Examined in isolation, the ELVs may not appear too damaging. There is general agreement that a move to prevent teams passing the ball back into the 22 to kick to touch is sound. Initiatives to relax the law regarding quick line-out throws and to impose a five-metre offside line at scrums are also welcome. Armageddon, though, comes wrapped in the revolution that "if a ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free-kick" coupled with the desire to see that "for all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate and foul play, the sanction is a free-kick".

Senior English referees are convinced that these last two amendments amount to a cheats' charter.

"I studied two matches in which these were in operation and it was chaos," said one official. "The normal Premiership encounter averages around 18 free-kicks and penalties. When the Stormers played the Crusaders there were 11 penalties and 22 free-kicks; when the Bulls played the Crusaders the figures were 16 penalties and 11 free-kicks. In one eight-minute spell, four penalties and four free-kicks were awarded. The ELVs might offer the illusion that the game is speeding up but it is so frantic it's all rather pointless."

The ELVs are the work of the 10-strong IRB laws project group, which was set up following the 2003 World Cup and includes Rod Macqueen, the former Wallabies World Cup-winning coach, Pierre Villepreux, one of the great French backs coaches, and Graham Mourie, a distinguished All Blacks flanker of the 1980s. Their objectives were threefold: greater clarity for players, officials and spectators; increased enjoyment; and a desire to see the results of matches influenced by players rather than officials.


The mistake they made was to begin with the premise that the game as played now is flawed. It isn't, and the IRB themselves should know that better than most, given the plethora of congratulatory press releases they flung out following the "most successful World Cup ever".

And that's just the start of the madness. On Thursday, representatives from the European nations will be asked to vote on something they have not witnessed first-hand at professional level. The only evidence for ushering in a series of changes has come from the Super 14 competition between the leading provinces of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, a competition which takes place in conditions and between teams which bear no relation to the rugby played in the northern hemisphere.

What's more, the Super 14 boys themselves have been so mistrustful of some ELVs (handling in the ruck, the ability to collapse a maul) that they chose not to trial them at all. Even some of the ones they have implemented have not found universal affection.

"The first couple of games I played under these new rules caused me a few problems," Springboks breakaway Schalk Burger said. "The different refereeing at the breakdown worried me, and I found it a bit of a shambles."

And that's from a man put up in IRB literature as a supporter of the ELVs. In fact, Burger, unwittingly, may have nailed the biggest issue facing rugby. It's not the complexity of the game that is the problem. Deconstruct that and you might as well do away with rugby union altogether.


Telegraph, London

http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...e#contentSwap1

[chibi]

All of a sudden its a Southern Hemisphere thing. All I can see is us having to re-adjust for the test season, which probably shows our naivety in adopting ELVs for the S14. Makes you wonder too, when we just saw a Rugby World Cup where success was measured by teams who generally kicked the ball away, surely there's something a little flawed with the game at the moment?

The main problem I can see with the ELVs at the moment is that a team stuck in their own half can't have a relieving penalty to get them out of their defensive third; but likewise, it does prevent non-creative teams the ability to play dour, territory-only football and rack up points from fidgetty, random penalties. I suppose its a double-edged sword, and I may not agree with all the changes by any means; but when you see guys like Ackford, Stephen Jones and the rest of the London lunkheads feeling threatened and writing such reactionary stuff , you start to feel that maybe we're on the right track. After all, most of the refereeing directives and subtle law changes since 1998 or so have been to the detriment of the game as an adventurous, open affair, with countries like France and Australia (at the time) being the most affected in the negative sense. (Anyone remember the "anti-Brumbies" directives?)

If there was anything I wish was back in the game, just for a little while, I would love to have seen the likes of Dallaglio, Neil Back and Martin Johnson (and Scott Quinell during the Lions tour) getting their fingers rucked to the bone everytime they held the ball in the ruck on the deck!

(Not that I'm being spiteful or anything!)

[gustafsl]

I like the argument that there must be flaws in the new laws because there are more free kicks and penalties awarded under them.

Could it be that referees are actually more willing to penalise infractions because they know it is only a free kick and not a free 3 points???

I would argue that the new laws actually make it harder to cheat than the old laws. The only problem you could have, and it has been noted before, is that some teams seem to take advantage of it only being a free kick, so if they are in trouble, may purposely slow the ball down.

[Ecky]

I like the argument that there must be flaws in the new laws because there are more free kicks and penalties awarded under them.

Could it be that referees are actually more willing to penalise infractions because they know it is only a free kick and not a free 3 points???

I would argue that the new laws actually make it harder to cheat than the old laws. The only problem you could have, and it has been noted before, is that some teams seem to take advantage of it only being a free kick, so if they are in trouble, may purposely slow the ball down.

There is the capacity to escalate the free kick if the offence was determined to be "cynical" (you know, like a tackled defender hanging on to the ball when he's right on his own goal line) to a penalty kick. I must say that I have, up to now, been reluctant to do that. In my game last Sat (Wests v Cott 2nds) I should have on two separate occasions but my first reaction was simply to FK the offenders. I have learned from this and resolve not to be so lenient in future games. So watch out youse guys who get me for the remainder of this season - and beyond!

Generally though, there seems to be the view that there's more flexibility on "only" giving a FK precisely because 3 points aren't on offer. We, as referees, need to get over this and rule accordingly, whether it's cynical or simply because it's repeat infringements, which is Law 10 Foul Play and can be accompanied by a yellow card. That should stop the thinking teams from slowing the pill down...