Bye Bye ELV'S and how will the game move on now?

[shasta]

i have been impressed with the two referee system thats been used in the NRL, maybe rugby union should look at this?

.

I like it so far in the NRL. But I've heard a few coaches being critical of differing "ruck" interpretations between the two. Matt Orford queried a referee during the game on Monday night about it. If that's difficult for players to adjust to in a League PTB imagine the confusion in a real ruck/maul. Not sure it could work.

[AndyS]

1. Pulling down the maul, its dangerous.

I was against it initially, but then strangely haven't seen a single injury anywhere result from mauls being pulled down...instead, this year has seen the rolling maul revived as an attacking weapon. I am actually sorry they killed it, because they were some of the best technical mauls I've seen.

last year the ELV's were great from the perspective of being at the game, the game was sped up and exciting...this year in particular this kicking from one end to the other has butchered the potential of the ELV's...

But they are the same ELVs. So either the tactics have evolved and if we waited another year new counter-tactics might come into play, or it is the referees that have changed their interpretations. If so, will they change back when the laws revert, or will we see even more kicking because the penalty for being caught in your own half will be a kick at goal rather than just a short-arm?

I would prefer they stayed with some kind of sanction for the kicking from one end to the other..

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see a law like:

Law XX.YY Aimless boring crap kicking
The ball may be kicked directly to touch for gain in both territory and possession provided:

• The ball has been caught on the full from an opposition kick in general play,
• A valid mark was not called,
• The ball is kicked by the catcher, and
• Neither the ball or catcher has contact with another player of either side prior to the kick

So it wouldn't apply for restarts, penalties and free-kicks, and wouldn't affect grubbers or territorial kick provided the ball hits the ground. It also wouldn't stop chips and up-and-unders, so long as there is a player at the fall of the ball (so, proper kick-chase). But it would put paid to rubbish box kicks that aren't contested and would definitely put an end to aimless kicks down the throat of the opposition back three - all you'd get for them is a defensive line-out and loss of territory.

[Burgs]

How about:

The team who initially kicks for field position may not kick a second time until after a ruck, maul or stoppage.
ie. I kick to you, you kick to me, I have to play it.

[AndyS]

So everyone will rush to be the first kick - it will be entirely a territory game then!

I prefer the idea that you kick it to me and I'm able to catch it on the full uncontested, you'll get it back with interest.

[Burgs]

That's the same thing isn't it? Just you are bragging about your kicking skills

The first kick wouldn't change in terms of charging in, nor would the second as he is hanging out in back play as usual.
That player has the choice to return (with interest if you're up for it ) the kick or run it back and play goes on.

If he kicks it back then the player recieving (not always the same as the first kick) still has the offside law to protect him. Perhaps make it he can mark as usual or kick for touch if in 22m.

[AndyS]

Read what I proposed again - if you kick to to me and I catch it on the full and unopposed anywhere on the field, then I can kick it direct to touch and get the line-out throw.

Even if I suck at kicking, that has to hurt.

[zimeric]

Read what I proposed again - if you kick to to me and I catch it on the full and unopposed anywhere on the field, then I can kick it direct to touch and get the line-out throw.

Even if I suck at kicking, that has to hurt.

nice idea but smacks of GAYFL to me

[AndyS]

How so? It is not a mark - I've only got until someone touches me to make the kick. And knowing that is the consequence of an aimless kick, would you actually kick it to me or would you run it? I suspect it would become an infrequently used law, because what kicking there was would have to be a lot better.

[Burgs]

I can't actually read that in your original sorry mate, but know what you are getting at now.
Yeah, I think there still has to be a place for a good up and under that goes wrong, it is the multiple end to end kicks that most don't like.
That's why I tried to find a way to focus on the number rather than the action.
Would be interesting to see how your variation played out as I can picture my own in play in my head.

[Burgs]

Oh hang on, rereading your post above mine it makes more sense sorry, thought you were refering to your post after my suggestion.

[AndyS]

How about this then:

White fullback gets the ball outside the 22 and just brainlessly dunts it down the field. Blue winger catches it, looks up and sees no chaser, runs forward 15m because there is no-one around and belts it into touch 20m out. Blue then gets the attacking line-out throw, while the white captain kicks the fullback's arse.

Next time he is not so bloody stupid. He runs the damn thing to contact, then chips over the top. The blue winger manages to catch the ball again, just before also catching the white fullback amidships. Even though blue wasn't held and got back to his feet, he can't kick for advantage because he has come into contact with another player.

He can still kick though, subject to normal rules. He sees some space behind the white defensive line and kicks to it for territory. The white wing picks it up in acres of open space, but he can't kick for advantage because he didn't catch it. So he runs forward, sticks up the big roost and hares after it.

The blue fullback catches it inside his 22, but has two players bearing down hard on him. His choices are to quickly try and kick for advantage despite being off-balance, call the mark and accept that his team won't get the lineout from the subsequent kick, or take on the chasers and kick for advantage provided he can escape completely untouched. He goes for the last, turns into his own player and makes a complete cock of everything. He can't call mark, he has touched another player and the cavalry has arrived.

Ball gets recycled though, going through a few phases before being passed back into the 22 to the blue flyhalf. Poor bugger has no chasers, a mass of players in front of him to try and pick his way through if he chips, no open space he can kick to, and no ability to kick for touch because the ball was passed back in. He can either run it, or he can kick aimlessly and risk the opposition catching and kicking to get a line-out ten metres from the try line (similar to where we started). He chooses...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current version:

White fullback gets the ball outside the 22 and just brainlessly dunts it down the field.

Blue winger catches it, looks up and sees no chaser, runs forward 15m and sticks up the up-and-under.

White fullback catches it and kicks far back over the oncoming players.

Blue fullback picks it up inside the 22 and blasts it straight back and into touch

Line-out to white, ball comes back and the winger chips through. Everyone piles on, blue recover the ball and pass back to the flyhalf inside the 22. He doesn't blink, he belts it as far down the middle as he can...







---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 16:01 ----------

Missed this one the other day

Media foul-up ruins IRB surprise
Wednesday 01st April 2009

The IRB has admitted that Tuesday's media reports regarding the latest round of ELV recommendations were leaked as part of an elaborate April 1 hoax, and that the likelihood is that all the ELVs, including many of the initially-rejected one such as allowing hands in the ruck, will be globally trialled from August 1 this year.

The reports on Tuesday suggested that many of the current ELVs being globally trialled would be abandoned after an IRB council meeting on May 13, with only a few retained.

But the admission of a media gatekeeping error by the game's governing body means that this will now almost certainly not be the case.

"We had wanted to get into the April 1 spirit, make a practical joke to lift people's spirits in what have become tough times for our game in the current economic climate," said President Leonard Basset.

"We wanted to tell everybody they were getting the old laws back, lull them into that false sense of security, then spring our surprise at midday and give the real story, which is that we will have a further and more extensive ELV trial later this year.

"We just failed to take into account the time differences. Initially, we wanted the joke to start in New Zealand, but of course, early April 1 in Auckland is still late March 31 in the UK, South Africa and USA, so we tried to stop the 'leak'.

"It proved too late. Now the story has broken in those countries on a more serious day and everybody is taking them seriously.

"I can only apologise on behalf of the IRB and set the matter straight as of now. But it would have been so funny had you really thought the ELVs were going to be abandoned! Can you imagine?"

So, in actual fact, there will be a further global trial of all the current ELVs from August 1. Additionally, several other ELVs will be implemented.

They are:

Sanctions - All offences, ranging from serious foul play to being caught swearing to oneself on the stadium big screen and television replay, shall be punished with a free-kick.

Tackle and ruck - Players on their feet may play the ball with their hands.

Tackle and ruck - Players on their hands may play the ball with their feet.

Tackle and ruck - Referees will be assisted by new technology in the stadium lights which will immediately shine onto the pitch those snazzy yellow lines they use in television replays, to help them determine the presence of a gate and offside line.

Line-out and throw - Incorrect throw (not straight) the sanction is that a cow will be wheeled onto the pitch backside first, whereupon the offending hooker will be presented with a banjo and asked to strike the cow firmly on its posterior. If successful, the hooker may attempt the throw again.

The news is sure to cause embarrassment not only to the IRB, but also to the Unions who issued press releases on March 31 iterating their delight at the 'decision' to abandon the ELVs.

Planet Rugby rang the offices of the RFU for comment but were told nobody knew where Rob Andrew was, or for that matter, what he does.

However, in one interesting development, IRB referees' Manager Brady O Prein revealed that as he had become such a loyal, to-the-letter-of-the-laws servant fo the ELVs, Matt Goddard was to be appointed ELV ambassador for New Zealand and would head up the new ELV appreciation and development panel there ahead of the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,1...126767,00.html

[Flamethrower]

Nice cover up.

Maybe it should read, "We thought this was how the game should be, so we released the info. There was such an uproar that we are trying to use April 1 as an out!!"

[Burgs]

Yeah, I'm wondering which is the actual April Fools, the original or the "haha, gottya"!

Andy, wouldn't the version I give overcome the current situation as "white" wouldn't be able to have the second kick, at least until contact, so therefore the rest of the scenario wouldn't play out?
Basically, "You've got one shot chum, make it count".
I actually enjoy the first two kicks of a kicking "dual", it is the third and onwards without contact that shits me to tears, along with every Forward on the planet!
So in other words, I don't think it is the strategy that needs regulating, just the consecutive repetition without contact.

[AndyS]

I really liked "Players on their hands may play the ball with their feet". But couldn't help wondering whether the illuminated offside lines might actually be technically feasible...

On the kicking, we are a bit different because I see any kick downfield that can be caught unopposed as lazy play and a waste of possession. It is not a duel, it is a game kids play down the beach - find some open space to kick it into, or run the damn thing.

The problem I'd see with regulating the number of kicks would be that the ref would have to keep two running tallies in his head all the time (blue is on one, white is on none, oh, tackle but not held, still 1-0, oh, ruck, now it is none all, oh, chip over the top, 0-1,...). The other question would be what constitutes a kick for field position - is it any kick, or is the ref expected to continually differentiate a kick for territory from a long up-and-under? It was one of the reasons I went down the path I did, as it would be fairly easy for the ref to just monitor caught on the full and has the player been touched.

What is bloody irritating is that we can come up with two ways to combat the aimless kicking that has become prevalent, yet they can't come up with any. Fair enough they didn't perhaps foresee the increase in kicking, but then there was no mechanism for adjusting the ELVs to compensate. Instead, it was blame a law you don't like and then recommend it be dropped.

[Flamethrower]

I don't mind a good kicking duel where there are two good Fullbacks trading long raking kicks, waiting to see who's nerve or skills will crack first.

It's the pointless bombing the ball with no plan that gives me the shits.

If you are going to put the ball on the boot, make it worth it. If you can't gain territory or turn the opposing back three around, don't bother.