Better Rugby Rules

Source: Not beautiful, but this proved an intense and absorbing game – George Chuter

Not the most beautiful and free-flowing of games, but these big finals rarely are. There’s not much arguing with the excitement it generated, though, another intensely fought contest between two of Europe’s best sides. I fancied Munster beforehand, but by half time I was beginning to think Toulouse would swing it.

They needed to score early in the second half, which they did, a classic French try. It makes you wonder why they don’t always play that way. French sides in general seem to have tempered their instinct for running rugby with something more practical, but it’s when they cut loose, as Cedric Heymans did for their try in the second half, that you think they might be impossible to live with.

We at Leicester went down to Toulouse earlier on in the competition for one of our pool games, and they played a similar sort of way, taking us on up front. They did a good job, as it turned out, and we lost. It’s a harsh place to go when the crowd are up and they get those bands playing.

But their fans aren’t great at travelling, and maybe that’s why the French teams have a reputation for the same. The crowd in the Millennium Stadium were overwhelmingly Irish. But the myth of the French travelling badly has been exploded lately, not least by Toulouse, who have won this title three times, and each one has been on foreign soil.

They could have won here again – it was close enough to have been a bit of a lottery – but Munster’s management of the game was superior come the end.

Both sides may have been helped by the pools they were in. A bit like the World Cup, the finalists had each emerged from a testing pool. Australia were a good example there – they hadn’t had a proper contest and the way Canada challenged them physically in their last pool game was what tipped us off that there may be a weakness if we went for them.

Similarly, if you’re in one of the Heineken Cup’s weaker pools, it can lead to the development of bad habits as you cruise past teams in a way that is unrealistic come crunch time. It was obvious from yesterday’s game that this did not apply to either side.

I don’t know if it is anything to do with the World Cup, but you could argue that this year’s Heineken Cup has been a bit cagier than previous events, which doesn’t have to be a bad thing. No one really wants to see teams canter off into the distance without earning their right to victory. You want to see contests, and you want to see imperfections and mistakes as people deal with the pressure.

Casual fans may not have seen too much to recommend yesterday, but, as anyone who has watched and played the game for a long time would, I found it absorbing. It’s a sensitive matter these days with the Experimental Law Variations due to come in next season, introduced to make the game more marketable. The game is struggling for exposure in Australia, for example, where rugby union comes third or fourth in the nation’s sporting interests.

But yesterday we saw a game that threw up a lot of the things that make our game different from Aussie rules or rugby league – the intricacies of the set piece and at the breakdown, the ruck and the maul. These could go south if the laws change.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about it being a directive dreamt up by the Australians, and I have no idea if that is true. But, up here, the game has never been in better shape, not only in terms of the entertainment but in terms of the numbers watching it. So the obvious thing to ask is, why change it?

But it’s happening, and it is a challenge for us up here to make something of it. There will be a lot of confusion as players and referees get used to it, but, who knows, if it all pans out as it says on the tin, it could end up making things more exciting. Then again, we don’t have the mild winters they have in Australia, and short of playing with a beach ball no law changes are going to do anything about having to take on the English winter. But if Leicester can be holding the Heineken Cup this time next year after a 58-43 win in the final I won’t care what laws we were playing under.

Leicester hooker George Chuter has played 21 times for England

And there is nothing wrong with this type of game either, it seams the rugby world is split and for good reason. Please read Foundation posts found under pages, thanks.

Source: Crusaders-Force great advert for the ELVs– Spiro Zarvos

Critics of the ELVs complain that they bring union closer to league. This is a woeful misreading of the variations. If you want to look for a similar football code to ELVs-rugby, that code is Australian football. Like AFL, ELVs-rugby features a continual contest for possession of the ball. Turnovers are frequent. Play can move frenetically up and down the field. Teams that can exploit the turnovers are able to score points quite rapidly.

Play can move up and down the field frenetically, with no structure looking like touch football. Rugby union should not be following AFL, and the more ELV rugby I watch I can see where Rod McQueen got his inspiration from. They instead should look at American Football for there extensive use of strategies.

AFL is not a game for all shapes and sizes and I would suggest nor is ELV rugby, I have seen more locks acting like loose forwards than ever before. The above quote represents what the ARU wants, to have a product that will tease fans over from AFL and NRL. I know that the NZ rugby public (well those over 35 plus years of age, those under don’t have enough viewing experience) don’t like the force back and touch football style of ELV rugby, as it requires no more challenge than kick and chase or run and bash, and who ever misses a tackle or drops the ball looses.

Please dont tell me that you didnt see that type of game in the Super 14 semi finals, I did, and more on that subject latter.

Source: More tries and action, thanks to trial laws– Greg Growden

Statistics Super 14 season 2007 vs 2008 (91 matches)

NOTE: (1) These statistics are under 13 and not the full 23 ELVs. Excluded are the ELV laws for lineouts, mauls and hands in the ruck. (2) Average game time is in minutes.

Lets report this with two types of spin, first the ELV cheerleader, and second the objective skeptic.

The ELV Cheerleader: Tries are up 13% per game, with less involvement from the referee determining the game as penalties are down 37%, this must be good as the ball is in play longer by 9% with only a little increase in rucks and mauls by 9%. This must mean more action and an endorsement of the ELVs for our northern friends. With plenty of scrums and lineouts to maintain rugby union identity, these ELVs must be good.

The Objective Skeptic: Lets assume that 40% of all lineouts are long (or have 16 players involved), so we can now calculate the percentage of structured play.

• -Structured Play Defined: Forwards and backs completely separated
• -Structured Play for 2007: (20+(31*.40)) / (137+20+31) = 17.2%
• -Structured Play for 2008: (20+(26*.40)) / (148+20+26) = 15.5%
• -Formula : (Scrums  + Full Lineouts)/(Scrums + All Lineouts + Rucks and Mauls)

As the ELV Committee started with a blank piece of paper they had every opportunity to improve this statistic. It is this statistics which allows rugby union to have its point of difference from rugby league. The lower it is the lower the point of difference.

The above statistics for 2008 means that 15.5% of the 36 minutes game time was allocated to structured play (forwards and backs were completely separated), the remaining time was available for players to be in non structured play (forwards in the back line, mixed roles). It’s the growth of the player mixed roles which is eroding rugby union identity, and as you correctly say ‘Whats the big deal, structured play has only fallen 1.7% !”. I say this statistic should be at least 25%, as this falling figure sees union getting very close to its cousin league, and this is the reason why the northern view the southern style as ‘glorified touch football’. 

The reason why I harp on about structured play on this blog consistently is because you need structure to:

• – reset play for fresh execution of tactics
• – separate forwards and backs to allow a demand for their roles
• – ensure the specialised skills are not diminished through lack of use
• – ensure that the game remains for all shapes and sizes.

Yes it is nice (at first) to have more tries and game time, but just because the movie goes on for longer and has more explosions does not mean it’s better, it’s always the story line that leaves an impression. Therefore rugby union focus should not be on more tries, but on how to make the tries scored more interesting. This is done by ensuring rugby union has a wide variety of styles, tactics and characteristics. This is achieved by having the percentage of structured play above 25% per game. I recommend you review my ELV amendments to see how I would do this.

The selection of 40% for long lineouts would be only 10% if the new ELV laws for lineouts was operational. This would lower the level of structured play even further.

(Please read posts Chess vs Checkers , and other Foundation posts for further explanation).

Source: Henry relieved at lift in standards – Graham Henry

All Blacks coach Graham Henry is relieved that the Super 14 spluttered into life after enduring six weeks of what he described as shapeless rugby

“The game has a lot more shape now than it initially had,” Henry told NZPA.

“We were worried about the amount of turnover ball we saw, teams were going backwards and forwards without any sort of structure. We didn’t see any territorial pressure and continuity.”

MY COMMENTS: While the TV media (NZ: Sky TV) was cheer-leading the ELVs Mr Henry could see the dark side of the new laws. Sure some games are better now (only a little) due to the fact that the smart teams have worked out that you need structure to launch an attack and that the ‘touch football’ approach was fruitless. This is why I recommend my ELV amendments, to allow more structure back into the game, not only to help the attacking team, but also to save the teams from themselves and the fan from going nuts watching a sprawling mess run around the field like a shapeless swam of bees (or glorified touch football as the north call it).

Therefore a poor ELV game is one that goes “backwards and forwards without any sort of structure”  (and we will see a lot more of these games, as the less talented teams will fall into this style of play very easily, yuk), I/we have yet to see an excellent ELV game, where defense tactics falls to attacking tactics. Maybe Super 14 finals will produce the goods.

See my review of Hurricanes vs Blues : Here.

A review of the game based on the balance between structured vs non structured rugby.

Conditions: Dry, ground hard.

• – Short Lineouts: 16
• – Full Lineouts: 12
• – Scrums: 20
• – Rucks: 120 (The best I could count)
• – Mauls: 2
• – Tries Broken Play: 2
• – Tries Set Piece:0
• – Tries Phase Play:1

The percentage of ‘ball in play’ when the ‘Backs vs Backs’ contest was unfettered by a forward was (12+20+2)/(16+12+20+120+2) = 20%. I wish to see this figure above 30%! (I do admit I saw a few rucks when forwards did not stand in the back line, so I accept an error rate of 3%).

So ask yourself this question, how often did you see the mid field contest go head to head ? It would seam the back coach these days must ask the 6,7 and 8 to be part part of the back training and moves. A guy like Conrad Smith must be studying ‘Dummies: How to be a loose forward!”

Conrad would have more to do under my ELV amendments, see here.

The game was excellent in the last 20 minutes as forwards and backs were separated by frequent scrums, the first 60 minutes was kinda ‘force back’ with ‘run and bash’ (Yes I am afraid ‘Glorified Touch Football’). The ‘field wide defensive trench was very visible through out the game. There was some moments of brilliance off the back of the scum by the Hurricanes. So for three tries on a ground that was in excellent condition, I would have to say they were of a low standard. What do I mean, did you see any space created for players out wide, did you see any over laps. Nope it was missed tackles, a charge down and a bash through. So more tries are not always better, sure it could have been just one of those games. More games will need to be reviewed.

Sure lots of heart, determination and tension, but you can get that in ‘bull rush’ as well, I am grading the game on the rugby union combination contest only.

If this game was a pin up for the ELVs, then more needs to be done. Like I have said on this blog a lot can be fixed by not allowing short lineouts and promoting the maul. Interesting enough there were 2 times when my 50/22 rule would have been used.

I agree that not all of this can be blamed on the ELVs (coaches and captains as well), but the LPG Committee did start with a blank piece of paper so they could have and should have done more.

If the reader is over 40 years then you will easily understand my point. If the reader is under 30 years then you will not, this is because you have only seen one style of footy, and NO I dont want to go back to the ‘good old days’, I prefer a mid point between today and say 1990’s footy. I will review my thoughts with my office 40 years plus friends and see if they concur.

Some just looked at the game through foggy glasses…

Source: Marc Hinton Blues topple Canes – both now vulnerable

…”If rugby’s in trouble, this match should be compulsory viewing for the nay-sayers. It was an absolute peach. A couple of teams stood toe to toe and slugged it out for 80 minutes, and at the end one side had slipped in just one more punch than its opposite.”…

..”In a classic contest of seething intensity and fabulous commitment, both sides played themselves to a standstill. The defence of both teams, particularly in their own red zone, was heroic.”…

Sure it was ..”classic contest of seething intensity and fabulous commitment”. But a representation of rugby tactical skill, no it was not, why because little space out wide was created, tactically it was a poor game: kick and hope, run and bash, pick and go, thats it!

Richard Loe hit the nail on the head. You see I am not alone, I dont live on a desolate island in the Pacific !

Source: Intense encounter welcome but major question unanswered

..”It was an intense game; exciting because of that although, apart from some silly lapses, the defences ruled and there wasn’t that much entertaining attacking play, especially from the Blues who seemed to over-rely on the kick.”…

The End.

Source: Northern sceptics will be blown away – Spiro Zavos

…”A COMMENTATOR in New Zealand revealed the interesting statistic that the 2008 Super 14 tournament, up to the 13th round, had produced 100 fewer penalties and 50 more tries than last year’s tournament.

One of the points his column has made about the ELVs (the experimental law variations) is they allow more expansive play and also (and this is important) the traditional boot-fest game as well.

The play in the Super 14 is derided by some northern hemisphere commentators as being “too frothy”. In reality, the intensity and quality of the rugby being played in this year’s tournament – and especially last weekend as the finals race intensified – is way ahead of what was played last year, even though it was a World Cup year.”..

Other statitics not widely promoted:

• (i) Breakdowns (rucks) have boomed in Super 14. (Hurricanes vs Western Force 9-5-2008 190 breakdowns)
• (ii) Classical Backs vs Backs play is only around 15% of ball in play time (see: ELVs – Paddy O’Brien’s videos support my arguments!)

So when is a game considered ‘classical’ versus one that this ‘glorified touch football‘. 

Definitions:

• (i) Classical  : Is when forwards and backs are separated most of the game, each player role would be different.
• (ii) Glorified Touch Football : Is when forwards and backs are combined most of the game, each player role would be the same.

The next game you watch in Super 14 Rugby calculate the following statistic.

• 1) How many times the center (say Conrad Smith) either defends or attacks his opposite center? Call this ‘Classical Center Count’.
• 2) How many times  a tight head forward (say Tony Woodcock)  is standing in the ‘back line’ or in the ‘field wide trench defense’ ? Call this ‘ELV Tight Forward Duties Count’.

 Compute this formula (I call it % of Classical Play in a ELV Game)

([Classical Center Count]  divided by ( [Classical Center Count] plus [ELV Tight Forward Duties Count] )) times 100

 Example (numbers are for demonstration purpose only):

• – Classical Center Count = 7
• – ELV Tight Forward Duties Count = 40
• – % of Classical Play in a ELV Game = 15%

Compare this Percentage to the Rugby Game Type Table

• A) 86% Plus  – Classical – 1970’s style.
• B) 66% to 85% – The Grizz Wylie – 1980’s style.
• C) 36% to 65% – About Right – All Blacks vs Australia 15-7-2000
• D) 35% and Under – Glorified Touch Football – ‘Run and Bash’, clumsy and ugly rugby.

I am sure you are getting my point by now.

 How to fix the current Super 14 Rugby ELV game. Read posts:

• # Chess vs Checkers 
• # ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review
• # ELVs – ‘The Field Wide Trench Defence’ or ‘FWTD’
• # Other Foundation Posts

The End.

Paddy O’Brien – IRB Referee Manager  : His bio.   

Paddy posted three YouTube videos explaining the Stellenbosch ELVs, (posting date October 2007).   

• – Video1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbOA8ff4FQ4
• – Video2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOshey2EEw8
• – Video3:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95QcbEvKNB0 

In video3 Paddy lists statistics from the ELV studies. The statistics are from three surveyed competitions:

•       – Scotlands Super Cup 2007 ( 8 games) – ELVs applied
•       – Six Nations 2007 – ELVs NOT applied
•       – Super 14 Rugby 2007, round 7 only – ELVs NOT applied. 

      STATISTICS  (Average per game)     Super Cup      Six Nations       Super 14

• – Average ruck and maul count                143                    167                  134
• – Average scrum count                               21                    17                    20
• – Average tries scored                                9                        4                      5
• – Average time ball in play                          59%                 46%                 41%
• – Average lineout count                              28                     31                    31

The role out of the Stellenbosch ELVs is in effect a world wide product launch for a multi billion dollar business, and should be subject to the same detailed analysis that any Fortune 500 company would undergo. 

ARGUMENT1 – SCOPE FLAWED: In the posting ELVs – The ELV Committee flawed, scope flawed. I made the argument that the scope issued to the committee was flawed, in video1 Paddy states that rugby union must be: ‘ball in player longer’, ‘easier to understand’, ‘easier to ref’ and ‘for all shapes and sizes’. Paddy stated clearly that the committee had no restrictions, rugby unions laws could be rebuilt up from a blank piece of paper. This alone is fraught with extreme risk if the scope is proved too be narrow and I believe that is to be the case. The ELV design scope had no words like: ‘strategies’, ‘styles’, ‘tactics’, ‘point of difference’ or ‘must be interesting’. The overriding focus seams to be on having ‘more tries’ and ‘not on how interesting the tries were scored’.

ARGUMENT2 – MAUL ENDANGERED SPECIES: In the posting ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout I stated that the maul is not in favour, and if the maul is allowed to be pulled down it will soon be extinct. The fact that the maul did not warrant a separate column in Paddy statistics is enough evidence that it’s the black sheep. Paddy focuses on the example when a maul is used to drive over and score a try as unfair advantage to the attacking team, therefore the maul should be allowed to be pulled down. Based on this lonely example the committee thinks it’s wise to pull down the maul no matter where it resides in the field. This is an over reaction, I think allowing the maul to be pulled down within 10 meters of the try line is an adequate compromise (reluctantly), otherwise the maul should not be pulled down. Paddy also states that in the eight Super Cup games there were no injuries resulting from the maul collapse. I think I can find eight collapsed scrums where there are no injuries, nor do the trial games cover diverse age groups. The maul should not be pulled down (this is my preferred position).

ARGUMENT3 – CLASSICAL BACK LINE CONTEST MINIMISED: In the posting ELVs – ‘The Field Wide Trench Defence’ or ‘FWTD’ I comment that the ELV game has added to the continued destruction of classical backline tactics. With a mix of forwards and backs in the back line and the hard to crack ‘field wide trench defence’ the game often enters into a period of stalemate. I ask the following question to illustrate my point.

Question: What percentage of ELV ‘ball in play’ is available for the pure classical backs versus backs contest (or structured restarts) ? 

(Note: If there is a classical backs versus backs contest, then the forwards must be engaged in there own classical forwards versus forwards contest.)

Restart defined: When the attacking team must reform its back line for the next phase, either after a ruck, lineout (short or long/full), scrum or maul.

Structured restart defined: A play where forwards and backs are completely separated, otherwise known as a classical restart. Examples of structured restarts are: scrum and full lineout, examples of non structured restarts are: rucks, short lineouts, mauls. A maul can be a structured restart if it captures all 16 forwards in the contest.

The math is simple (numbers are sourced from the Super Cup column above).

• 1) The Super Cup ELV game ‘ball in play’ is 59% which is 47 minutes of an 80 minute game.
• 2) Let’s assume that of the 28 lineouts, 25% had a full contingent of 16 forwards, so this equals 7 lineouts. This is 7 structured restarts sourced from lineouts.
• 3) If we add the 7 lineouts with the 21 scrums, we have 28 times where forwards are not mixed with backs. The total number of structured restarts sourced from scrums and lineouts equals 28.
• 4) Add the 21 scrums and 28 lineouts to the 143 rucks and mauls and we get the total count of structured and non structured restarts (excluding kick offs and 22 drop outs) equalling 192. The total number of all restarts (structured and non structured) is 192.
• 5) Divide the number of structured restarts (28) by the total number of all restarts (192), and we get a percentage of 15%.
• 6) 15% represents the portion of the game restarted by structured play.
• 7) This means that only 7 minutes of the 47 ‘ball in play’ minutes are available for classical forwards versus forwards and backs versus backs restarts.(15% of 47).
• 8) The remaining 40 minutes represent the period where forwards can be (I agree not all the time) mixed with backs (ie forwards standing in the back line, more so than backs standing in the rucks or lineouts [new ELV allows this]).

Therefore only 7 minutes (15%) for the pure backs versus backs contest per game, how does this promote the need for specialised back skills. This is further evidence where the ELVs have NOT gone far enough to restore the games unique ‘chess like’ contests. This is one of the most disappointing developments of the ELV game.

Further points regarding the 15% or 7 minutes structured ‘ball in play’ per game:

• 1) This is why in my post ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review I called for promotion of the maul, full lineouts and the 50/22 rule. To try and get this measly 15% structured ‘ball in play’ to at least a 25% minimum. Why, structured play promotes the specialised skills identified within rugby union and it’s these skills that require players to be ‘all shapes and sizes’. Once again I refer the reader to the Chess vs Checkers post.
• 2) This is why Ian McGeechan, Laurie Mains, Peter Thorburn and Brian Habana have identified with the statement ‘It looks like league!”.ELVS – ‘Its like league!’ (Laurie Mains), ELVs – Hail the New Caesar (Ian McGeechan)
• 3) This is why northern hemisphere scribes have called the ELV games ‘glorified touch rugby’, and they have a point.
• 4) You may argue that the Super Cup 15% is no different from the Six Nations and Super 14 Rugby which are 13% and 15% respectively. True, but remember Paddy started with a blank piece of paper, so why has the committee failed to improve this horrible statistic, the answer is the ELVs design scope was flawed (see post ELVs – The ELV Committee flawed, scope flawed.).
• 5) You have heard that the ELVs must be considered a success as the ball is in play longer and there are more tries. In this post ELVs – ‘The Field Wide Trench Defence’ or ‘FWTD’ I explain why this is quantity over quality. The back line construction of forwards and backs does not produce more interesting rugby, unfortunately it represents clumsy attacking lines and ‘run and bash’ style tactics.
• 6) You may argue that its only a percentage and the data in video3 does not reflect the reality of structured play within a game. This is a valid point, once again I remind you that these ELVs are a product role out for a multi billion dollar business, so I suggest Paddy and the committee get some data to prove otherwise. The current analysis (that I have seen, maybe the IRB has ‘board room eyes only data’) would not be acceptable in any board room of a Fortune 500 company.

These questions should be answered with further statistical data:

• Q1: What percentage of play is sourced from pure structured restarts (detail showing: scrums, fully contested 8 man lineouts, 22 drop outs, kick offs) ?
• Q2: How many tries are sourced from pure structured plays (described in Q1 above) ?
• Q3: How many mauls are there?
• Q4: How many mauls are within 10 meters of the try line?
• Q5: What percentage of play is involved with forwards and backs in a mixed role (either forwards in the backline or backs in the ruck or lineouts [new ELV allows this])?
• Q6: What are the ‘ball in play’ statistics when the full classical lineout is used only?
• Q7: How does the rule 50/22 improve the balance over attack and defence?

(Note: See an explanation of the 50/22 rule in this post: ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review)

I am in favour of the ELVs but only if the 15% of ‘ball in play’ resulting from classical structured play is considerably improved to at least 25%. Also it should be noted that I have only viewed the Super 14 Rugby 2008 version of ELVs. I have yet to see a professional game with the new lineout and hands in the ruck rules. I doubt that it would change my view.

If an IRB official or commentator says that it is modern rugby to have forwards executing back line moves, and its here to stay, then I am done! I will watch rugby league as they do a better job!

Paddy does expressly say that the world wide ELV trials are experimental, lets hope they are!

I believe Paddy is a good bloke and just needs to be shown the light, I hope some of you can show him the way. If any of you has the ear of the Paddy, any rugby CEO or IRB member could you please forward this posting (and foundation posts) to them. Thanks.

The End.

UPDATE1:

Source : (Robbie) Deans wants S14 ELVs for Tri-Nations

Extract..

 …”The fear that the ELVs would fundamentally change the nature of the game has also been unfounded, says Deans.

Instead the coach feels it has promoted attacking rugby, while still maintaining the importance of the set-piece because of the option of a free-kick or scrum instead of a penalty for most infringements.

‘There’s a little bit of difference in so far as the ball can be in play a little bit longer and that teams that want to can choose to take the initiative if they want to and take quick free-kicks,” he said.”If the pendulum has swung slightly in any way back towards the team that’s prepared to attack that’s good.

He added: “It’s also probably reinforced the need for props. There was a concern for some parties that blokes of that shape would fall out of the game but it’s probably quite the opposite.” …

MY COMMENTS: Not change the game fundamentally, I agree with that, but I think his sun glasses are little foggy, the ‘ruck’ count has boomed and it dominates the game. The Hurricanes vs Western Force (9-5-2008) had 190 rucks, that is 190 chances for forwards and backs to have mixed roles.

Robbie Deans refers to the attacking set piece as the scrum, and the scrum only. His subconscious has confirmed that lineouts are not favored as attacking set piece (as short lineouts allow forwards to stand in the back line).

The pendulum has not swung towards attack, it has not budged from defense as the ‘field wide defensive trench’ dominates around the ruck. I believe it is still valid that defense will win the big games. The Super 14 Rugby finals will be very interesting.

The need for props is true, but not the Os Du Rant model, more the Kees Mews model, Os would need to run 3 km under 15 minutes or he is out of a job.

I think his comments are more spin, as Graham Henry has had little game time with the ELVs.

UPDATE2:

Source: Seismic difference between SH and NH rugby  – Brian Moore 12/May/08 Daily Telegraph

“The weekend’s rugby proved conclusively, to me at any rate, that basing an assessment of the attractiveness of a game on the number of tries scored and/or the amount of time the ball is in play, is a facile and misleading exercise.A comparison of the Premiership games and the Super 14 games I watched on Friday night highlighted a seismic difference both in the type of game now played in the northern and southern hemispheres and in what is considered entertaining rugby.In front of a sell-out crowd, the first half of the Gloucester game yielded just one try, but was pulsating. Several clear chances created by Bath came from the direct driving and handling of the forwards, allowing a backline that was sparked by their classy half-backs to look for and find gaps. Desperate defence kept Bath from crossing the line and the courage and ability of Iain Balshaw rightly drew cheers several times; why he cannot replicate this form for England is something only a psychiatrist can answer.Further, crucial turnovers were won by Gloucester because they hurled men into nearly every breakdown and battled for the ball in loose play. This produced massive roars from the faithful – ergo a crowd of down to earth non-academics are capable of understanding and drawing immense enjoyment from something other than a simplified game and a plethora of tries.The one try that did come was a classic. Angles, timing, James Simpson-Daniel and no fat boys clogging up the space – it nearly brought the roof off.

Contrast this with the Bulls v Brumbies Super 14 game. It had a multiplicity of play that had over 10 phases, but at virtually none of these was there even the pretence of competition for the ball. Instead, we had 14 men strung out across the field and no space – ergo the time the ball is in play is also not synonymous with enjoyment.The complete reverse is true; although nominally in play, I would argue that where there is no competition for the ball, it is as good as dead.Further proof of the ‘ball in play’ fallacy came from the inexplicable approach taken by Bath in the second half. Having achieved momentum and created good chances in the first half, they decided on a complete change of tactics. After the break they had almost no possession in the Gloucester half, zero momentum and one half-chance, but this did not seem sufficient proof for them to ditch their policy of kicking every ball as far as they could. This meant that Gloucester had little to do, other than field unchallenged kicks and return the ball; which they duly did. The ball was in play for ages, but it was as dull as the first half was exciting.If the International Rugby Board want to look at a fresh approach to the laws of the game, why not try applying them properly; introduce a ‘use it or lose it’ call that referees can apply to stop teams keeping the ball at the back of the ruck while they organise their attack, or just waste time trying to run down the clock. It might work.”

 Defined: The players in the defending team pan out in a horizontal line from touch line to touch line. I would describe this play as a WWI style trench defence, moving the game into stalemate. The generals of WWI invented the tank to overcome this strategy, what is rugby unions ‘tank’ to be?  

Let’s review a sample of rugby opinion on the subject:

Source: New laws making game like league  – Laurie Mains

,,”If the aim of these laws was to speed the game up then they’ve succeeded. But the real concern I have is rugby is looking more like league every year.

People who love the game don’t want that to happen.

We want to see rugby maintain its identity and part of that is having struggles up front in the forwards and creating space for backs to run with the ball.

The defensive lines in rugby are now akin to league and I feel the game is getting choked.

If we went back five years and reinstated the laws to allow rucking, I believe we’d have a solution.

With the greater skill and fitness we see in players today we’d have a fantastic game“…

Source: (Ian) McGeechan slays IRB’s ELVs  

…”Coaching guru Ian McGeechan fears the ELVs have the potential to ruin rugby’s traditional qualities.

The former Scotland national coach, the leading contender to take the British Lions to South Africa next year, said he had little time for the IRB’s argument that the ELVs would make rugby easier to understand and referee.

“My concern is that we will end up playing one type of game, that the variety and depth of options which the game has always had will be taken away,” McGeechan told the Daily Mail.

“You end up with an average of something like 58 free-kicks under the ELVs and a game which basically becomes like play-the-ball in rugby league.”…

“My biggest worry is that it will change rugby union fundamentally.

Source: ELVs are boring ‘because of refs’ – Peter Thorburn

..”Thorburn said the implementation of the experimental law variations in Super 14 had been flawed, but put that down largely to the referees and, more particularly, coaches.”…

 ..”I hear people say, ‘it’s getting like league, it’s getting like league’. Why is it getting like league? Because of that lack of imagination.”..

…”[I] would go even further and implement an idea first bandied about by French legend Pierre Villepreux, which is to replicate the five-metre rule now used at scrums under the ELVs at rucks.”…

 .”Despite the fundamental flaws in implementing the ELVs, Thorburn insisted that to do away with them would be a grave mistake for a sport already struggling to maintain the public’s imagination.”…

Source: Free kicks blight ELVs – Warren Gatland

 ..”the only Northern Hemisphere aversion to the law variations trialled in the Super 14 will centre the free kicks at the breakdown.

That has been the big problem from what I’ve seen and it seems the free kick is a little bit of a cop out.

“Players will ride the line and that is no different from last year,” said Gatland. “Since rucking was removed, it has become much tougher for referees because where once players would know what was coming if they were on the wrong side of the ruck, now they make the tackle, hold on then make a slight effort to roll away.”

But in the Super 14, he had noticed an escalating number of free kicks and teams prepared to concede them if it meant they could reset their defensive lines or even pinch a turnover.

“And if you’ve done your defensive work, then you can cope with conceding a free kick,” he said.”..

The ELV Committee is well aware of the frustration sourced from the FWTD. The committee solution is to allow ‘hands in the ruck’. This play was previously deemed illegal in rugby union, and in the most distant past the ‘slow ruck problem’ was solved by traditional rucking. (See post on Rucking).

Source: ELVs come out to play on global scale – Rod MacQueen

..”One of the concerns of the game today is the lack of back-line moves and the introduction of one-off runners going to ground. Analysis over this time revealed interesting causes and effects.

From current Test statistics, teams taking the ball into the breakdown retain it 95 per cent of the time, leading opposition coaches to instruct their players not to commit, but spread across the field in defence,” Macqueen said.

The hands in the ruck recommendation, allowing players to handle the ball on the ground at the breakdown, formerly illegal, was greeted gleefully in the ARC by hard men such as Queensland’s veteran international breakaway, David Croft. 

Engagements for ball possession became ferocious in the tackle area while providing the referee with less decision-making, a swifter service to the backs and fewer stoppages. Hands in the ruck in the ARC and in a Scottish competition led to such aggressive play for possession at the breakdown that the ball was retained only 85 per cent of the time.

The interesting thing from these competitions was that less retention gave the attacking team greater advantage,” Macqueen said. “If they were skilful enough to get the ball out quickly, they invariably had more room to move, and the opposition were committing more players in defence. Consequently, more opportunity for tries’’..

After viewing a recent Super 14 Rugby game ‘Hurricanes vs Western Force’ (9-05-2008) the number of breakdowns reported was 190. I believe most breakdowns are rucks. This is a dramatic increase compared to a non ELV games.

The committee correctly confirms that a fast ruck gives less opportunity for the FWTD to form, therefore allowing more space out wide for attack.

But what type of attack is the question.

When the attacking team is going through a series 5 to 10 phases (ruck to ruck), after each ruck the back line is formed up with the random players not involved in the last ruck. This means we see tight and loose forwards standing within the back line. There is nothing wrong with that once in a while, but after every ruck, there is definitely something wrong. Why, the art of the back line attack is difficult enough for seasoned and well trained backs: running the correct lines, straightening the attack up to counter sliding defense, passing to players in space, looping, and dummy runners, so how can forwards be considered competent enough to assist in the back line attack (All Black Michael Jones excluded), short answer he can’t be! Also the rugby field is only so wide and having more than 7 players in a backline is detrimental to effective attack.

To swing away for a quick note…

NOTE: I would like to go on record stating that the super rugby 2008 ELVs are the source for the continued destruction of classical backline tactics. This is resulting from the lack of opportunity (or space out wide) for the backs to exercise there skill in a pure backs versus backs contest. It has been said that so far in Super 14 Rugby 2008 there have been 50 more tries scored (upto round 11, vs 2007 yr) and this must be a good representation of the 13 ELVs in use. I wonder how many tries were sourced from pure backs versus backs contest, compared to tries where backs and forwards are part of the mix? Maybe the statistics reveal the traditional 2/5 and center skills are no longer required and a more generic loose forward would be better suited in these roles. Is this further evidence of how traditional positional play is being diluted for more action (tries), no matter the quality of the action. The ELVs flaws are sourced from the scope issued to create them, see post: ELVs – The ELV Committee flawed, scope flawed., Chess vs Checkers 

Back to the main topic… 

The eye saw of the clumsy post ruck back line attack cannot be solely blamed on the ELVs, coaches and captains have also shown a lack imagination in this area.

Is it a case of wait and see, give coaches more time,  I think not. The FWTD places the game into a stalemate where defense has the advantage, and the new ELVs have not gone far enough to overcome this problem. It has been confirmed that an ELV game has the ‘ball in play’ longer: I would submit that this increase is ‘ball in play’ resulting from phase play (ruck to ruck), I would also submit that this increase is of low quality due to the FWTD and the clumsy back line attack formations trying penetrate it.

Therefore ‘traditional rucking’ or ‘hands in the ruck’ will not solely swing the advantage back to the attacking side faced with FWTD. The attacking team must be given the opportunity to realign forwards being forwards and backs being backs to allow specialists to return there traditional roles while maintaining possession during (or at the end of) continual phase play. This hole in the new ELVs is fundamental. (Please read Chess vs Checkers post,)

Consider this, what can the attacking side do after they have just gone through 6 phases will little return against the FWTD, their options are:

• 1)      Kick and hope, possession is most likely lost.
• 2)      Maul, but it is easily defeated by a single player pulling it down (new ELV).
• 3)      Run and bash, try to breach the tackle, on failure phase 7 starts.
• 4)      Back line move, difficult as back line is usually mixed with forwards and backs resulting in poor results (and ugly rugby).

I submit the ELVs should swing the bias from the defensive side to the attacking side by these further rules changes (One of these could be rugby unions WW1 tank):

• 1)      Promote the maul: The defending players not in the mall must be back 5 meters (excludes designated half back). Allow the maul to be pulled down within 10 meters of the try line, only. (Note: I would only make this compromise after brown paper bags have changed hands). This would make any forward momentum of the maul too expensive for the defending team, forcing the defending forwards to join the maul to force the ‘use it or lose it rule’.
• 2)      Introduce the 50/22 rule. An attacking kick made from within the attacking teams half way line that bounces out on the defending team 22 touch line. The bounce need not be in the 22, but the touch line breach must be. Not available from the kick off. The attacking team is awarded the full lineout put in. (Note: I would not allow short lineouts at all). This would require the defending team to ensure they have both the touch lines protected, thus keeping more players out of the FWTD.

(Note: The above are additions to the ELVs, I would keep all current Super 14 Rugby ELVs, and also add ‘Rucking’ [preferred] or ‘hands in the ruck’.)  Updated 04/12/2009

Both the above ideas return forwards and backs to there traditional roles while (giving the attacking team a new starting point for a traditional back line attack) maintaining possession after a period of phase play that resulted in the mixing of player roles. This has got to be good for rugby union.

Rugby union traverses from structured play to non structured play (lineout to ruck) while still holding possession, there should be a laws of how this can be reversed in special situations (ruck to lineout) while engaged in continuation play. I refer you to the 50/22 rule above.  

If you have any ideas on this subject then email me via my ‘Contact Me’ page.

I would also NOT allow any short line outs at all in the game, I have written about this in this post: ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review.

The End.

UPDATE1:

 The Hurricanes vs Western Force (9-5-2008) was played in the worst wet weather conditions so far this year, yet traditional wet weather rugby tactics were not employed and it was replaced with continual ‘run and bash’ with the FWTD being the most prevalent tactic on display. It seams dry and wet weather rugby tactics are the same these days! I do congratulate both sides for their ball handling skills, but I give both sides a brick bat for their lack of ability to create space for attack. The maul was not used once. (Refer my post: ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout )

Source: New laws making game like league

,,”If the aim of these laws was to speed the game up then they’ve succeeded. But the real concern I have is rugby is looking more like league every year.

People who love the game don’t want that to happen.

We want to see rugby maintain its identity and part of that is having struggles up front in the forwards and creating space for backs to run with the ball.

The defensive lines in rugby are now akin to league and I feel the game is getting choked.

If we went back five years and reinstated the laws to allow rucking, I believe we’d have a solution.

With the greater skill and fitness we see in players today we’d have a fantastic game“…

Laurie Main’s opinion is based on Super 14 Rugby 2008 (week 1), which has 13 new ELV laws operational (not the full 23). His opinion is closely correlated to Ian McGeehan’s in this post: ELVs – Hail the New Caesar (Ian McGeechan) 

In 2006 IRB created a Laws Project Group (LPG), the members being.  

• – Bill Nolan  – ex Chairman and IRB Council member (Scotland)
• – Rod Macqueen – ex World Cup winning Australian coach
• – Ian McIntosh  – ex South African coach Ian McIntosh
• – Richie Dixon – ex Scottish coach
• – Pierre Villepreux – ex French player, coach and former IRB Regional Development Manager
• – Graham Mourie – ex New Zealand captain and Wellington coach
• – Paddy O’Brien – IRB Referee Manager Paddy O’Brien (New Zealand)
• – Bruce Cook – IRB Development Manager Bruce Cook (Scotland ?)

The scope of this committee was to develop rugby laws that:

1. Allowed the ball to be in play longer.
2. A game for all shapes and sizes.
3. Allowed the game to be easier to understand.
4. Easier to referee.
5. To have the game determined by the players and not the officials.
6. Reduce the domination of defence over attack.
7. More options for players.
8. Reduce game stoppages.

..” The problems observed with the current laws mostly revolve around the fact that in practice the contest for the ball is often halted through law infringements. Different referees use different interpretations of the complex laws, resulting in many games being decided by penalty goals awarded by referees for infringements that are not immediately obvious to observers or even the players.”…

Source: Wikipedia – Stellenbosh Laws 

Further .. money and ELVs

The chairman of its ‘Laws Project Group’ no less – admitted as much back at the start.“We’d be very silly if we didn’t realise that, especially since the game went professional, there is a commercial element to the ELVs,” said Bill Nolan back in 2006. REF: ELVs – It’s McRugby, for cash. (Andy Jackson)

You would immediately think how dare any body take on such an esteemed group of gentlemen to challenge there findings. Easy, it’s a committee and they are subject to compromise, bias, power struggles and fracturing common sense. 

I hope you can see the holes already. They are:

• A) Where are the retired representatives from the largest playing union in the world, the English Rugby Football Union?
• B) Where are the Irish, Welsh and Argentina representatives?
• C) The committee is dominated with representatives from countries that favour one style of play (running out wide, and not the tight forward battles [like England and Argentina], yes I do prefer the earlier, but I must be fair).
• D) The committee is dominated with representatives from countries that suffer the most from ‘player drain’ (NZ, AUS, SA).

As at the 11 round of Super14 Rugby 2008, this is how I would grade the success of each of the objectives (Super Rugby version of ELVs).

1. Allowed the ball to be in play longer: PASS
2. A game for all shapes and sizes: FAIL, completely. 125 kg Os du Rant would have to loose 15 kg to play today’s game, and would you pick the 75 kg ex All Black wing Terry Wright today?
3. Allowed the game to be simpler and easier to understand: PASS
4. Easier to referee: PASS
5. To have the game determined by the players and not the officials: PASS
6. Reduce the domination of defence over attack: FAIL, completely and utterly failed. The domination of the ‘field wide defence trench’ has blossomed with the ELVs.
7. More options for players: FAIL, a strong defensive side eliminates the options. See (6).
8. Reduce game stoppages: PASS

So I guess I would have to say the committee has in overall achieved a pass mark (5 out of 8). I also can conclude that the ELVs go along way to transfer the winning of the game from referees to players.  

The fact the ELVs have been extensively trialled does give confidence that the exercise has gone from A4 paper to the rugby field successfully, but it seams that is all that it has done, I would have hoped that the esteemed committee would have uncovered the ELVs flaws.  I guess that is what the world wide trial period is for, lets hope it is! 

I also wonder how much the commercial element of the rugby laws played a part in the choice of laws selected, for example why was ‘hands in the ruck’ preferred over traditional ‘rucking’. Have the broadcasters said that ‘rucking’ is bad for ratings ? 

I feel that the fault is not with the performance of the committee, the fault sits with the flawed construction of the committee’s scope.

Remember this quote: 

..”They say that death kills you, but death doesn’t kill you. Boredom and indifference kill you.”.. By Iggy Pop 

This quote highlights that rugby union greatest sin is to be boring and indifferent.  

Let’s swing away from Rugby Union for a moment to illustrate a point.  

American football (Gridiron) is a game that last 4 hours, its 95% stop start, the ball is not contested at breakdowns, the playing season is six months, there are offensive and defensive sides, support staff for Africa, yet it has a massive following and millions of dollars involved. 

Why does American Football captivate the fan so intensely?

Wikipedia made it glaring obvious in the first two lines.

..” American football, …, it is a competitive team sport known for mixing strategy with intense physical play.”… 

Further down the there is a whole section dedicated to strategy. 

..”Strategy plays a major role in football. Each team has a playbook of dozens to hundreds of plays. Ideally, each play is a scripted, strategically sound team-coordinated endeavor.”…

I can only conclude that the extremely wide variety of game styles and strategies keep the fan magnetised to the sport. I have used the chess analogy to illustrate my preference for rugby unions favoured design. It is the ability of the sport to make the player and spectator think, to exercise the top 5 inches, the need for intellectual stimulation that is the yearning of the fan.  

[Note: If it is not, then there are other sports for the less intellectually stimulated fan, ie Checkers] 

It is also being able to see the strategies unfold to foresee the next move in the attack, or the brilliance of the defence to halt the attack. All this with the physical and athletic contests American Football is a surely one of the most loved sports on the planet. 

[Note: USA is 50 states, or 50 decent sized countries, sure American Football is not international, but it does cover a wide diverse population base.]

Let’s swing back to rugby union. My point is!

This is my cry for rugby union, primarily to promote the execution of strategies and contests of both physical and mental. I am in no way promoting the stop start style of American football, but I am promoting the balance between structured and non structured play, to allow the execution of strategies by rugby unions very unique playing combinations (please read Chess vs Checkers). Allowing forwards to be forwards and backs to be backs. Please re read this last paragraph, thanks.

View the Wikipedia site for Rugby Union and do a search for the word ‘tactic’ or ‘strategy’. As at 7^thMay 2008, search results are ZERO for both. The Wikipedia American football site had 9 hits for strategy. The gap is therefore obvious.

• (a) Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union
• (b) Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football

I have stated that the current ELVs allow the non structured play to dominate. Non structured play is random and is less likely to be the birth place of fresh tactics. Structured play allows the game to restart with the traditional player combinations (See post called Chess vs Checkers) and the launch pad for the next strategy. As I have said before ‘balance’ is the key. (See ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review) 

I think the IRB can safely conclude that the rugby fan is ‘rugby smart’ and can full understand a wide variety of playing styles, strategies and skills.  

With above in mind I would amend the scope of the Laws Project Group (LPG) to the following:

Primary (In order of preference)

• A)    To ensure that a wide variety of strategies exist.
• B)    To find an even balance of structured and non structured play.
• C)    To examine strategies of attack and defense to ensure that rugby union is not bias to either.
• D)    To allow the rugby union traditional player contests be given a fair chance of occurrence. To allow forwards to be forwards and backs to be backs.

Secondary (In order of preference)

• 1)     To have the game determined by the players and not the officials.
• 2)     Allow the game to be easier to referee.
• 3)     Allow the game to be easier to understand.
• 4)     Allow the ball to be in player longer.
• 5)     Reduce game stoppages.
• 6)     A game for all shapes and sizes ( see D above)
• 7)     More options for players (see C above)

Further to (B) above, rugby union traverses from structured play to non structured play (scrum/lineout to ruck) while still holding possession, there should be a investigation of how this can be reversed in special situations (ruck to lineout). I refer you to the 50/22 rule below. 

With the new scope in mind here are the adjustments I would make to Super Rugby. 

Retain all Super Rugby 2008 ELVs, except where the following over rules them.

• 1)     Promote the maul: The defending players not in the mall must be back 5 meters (excludes half back). Allow the maul to be pulled down within 10 meters of the try line, only. (Note: I would only make this compromise after brown paper bags have changed hands).
• 2)     Only allow full lineouts. Short lineouts are terminated. Quick lineouts are allowed.
• 3)     Introduce the 50/22 rule. An attacking kick made from within the attacking teams half way line that bounces out on the defending team 22 touch line. The bounce need not be in the 22, but the touch line breach must be. Not available from the kick off. The attacking team is awarded the full lineout put in.

(Note: See posts ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review, ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout) 

The ELVs have promoted the ‘field wide defensive trench’. The result is a WWI tactical stalemate. Currently the attacking team has few options to over come this defensive strategy. Both (1) and (3) above, offer the attacking team a chance as players are required to defend against such an attack and must exit the field wide defensive trench. If I was to succeed with (1) and (3) being introduced, then I could forgive the need for (2).

“Yeah Baby, thats Rugby!” – Austin Powers (if he was a rugby fan).’

The IRB are very good at making deductions to the laws, are they any good of adding laws back, ‘Thats the $64,000 question?”

The last word: I would further use the TV ref to check a try (forward passes and touch line breaches) and yellow card offences (or player on report) legitimacy. All TV sports are bending to technology to ensure the millions of fans get the correct verdict.

UPDATE1:

From the new Caesar – Ian McGeechan

Source: McGeechan slays IRB’s ELVs

“My concern is that we will end up playing one type of game, that the variety and depth of options which the game has always had will be taken away,” McGeechan told the Daily Mail.

“You end up with an average of something like 58 free-kicks under the ELVs and a game which basically becomes like play-the-ball in rugby league.

“My biggest worry is that it will change rugby union fundamentally.

“Every director of rugby in the Premiership and every head coach agrees we are losing the essence of the game. The game has prided itself on being one for all shapes and sizes but not for much longer unless we’re careful.

Ian McGeechan as always been a cheerleader for New Zealand rugby, we listened to him when we liked what he says, we should also listen to him even if we dont like what he says. He sees very clearing what is going on, and if Ian McGeechan is not happy, then the rugby world should sit up and take notice.

UPDATE2:

Source: ELVs come out to play on global scale – (Rod MacQueen)

From the mouth of a leading figure in the committee (Rod MacQueen) the ‘field wide defensive trench’ can be defeated by hands in the ruck, as a very fast ruck allowed less time for the defense to form, giving more space for attack.

“The interesting thing from these competitions was that less retention gave the attacking team greater advantage,” Macqueen said. “If they were skilful enough to get the ball out quickly, they invariably had more room to move, and the opposition were committing more players in defense. Consequently, more opportunity for tries.”  Quote Rod MacQueen.

If you read the whole article the word ‘tactic’ or ‘strategy’ are not mentioned. More evidence the committee’s scope was flawed. The flaw is to make the focus on ‘making it easier to score tries’, the focus should have been on ‘making it more interesting on how a try can be scored’. Basket ball is a high scoring game, yes there are strategies involved, but nothing like the strategies involved in American Football and this sport has less scoring (than basketball). I prefer rugby union to mirror the latter rather then earlier (to the extent for the need of many strategies only, not the stop start style of play). After all, American Football is the most successful financial contact sport on the planet.

Further on the maul

..”Analysis of games also revealed that allowing the pulling down of the maul had resulted in no more injuries while making the game simpler and removing subjectivity from the referees’ decisions. This rule change would also help negate the strategy of teams kicking to the corner, where the ensuing lineout and rolling maul often leads to a try.”..

Firstly, bullsh*t. No more injuries, what no more injuries than a scrum collapsing.

Another statement confirming the committee was concerned in making try scoring be TV pretty. Whats wrong with the try after a hard fought out maul? I have weakened, and I refer you to my proposal for the maul further back in this post.

The ELV committee has been successful in meeting the scope, the failure is that the scope was too narrow and flawed.

UPDATE3:

To be fair to the Committee, their version of Rugby Union was to include all 23 ELV law changes (Super 14 Rugby 2008 is only using 13 law changes), and as this has yet to be done in an established tournament one has to hold back. But I still hold fast that the scope is flawed, therefore so will be the result.

The End.

My hope for the game lies with the English Rugby Football Union and Ian McGeechan, and you the fan, I suggest you protest in any way that suits you. phone, email, streak, blog, banners, whatever, do something.

GOD SAVE RUGBY UNION!

The grave yard of rugby union.

RIP – Forward Rucking

RIP – Scrum Push Over Tries

Soon there could be the ‘maul’ and ‘full lineout’ added to the grave yard.

THE MAUL – Possible death by ignorance.

Here are some comments by NZ and AUS journos on the ELVs concerning the maul. (Note: For the record I am a kiwi). They really dont like it, ouch !

Source – The Australian (Wayne Smith – Rugby Editor) : England bores come crashing down

…”The rolling maul is an element of the game so totally at odds with every other element, so anti-rugby in its affront to the concept that the game is a contest for the ball that naturally England had to excel at it. And now that the IRB has introduced an law allowing the defending side to do what it should always have been allowed to do – tackle the blockers and bring the whole thing crashing down, England is crying foul.

No longer will England be able to kick into the corner, win the lineout and then rumble over from the maul. What a tragic loss to the game.

England’s best counter-argument is that allowing teams to collapse the maul will result in serious injury. Strange that. Teams have been collapsing mauls, illegally if morally correctly, for as long as they have been blighting the game. (How else do you think George Gregan stopped that monster in Melbourne?)

No-one has banned the rolling maul, remember. Nor has it been depowered. The IRB simply has given the defending side some power to stop it. “…

 Source – Sunday Star Times (Grant Fox) – ELVs decision could be rugby landmark

..”I’m also heartened that from August teams can collapse a maul. I’m not against mauls because they are fundamental to rugby. But done properly they are incredibly hard to defend against.Therefore the attacking team has held an undue advantage.

Now there’s a legitimate tool a defending team can use to stop a maul. I’d like to think that will lead to more creative play in peeling off a maul, something the IRB might have been helped by going a step further and allowing a “truck and trailer” variation involving a minimum three players.”…

Source – www.rugbyheaven.com.au (Steve Tew – CEO NZRU ): Sanzar in new debate on ELVs

..”Tew admitted New Zealand were surprised that the dragging down of the maul had been approved, “because we weren’t convinced that all the safety elements of that exercise had been thought through”…

..”All of us are a little nervous. But kicking into the corner and scoring a try from a rolling maul after a lineout wasn’t doing the game much good … so maybe it’s a good thing.”..

MY COMMENTS

The current situation (pre ELVs) is for the defending team to the halt the momentum of the maul for a period of time to action the ‘use it or loose it rule’. If the defending team wishes to be very effective in stopping the rolling maul they must allocate the appropriate number of forwards, the more quickly this happens the less ground is lost. This attack and defense balance has worked extremely well, so if it’s not broke why fix it, yes, you guess its not pretty rugby TV!

I remember when the (‘loose it or use it’) rule was announced all the local New Zealand and Australian TV commentators thought this was a great idea, and lived happy ever after, and all of sudden it’s the black death, give me a break !

Pulling down a maul (pre ELVs) has been judged as unsafe play, the danger can be related to that of a collapsed scrum. Big men falling down on top of others powered by forward momentum. I submit that this dangerous, making this legal (across all age groups) is just STUPID! If a collapsed scrum is deemed unsafe, then how can a collapsed maul be considered safe?

A maul may have five to eight forwards from the attacking side, to pull down the maul it would only require one very strong forward, while the remaining defending forwards can stand in the ‘field wide defensive trench’.  A positive attribute of the maul is that it pulls in these forwards allowing an attack out wide thru the space created. There should be less debate about the maul and more debate about how an attacking side can break down the ‘field wide defensive trench’.

The maul has a place in rugby union, it is unique to the game, I have been in a few, they are physically very tough, a real mans challenge of might over right, the mighty Richard Loe was one of the all time greats of this skill, and it should remain as part of the game.

Currently mauls in super rugby and Air New Zealand Cup are very infrequent, there is the penalty (or free kick) risk from ‘truck and trailer’ and ‘entry outside the gate’, if the defending team was allowed to pull down the maul I am very confident that mauls would be deleted from the rugby playing tactic sheet forever ! You dont need a trial for this, its a slam dunk, the maul will be extinct.

I personally have put the proposal forward that mauls should be promoted in the current super rugby ELVs as a priority form of attack. By having a rule to ensure the defending team players (not defending the maul and not the half back) be 5 meters further back. This would make the rolling maul very expensive to be allowed to continue, ensuring that the defending team would immediately commit forwards to its defense, further breaking down the field wide defensive trench for space out wide to attack. (See post ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review )

An arguement for pulling the maul down is that it is impossible to defend against it 5 meters out from the try line (Steve Tew above ..”All of us are a little nervous. But kicking into the corner and scoring a try from a rolling maul after a lineout wasn’t doing the game much good … so maybe it’s a good thing.”.). If this is the case then only allow the maul to be pulled down 10 meters out from a try line. There is no need to destroy its other benefits just for this small part of the game. I would not agree to this for the reasons above, but if there is a need to compromise that’s as far as I would go.

THE LINEOUT – Possible death by stealth.

The fundamental change in the lineout is that neither side determines the numbers of  the lineout.

MY COMMENTS:  

At the moment the scrum and the full lineout are the only occasions between scoring where rugby has forwards and backs completely separated. The need to promote the separation of forwards and backs is critical to the development of the skill of the rugby player (chess piece) to create winning and exciting tactics (chess tactics – discovered attack). (see foundation post Chess vs Checkers)

The original intention of the short line out was to open the door for more tactical imagination into this part of the game, yes that did come, but at the expense of creating a stand off in the back line as space for attack diminished.  

With the advent of the ELVs we have see the increase in the ruck to ruck phase play with the by product being the more frequent occurrence of the field wide defensive trench. I have called this non structured play and the pendulum has swung to far this way, which is why I have called for the removal of short lineouts. This would allow forwards to be forwards and backs to be backs at two fundamental restarts (scrum and full lineout).   

To Conclude.

Under the new ELVs the maul is a hairs breath from extinction. The lineout is surrounded by unruly poaches that in time will finish it off.  The ‘field wide defensive trench’ has gained a friend with the new maul and lineout ELVs, and that is sad for rugby union.

UPDATE1:

Source: Six Nations to be testing ground for law changes – Chris Hewett

But there is deep concern over measures affecting line-out and maul. Coaches and players spend months perfecting routines in these areas. If they end up being devalued, as many fear, two of the game’s defining characteristics will slowly fade from view.

In a survey carried out by the Rugby Football Union, around 80 per cent of those replying were against the idea that a maul could be pulled down deliberately, and something in the region of 70 per cent objected to the more radical alterations to line-out regulations. This was not the riposte of a disgruntled minority, either. As of Wednesday, there had been more than 13,000 respondents – an unprecedented number, according to the survey organisers, and proof positive that the union game matters deeply to people who live their sporting lives way outside the IRB bubble.

Source : Why change, just when we`re loving it?
 

According to the bumf, the ELVs have been designed to “provide greater clarity in terms of the Laws of the Game for players, coaches, referees and spectators; allow players to determine the outcome of matches [and] not the subjectivity of match officials”.

It would be sportsmanlike to take offence at that appalling slight on their own referees, but don’t bother: referees seem to agree that it is all getting too much for them.“Players are fitter, stronger and quicker and therefore the referee’s decision-making time gets shorter and shorter,” says IRB referee manager Paddy O’Brien.“If I took my wife to some tennis I could explain the basics in five minutes, but I think with rugby union at the moment that’s not the case. Some of the laws are becoming unrefereeable.

“We want to make the game easier to play, coach and referee – and to watch.”So it’s back to you, humble fan. Apparently you are not enjoying your rugby any more, and it’s down to the fact that you are too thick to understand what is going on. If there are too many complicated laws for a referee to compute, what chance does a moron like you have? According to the IRB: “Most people associated with the game, including spectators, would agree that the sport is in a very healthy state but that there are some fundamental problems creeping in.

The Game is quicker, players are stronger and faster, contact is more aggressive and physical, and the advancement of skill levels is putting strain on the Laws themselves in terms of the contest for possession.

“Have we missed something? Are the fans that pile through European turnstiles not really enjoying themselves? Perhaps they are too dumb to know. Are match officials really struggling to lay down these fiendishly complicated laws? Perhaps Tony Spreadbury’s cackling laughter is a cry for help; perhaps Alain Rolland’s cool countenance is just an icy veneer masking a deep and dark mental breakdown. No. No on all counts. We fans may not be geniuses but we are not idiots, and it is deeply insulting to our collective intelligence that the IRB has not come out and admitted what these changes are really about.Perhaps some simple honesty would then disband the north-south conspiracy theorists who perceive the ELVs as little more than a cunning ruse to disempower Europe’s traditional strengths in set-piece play.Inevitably and depressingly, the real motor behind the ELVs is, of course, money.You won’t find the following quote on the IRB website, but one of its own number – chairman of its ‘Laws Project Group’ no less – admitted as much back at the start – sorry, ‘Genesis’ – of the trials.“We’d be very silly if we didn’t realise that, especially since the game went professional, there is a commercial element to the ELVs,” said Bill Nolan back in 2006.Whilst broadcasters fight for the right to carry Europe’s main rugby tournaments, the Super 14 and Tri-Nations are having difficultly selling their wares to the paying public. [me: very much so in Australia]

Hence why you and I will not be consulted on Thursday. The IRB can already count on our dollar, we are old news – they want new blood. Since the game went professional, the men who claim to govern our game have done nothing but salivate over soccer. What fun to run such a simple game, one that appeals to the masses – one that generates so much cash! If the IRB were able to simplify rugby down to a handful of laws it would have a product that could rival the round ball, and how the turnstiles would spin with new fans who care more for entertainment than they do for strategy.This infantilisation of our grand old sport is already in full swing: the ELVs are barely out of their infancy and already they have transformed the Super 14 into a miasma devoid of wit or intelligence.It’s McRugby and it’s just perfect for the mass market.All the teams share the same gameplan: run, bash, run, bash, run, bash, run, bash.The claim that the law changes will make Rugby Union look like Rugby League does the 13-man code a grave insult: they vary their tactics every sixth tackle – no such luck with the automatons of the Super 14. Run, bash, run, bash, run, bash, run, bash…That’s not to say there is anything wrong with attacking with ball in hand – on the contrary, that’s the very ethos of the game. But too much of good thing makes us all fat and lazy. Creating legislation for more gaps in defence is not going to make a better spectacle, it will just devalue the art of line-breaking. [me: I think ELV promote the field wide defensive trench, so less line breaks in a tough game]

The IRB’s ultimate goal – “to reduce the number and complexity of the Laws by reducing the ‘cannots’ in law and promoting the ‘cans’ to create a positive philosophy” – runs contrary to sporting philosophy itself.All good contests – from noughts-and-crosses through to chess and incorporating every single sporting endeavour – rely on a delicate balance between defence and attack. Why not rugby any more?

If “reducing the cannots and promoting the cans” really makes for good sport, perhaps the IRB should lend its expertise to other fields. So let’s widen those goals, add a fourth stump to cricket, hand weapons to boxers and remove those stupid trees from golf’s fairways. How dare they stand in the way of a simple shot at the green?

SIMPLE does not equate to INTERESTING – quite the opposite, in fact. How the IRB cannot see this is verging on the criminal. The game we love – with all its wonderful nuances and delicate variations – is under threat from the very body charged with its protection. The ELVs might not get the green light this time round, but the IRB has spent too many of its precious pennies to let this drop. There is nothing ‘experimental’ about the new laws: sooner or later we will be forced to accept the DUMBING DOWN of our game.Brace yourselves – this is the END OF RUGBY as we know it.Read this article with the following posts: Warning – ARU CEO John ONeill, Foundation Posts, ELVs – Confirmation, they are more commercial (in Aus).

Game Chiefs vs Force – Round 11 Super 14 2008

After a try by the Western Force the aussie TV commentator yelled out ‘It’s touch football!’ in delight.

How correct he is, the game was basically 15 vs 15 loose forwards playing helta skelta rugby. Sure that’s fine, but this is the only style you will see from now on.  This confirms Ian McGeechan fear that the styles of rugby play is getting very narrow.

This game was so much like checkers, ok once in a while, but chess is the better game. See foundation post : Chess vs Checkers

Source: Sunday Star Times – ELVs decision could be rugby landmark

Extracts....

“there’s less straight arm penalties under the new laws.Previously, there were between 15 and 25 free kicks and penalties in the average game.That’s now up to 25 to 30.

There are more free kicks but less penalties. That’s allowed for more quick restarts which has contributed to the improved 10% ball-in-play. That figure might not sound like much but talk to the modern rugby player and he will tell you it has a big impact on them.”…

MY COMMENTS: To say ‘yes its working’ just because the ball is in play longer is not evidence that the rugby is better. Its about quality Grant, what’s the big deal about ‘pass, run, bash, tackle, ruck,’ up against the field wide trench defense. But how creative can the attacking team get: Start a maul, no, that’s easily defeated by pulling it down; Use a set up move, no, that’s negated easily by the ‘field wide defense’; Kick and hope, no, you loose possession and must set up for counter attack; Kick for lineout, no, this has been cancelled by ELVs (unless my rule of 50/22 is introduced); Scrum is the only option. Therefore you have confirmed your support for mindless ‘run and bash’ or as Ian McGeechan termed ‘one style of rugby’. I refer you to posts listed below for my ELV solution.

..”I’m also heartened that from August teams can collapse a maul.I’m not against mauls because they are fundamental to rugby. But done properly they are incredibly hard to defend against.Therefore the attacking team has held an undue advantage.

Now there’s a legitimate tool a defending team can use to stop a maul. I’d like to think that will lead to more creative play in peeling off a maul, something the IRB might have been helped by going a step further and allowing a “truck and trailer” variation involving a minimum three players.”…

MY COMMENTS: Pre ELVs the maul has an equal defense and that was for the defending team to use enough forwards to stop the momentum of the maul for a period of time to enforce the ‘use it or loose it rule’. This worked fantastically well. Post ELVs, if a maul is formed by eight forwards it will only require one (or two) defending forward to pull it down, the remaining seven defending forwards can stand in the horrible ‘field wide defensive trench’. So why would any team risk attacking with a maul. The balance has swung in favor of the defense. Once again Grant, shot fired and missed!.

..”One is to widen All Blacks eligibility to any Kiwis playing in a Sanzar competition meaning a New Zealander playing for an Australian, South African (or Japanese) franchise “…

..”The second is to open All Blacks selection to any Kiwi playing anywhere in the world. The latter is an inevitability but not necessary now.”…

MY COMMENTS: First, if you allow it for one player, all will want it, once the door is open, it’s over.  All Blacks playing for other super rugby teams, this breaches the ‘tribe vs tribe’ theory, I have a very long post why this is not a good idea (see below). Selecting All Blacks based overseas, that will be fun, just ask the league boys how hard it is to get back international players.

Jes Grant Fox, three strikes and your out!

I refer the reader and Grant to these posts :Super rugby – It’s in safe hands (not) !, Rugby Sabbatical – Ok with me !, ELVs (Experiment Law Variation) – Tactic Review 

Thank god there is some one out there not pouring red wine on their cornflakes.

This article is soo good, a must read. Please read it twice.

ce.

McGeechan slays IRB’s ELVs

Coaching guru Ian McGeechan fears the ELVs have the potential to ruin rugby’s traditional qualities.

The IRB council has voted to introduce the experimental law variations on a global trial beginning on August 1.

The vote was made at a full council meeting in Dublin.

But McGeechan, the director of rugby for the Wasps club, has gone on the attack over the proposed law changes.

The former Scotland national coach, the leading contender to take the British Lions to South Africa next year, said he had little time for the IRB’s argument that the ELVs would make rugby easier to understand and referee.

“My concern is that we will end up playing one type of game, that the variety and depth of options which the game has always had will be taken away,” McGeechan told the Daily Mail.

“You end up with an average of something like 58 free-kicks under the ELVs and a game which basically becomes like play-the-ball in rugby league.

“My biggest worry is that it will change rugby union fundamentally.

“Every director of rugby in the Premiership and every head coach agrees we are losing the essence of the game. The game has prided itself on being one for all shapes and sizes but not for much longer unless we’re careful.

“They are saying the ELVs make no difference to the scrum, but they do. Props will have to change because their job will change.

“With free-kicks you speed the game up to such an extent that they will have to be ultra-fit and mobile.

“The experiments have had a deconstructing effect on the Super 14 to the point that it becomes boring. You cannot have a contest at the breakdown because the referee gives a free-kick and, if he doesn’t like the look of the next breakdown, he gives another one. And so on.”

The Welsh, Irish and English rugby unions led the opposition against the ELVs.

Among the ELVs brought in for the trial is the contentious ruling empowering defending teams to legally pull down an attacking rolling maul.

It is a decision which has earnt instant criticism from Harlequins’rugby director Dean Richards.

“Being allowed to collapse the maul is bound to take away a lot of its power,” Richards said.

“One of the reasons why we in the Premiership didn’t want this introduced was because of concerns about the safety aspect. Why are they prepared to heighten that risk by allowing it to be collapsed?”

The IRB is set to decide in November 2009 if all, or some, of the ELVs are to be brought into official law in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Source : Sanzar in new debate on ELVs

Extract..

..”Tew admitted New Zealand were surprised that the dragging down of the maul had been approved, “because we weren’t convinced that all the safety elements of that exercise had been thought through”…

..”All of us are a little nervous. But kicking into the corner and scoring a try from a rolling maul after a lineout wasn’t doing the game much good … so maybe it’s a good thing.”..

No wonder forward play is becoming diminished, with this type of ‘must be nice for TV’ attitude. Whats wrong with the power struggle of a maul, whats wrong with drive forward after a lineout. This has gotta make you think that ‘TV Pop Corn Rugby’ is all that counts. I just wonder what skills a forward needs any more in the years to come.

I have an idea drop the rugby union side down from 15 to 13 to give more space for flashing show pony try scoring, has this been done before, its worth a try ( just joking).

Tight Forward CV Pre ELVs: Skills required are scrummaging, mauling, jumping or supporting in a lineout, tackling, rucking, running and passing required but not essential.

Tight (Loose) Forward CV Post ELVs: Skills required are scrummaging, mauling, jumping or supporting in a lineout, tackling, rucking, running and passing required but not essential.

Rugby League Forward CV : Skills required are tackling, running and passing, scrummaging required but not essential.

NOTE: ELVs after May 1st 2008 – Mauls become too risky, lineouts need not be fully contested and may only be 2 players. I concede that mauls and full lineouts may not disappear completely, but there occurrence is most likely to be reduced.

Please review posts: Chess vs Checkers, Experiment Law Variations

In the above posts I high lighted the need to focus on the balance between the structured and non structured play with underlining intention to maintain the traditional rugby union contests. A traditional rugby union contest requires the use of the specialised skill bestowed upon that player’s position.

This article will focus on the tactical plays of rugby with analysis to the bias of either attack or defence, and how the ELVs should enhance the balance.

I will examine each plays in Rugby Union: Kick Off, Full Lineout, Short Lineout, 22 Drop Out, Scrum, Maul (fast and slow), Ruck (fast and slow), Setup Move.

Attack Advantage Defined: To attack you must have possession and forward momentum (or on the front foot). For a play to receive the attack tactical advantage there must be a fair chance of breaching the advantage line. If you don’t have possession then you are (most likely) defending.

Kick Off and 22 Drop outs

Play Type: Structured. Forwards and backs are separated.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side making the kick. Why, the kicking team looses possession and can immediately set up the field wide trench defence. The receiving team acquires possession but with a loss of territory and retreating momentum (or on the back foot). This is not a preferred attacking platform.  

Full Lineout and Scrum

Play Type: Structured. Forwards and backs are separated.

Tactical Advantage: Attack, to the side with possession. Why, as forwards are separated from backs, there is more space to conjure up an attack via the backs. 

Short Lineout

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side with possession. Why, as forwards are mixed with backs creating an effective field wide trench defence.  

Maul

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed (more often than not).

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, the number of forwards required to defend a maul can be and often is less than the number of forwards involved in the attacking maul formation. The maul has the acquired risk of ‘user or loose it’ rule associated with its execution. The defensive players not committed to the maul join the field wild trench defence. As maul momentum slows the tactical advantage swings from attack to defence as time allows the defending team to establish the field wild trench defence. Therefore a fast maul is definitely an attack tactical advantage.

Ruck

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed (more often than not).

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, the number of forwards required to defend a ruck can be and often is less than the number of forwards involved in the attacking ruck formation. The defensive players not committed to the ruck join the field wild trench defence. As ruck momentum slows the tactical advantage swings from attack to defence as time allows the defending team to establish the field wild trench defence. Therefore a fast ruck is definitely an attack tactical advantage.  

Set Up Move

Play Type: Non structured. Forwards and backs are mixed.

Tactical Advantage: Defensive, to the side without possession. Why, as forwards are mixed with backs creating an effective field wide trench defence. The team with possession may prepare a move that resembles a separation of forwards and backs, however the defensive team need not.  

Tactical plays bias to attack: Scrum, Full lineout, Fast ruck, Fast maul. 

Tactical plays bias to defence: Kick Off, 22 drop out, Slow ruck, Slow maul, Set up move, Short lineout.

Consider all other attributes within a game of rugby as equal for this discussion (fitness, player strength and abilities, tackles made, unforced errors, etc) thenI can easily conclude that the bias of pre ELV rugby plays is to the defensive side.  

This is supported by teams winning the big games by superior defence tactics (eg All Blacks vs South Africa RWC final 1995, All Blacks vs Australia RWC semi final 2003. In both cases the All Blacks was an attacking machine, but the defensive abilities of the opposition shut down the attack and won). In finals rugby many of the attributes between the teams are squared off: each are secure in the tackle, each have a good kicking game, players are equally fit and unforced errors are minimal. It has been the team that exercises the attack risk that are more likely to loose. Jake White stated that defence wins world cups, in response to Graham Henry stance on winning with attack or be damned. Jake white 2007 RWC win said it all.

Q1: How has the super rugby ELVs moved the tactical balance of rugby from defence to attack? Short answer they have not, unfortunately post ELV super rugby defensive bias has become stronger. The balance between structured and non structured play has swung far too far to the latter and the horrible field wide defensive trench dominates the game.   

Scrums have increased per game to reign in the defensive trench line, but lineouts have reduced, tap and go returns little, kick and hope is popular, the game can quickly look like bull rush slash touch rugby. The ELVs are not to blame solely, it can be shared with the lack of imagination from the captains and coaches, but I put forward the ELVs should be there to save the players from themselves and to prevent the true rugby fan going nuts.

But what can one do from a free kick, a set up move and maul is easily defeated, kicking looses possession, lineouts are not available, tap and go immediately becomes a stalemate ruck, a scrum is the only logical attack option. 

Further more the ELVs announced on 1^stMay 2008 de powers the maul and lineout to the extent that mauls and full lineouts may not been seen in test matches at all. The maul will be deemed to risky to implement, and lineouts need only 2 forwards while the rest join the field wide defence trench. This does not support attack.

Q2: What ELVs are required to promote attacking rugby?

(a)     Promote Attacking Mauls: Do not allow mauls to be pulled down, and further once a maul is established (confirmed by the ref) the defending side (only) must be back 5 meters. This would make it very expensive for the defending side to allow the maul to roll forward, this would encourage the defending team to commit more or all forwards to attacking maul, thus removing the forwards from the field wide trench defence.

(b)     Promote Attacking Full Lineouts: Do not allow short lineouts, as the consequence is more forwards in the field wide trench defence. Quick lineouts are ok.

(c)     Introduce 50/22 rule. Description: If a kick is made from the attacking teams half and it bounces out in the defending teams 22, then the attacking team receives the lineout put in. The kick must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22. (Not after kick off) This rewards the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick. It also encourages the defending team to have players further back and out of the field wide trench defence.

(Note: I have expand on mauls, lineouts and the field wide trench defence in a latter posts : ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout, ELVs – ‘The Field Wide Trench Defence’ or ‘FWTD’)

These 3 ideas attempt to break up the field wide trench defence by creating a demand for the forwards to be out of the defensive line. These also increase the opportunity for the traditional rugby contest within each combination to flourish. That’s rugby, yeah baby! 

In rugby you traverse from structured play to non structured play (scrum to a ruck), the rule 50/22 allows the play to move from non structured play to structured play (ruck to lineout) after an excellent kicking attack. This us a good idea, what say yee!

I would still retain most of the super rugby ELVs (see previous post) but the balance of structured, non structured, attack and defence must be measured carefully to ensure that the game of rugby remains great.

The goal of the ELVs was to make the game easier to referee and understand with less stoppages, I suggest that the IRB have swung to far to the ‘easier’ camp as the cost is the loss of the chess game that rugby union should be. Even with my rule suggestions stoppages would have reduced significantly for the better. My blog is hopefully constructive criticism on how to fine tune the ‘balances’ of the game.

I believe the 2008 super rugby ELV semis and final will support my view, that defence with be the prevalent tactic and attack will be sourced from the strength of the defence rather than rugby union structured plays. (Just like RWC 2007 semis and final).

I would further use the TV ref to check a try (forward passes and touch line breaches) and yellow card offences (or player on report) legitimacy. All TV sports are bending to technology to ensure the millions of fans get the correct verdict.

UPDATE1: McGeechan attacks `illogical` ELVs

Ian McGeechan supports my view that the lineouts and the mauls are dead.

Extract..

..”McGeechan is considered to be one of rugby’s great strategist”..

“If you don’t want to contest the line-out, you can put two players in, pull down the opposition, and string the other forwards across the field,” McGeechan told the Times

“It’s probably the end of the short line-out and of the maul. Two players can go in and pull it down, the others join the defensive line.

“A good maul (me: and full lineout) attracts players to it and creates space elsewhere. It’s illogical and very short-sighted.” 

I am not sure what Ian McGeechan means when he says “It’s probably the end of the short line-out”. Maybe he meant full lineout and he was misquoted , because I support the removal of the short lineout as it will dilute the field wide defensive trench.
 

Reference : ELVs – the view from the pitch

Eddie Jones (former Australia coach):

“Rugby’s charter is a game based on an equilibrium between contest and continuity, structure and unstructured, set-piece and loose possession. As a game, it separates us from Aussie rules and rugby league where high ball movement reigns.

“To attract footy’s swinging supporters in Australia, we either have to be very successful at national or provincial level or produce a game that matches AFL or league as Super 12 did in 2000 and 2001 when sides ran from everywhere because a new law aided security of possession.”..

“The rest of the world does not have such intense competition for footy spectators so there is skepticism towards law changes that only promote the spectacle, not the charter.”

 Now, read my post Warning – ARU CEO John ONeill

Aussie rugby lost $7,000,000 AUD in one year, that loss would have been $14,000,000 AUD if was not for the IRB RWC 2007 grant. Therefore they need rugby to compete in there market otherwise they will be a minno of the rugby world, oh dear we cant have that ! O, yes we can if means removing motivations to create a rugby hybrid. With the new rules it is now possible to see a test match with no lineouts ( 2 man) and no mauls.I am not saying ARU is the sole promoter of the ELVs, but they sure are the loudest cheerleaders.

So if there was a more socialist method of revenue sharing (between north and south) financial pressures on unions to change rugby on every ying and yang of the profit and loss  statement would be diminished, and the rugby charter would be protected from the fickle market pressures of the time.

This guy hit the nail on the head….

Bryan Habana (South Africa and Bulls):

“It has created a game which is closer to rugby league. Defences are much stronger and there is less space. It has created more kicking in the game, there is more time in play, but it is very much like rugby league, stop-start, stop-start.”

He means : Pass, run, tackle, ruck, Pass, run, tackle, ruck, Pass, run, tackle, ruck, Pass, run, tackle, ruck, Pass, run, tackle, ruck… 15 phases latter no tactical advantage achieved.

The spin in these comments confirms to me that the IRB dont have a <rude word> clue.

Bernard Lapasset (IRB Chairman):

“The primary aim of the ELVs is to make the game simpler to understand for players and supporters alike (me: yea cause its now touch rugby, simpler does not mean more interesting), and that the players dictate the outcome of matches not referee subjectivity. At the same time the basic fabric of the Game has to remain the same in terms of maintaining its identifiable characteristics – the scrum, maul (gone), ruck, line-out (gone) and tackle.

“Importantly, everything that is being trialled relates to the Game’s Playing Charter that recognises Rugby as being a game for all shapes and sizes (me: Richard Loe, Carl Hayman, Os Durant are gone from the game) and that the contest for possession is of paramount importance.”

 RUGBY IS DOOMED….

Reference:  ELVs get the green light

ASSISTANT REFEREES

*Assistant Referees can assist referees in any manner required when appointed by a match organiser

MY COMMENT: No big deal.

POSTS AND FLAGS AROUND THE FIELD* The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch in-goal except when a ball is grounded against the post

MY COMMENT: No big deal.

LINE-OUT AND THROW

*If a team puts the ball back into their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain of ground

* A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team’s own goal line

* There is no restriction on the number of players who can participate in the line-out from either side (minimum of two)

* The receiver in a line-out must stand 2 metres back from the line-out

* The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball may stand in the area between the 5 metre line and touch line but must be 2 metres away from the line-out

* Line-out players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in

* The lifting of line-out jumpers is permitted

MY COMMENT: Not good, more forwards standing in the back line, more structured play removed from the game. Promotes the field wide defensive trench. Is this not a rugby league touch line restart?

MAUL

* Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down

* Remove reference in Law to heads and shoulders not to be lower than hips

MY COMMENT: Not good, mauls are dead, you wont see malls any more. The above rule change and ‘use it or lose it’ make mauls to risky as a tactic of choice.

SCRUM

* Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the scrum

* Scrum-half offside lines (must be in close proximity to the scrum as present Law or must retreat five metres)

MY COMMENT: Good, keeps forwards and backs separate and allows more space for attack.

SANCTIONS

* For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10 – Foul Play, the sanction is a free-kick

MY COMMENT: Depends, means less stiff arm penalties, therefore either a scrum or tap kick can occur, so play depends upon captains tactic selection. Refs have less opportunity to award points to a side and determine out come of the match, that’s good.

TACKLE AND RUCK

* If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free-kick

MY COMMENT: A move away from the team going forward, gets the ball. Favors those that can slow the ball down, then you get rewarded for it. So I swing to say most likely not good.

MAUL

* If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a free-kick

MY COMMENT: Acceptable.   

Final thoughts…  Allowing to pull down a maul was a real disappointment. What stupid ideology is running the committees of the IRB ? Why the need for 2 man lineouts ? See my comming up post on tactics and the ELVs. 

 Phil Wilkins writes: Paranoid androids up north have got it all wrong on the new laws (Source: www.rugbyheaven.com.au )

Extracts..

..”Declining crowd attendances, loss of revenue and criticism of the game “..

My Comment: Not up north apparently. Down under administrators have done more damage to the game. See post here.

..”What a sin that rugby is faster – with tries being scored – and not being dominated by giants slothfully tramping from scrum to lineout and back, camping in the opposition quarter and waiting for Jonny Wilkinson to kick penalty goals.”…

My Comment: See my post discussing Chess vs Checkers, and the danger of rugby becoming a hybrid game. Phil, destroy the structure of the game to your extent and I guess we can call it ‘league’ or ‘Chesskers’.

My guess Phil watches a lot of rugby league and comments on rugby union because his editor expects him to, his comments tend lend this way. But if he is the Chief Rugby scribe, oh my god !

Source : www.planetrugby.com See post here.

The subject is ELV.

Extracts…

 …”They are also concerned about possible long-term implications, such as driving the maul out of rugby and reducing the scrum’s importance.

..”Those opposed to the variations believe rugby could become little more than glorified touch-rugby, taking away much of its power, technique and confrontation. “….

“As these ELVs could potentially result in major changes to the laws of the game, the RFU believes it is important to consult those involved in the game at every level and give them an opportunity to express their views. “..

 I have heard the unconditional love for the  (the super rugby version) ELVs from Sky TV commentators Tony Johnson and John Drake,  it seams they are in some sort of blind puppy love with them. See my blog posts named ELVs and Chess vs Checkers for a full discussion.

The English RFU are conducting a fan based survey and email forum discussion, good on them I say. The NZRU are not conducting a similar market surveys, however they did have a tree hugging weekend with ‘stake holders’, but I am afraid you and I didn’t get an invite.

Please send me (via contact me page) any URLs of NZ journos work on the objective analysis of the ELVs. I havent seen any in the NZ Herald yet, but this one was close.

ELVs are boring ‘because of refs’ – Peter Thorburn

Extracts…

..”Thorburn said the implementation of the experimental law variations in Super 14 had been flawed, but put that down largely to the referees and, more particularly, coaches.”…

 ..”I hear people say, ‘it’s getting like league, it’s getting like league’. Why is it getting like league? Because of that lack of imagination.”..

…”[I] would go even further and implement an idea first bandied about by French legend Pierre Villepreux, which is to replicate the five-metre rule now used at scrums under the ELVs at rucks.”…

 .”Despite the fundamental flaws in implementing the ELVs, Thorburn insisted that to do away with them would be a grave mistake for a sport already struggling to maintain the public’s imagination.”…

I agree, some of the ELVs are very good, but in no way the current super rugby ELV package is the full and final one.

The single most damaging rule change in the last 30 years has been the removal of traditional rucking methods. The resulting confusion of how to manage the breakdown has been the continuing debate since there removal.

Source: Free kicks blight ELVs– Warren Gatland

UPDATE1:

Source: Bring back rucking to get rid of cheats – Duncan JohnStone

I recommend one change that would accomplish what they are trying to do to liven up rugby – bring back rucking!Eight weeks into the Super 14 and a major flaw in the new laws has quickly been exposed: the breakdowns are now simply a licence to cheat.They are more of a mess than they ever were and until referees get tougher on dealing with the serial offenders this new-look rugby is going to be the same old stop-start affair.The ELVs were designed to make the game faster and give it more flow. But last year’s nemesis, the scrum, has been replaced by the free kick as the most frustrating feature of the new-look game.

The ELVs call for free kicks instead of penalties for some offences. As a result, players are prepared to flop all over the ball to cut off or stall the opposition’s supply because they know they will usually cop a free kick rather than a penalty.

And a free kick allows their defence just enough time to get organised.

You sense that the free kick is also an easy option for the referees, allowing them to sidestep the issue of narrowing their focus to the real culprits at the breakdown.

Until the referees dish out early penalties or yellow cards, the cheats will prosper and rugby will be reduced to a stuttering game of bull-rush.

The simple way to speed up the supply of second phase ball is to return to rucking, a rugby tradition sadly eradicated by the same people who are now trying to fix the game.

The conspiracy theorists would suggest that hard-core rucking was removed from the game to depower its best exponents – the All Blacks. They are probably right.

The PC brigade that dominates much of the sporting and social world these days will argue it was removed for safety reasons. Yes, there is an element of danger to rucking but there was always an unwritten law that said the head was sacrosanct. Players who brought sprigs and scalp together knew they were in for justice, either in the form of a dust-up, the referee or the judiciary.

But there never was a quicker way to get an opponent out of the wrong side of a ruck than to give them a tickle up. Correctly done, players could be rolled out of a ruck with military precision through clever use of a boot or two.

Conversely, players knew what to expect when they were caught in the wrong place. Desperate times called for desperate measures and if the consequences were ripped jerseys and bloodied backs then these scars were worn with a sense of pride. Ask Buck Shelford. He was quick to dish it out but he was equally happy to take his medicine as well.

The thing with rucking was that, by and large, the players sorted out the mess themselves, eliminating guess-work from referees. Most importantly, they ensured quick ball was available for use when it was needed most.

At the risk of sounding like a rugby dinosaur, that simply isn’t happening enough in today’s game.

What we have is a game where cheats prosper and the refs run the risk of tennis elbow from dishing out so many free kicks.

There are obvious merits to some of the ELVs, most notably the 5m rule at scrums and the pass-back into the 22. It will be fascinating to see how many, if any, survive the cut when their architects, the IRB, ultimately make the call on their future once the northern hemisphere sides play with them.

To me, rugby would be better to look back to move forward and return rucking to the rough and tumble of forward play.

Refereeing bosses will claim that technically rucking is still allowed and that it’s merely the motion of the boot that differentiates rucking from stamping.

If that was truly the case, why don’t we see it in use?

Rucking has clearly become too risky and is now a forgotten – make that forbidden – art.

It needn’t be. Right now rucking should be seen as a solution rather than a sin.

The ELVS allow either a fast or slow game.

Please review the post called : Chess vs Checkers

The nature of an ELV game is largely determined by the selections made by the captains on the field. At the breakdown the referee can award an advantage, bent arm penalty, or straight arm penalty. I am not concerned with the more serious infringement of the straight arm penalty as choice of execution by the receiving team is a forced restart. The first two infringements have the option of continual play (a quick tap kick, I considered this to be continual play) or a formal restart via a scrum. 

With respect to the advantage, it is most likely that the ball has passed over, and if the awarded team wishes a scrum normally a feeble drop kick attempt or deliberate knock on will force the referee to award bent arm penalty to the team awarded the advantage. The bent arm penalty allows the captain the choice of either a scrum or a tap kick. Therefore it is conceivable that on every advantage or bent arm penalty a scrum can occur if the tactics of the day wish it to be so. 

The game of rugby has been built on structured (scrums, kick offs, lineouts, 22 drop outs) and non structured plays (phase play, quick throw in, short lineout).  The ELVs have increased non structured play as they allow less stiff arm penalties sourced from the breakdown or scrum. This has proven to be a negative. I do approve with the increased use of bent arm penalties, but this ying needs a yang to balance the game up (see ‘ELVs Please add’ below). I must mention that the short lineout does not qualify as part of the structured game as forwards end up standing in the backs creating a boring line of defense, and what I would call a neutral restart, plus it breaches the ‘Checkers vs Chess’ argument.

It has been the mistake of Super 14 teams to continually select the tap kick each and every time, when it is obvious that either the defensive line is already set or the attacking formation is not ready. This has produced the horrible vision of offensive and defensive lines facing off at each other, very much like rugby league. These lines destroy the structure that rugby was built on, as the forward and backs are formed up by the random order resulting from the last period of play. It is this type of play that no special skill of either the forward or backs is required, a generic loose forward is all that is required for this style rugby. It is here we get the continual and very boring bashing up to the defensive line. This type of play clearly resembles poor tactical sense by the captains and coaches. A better choice is to select a scrum, or a pre set move. An ELV scrum has a further 5 meter clearance and it commits backs and forwards against each other. A pre set move of forwards forming a maul with a quick clearance has it merits. These are better tactical selections and they also maintain the chess game of which rugby union was based (or evolved as). 

As mentioned the ELVs have increased the time the ball is in play, by increasing non structured play.  The balance between structured and non structured rugby should be re aligned by not allowing short lineouts. This would allow two formal restarts (scrums/lineouts) in rugby when the forwards and backs are completely separated. A short lineouts is basically restarting the game with  the horizontal lines of offensive and defensive. Remember the great contest between Walter Little/Frank Bunce and Tim Horan/Jason Little, well with the ELVs this contest has been nearly eliminated from the game as the paring up would most likely be broken by a forward standing in the mix. 

So where do I stand. I withhold my verdict until the Super 14 finals. Or maybe after northern teams have had a chance to play with them. I will review major games on this site.

ELV: The bad.

1)      Quick throw in. The quick throw in was introduced before the current ELV, the new rule is that the throw in need not be straight, but it can’t forward. Already we have seen the American football style passes to mid field. Come on, must we have this!! Remove the quick throw in completely and give the game a chance to reset. The game is faster with ELV regardless. We just don’t need it as fast as the speed of sound!

2)      Advantage Awarded: Why wait for a player to do a failed drop kick, or a deliberate knock on, let the captain say to the referee. Yes we will have a scrum thanks.

3)      Never allow a maul to be legally pulled down, (not used in Super 14). If collapsing a scrum is considered unsafe, then so is collapsing a maul, how is this different?

4)      Referees, please just rule the game. Now they are teachers, negotiators, opera singers, sorry I preferred it when they where just traffic cops (Ak Murray Mexted). This may not be an ELV, but some how this is new in Super 14.  

5)      The poor use of advantage and the quick tap (by the awarded team) promotes the horrible vision of neutral horizontal lines of offence and defence. Were the rugby is nothing more than bash it up. The current super rugby ELVs allow more opportunity for this to happen, this is my most server criticism.

ELV: The good

1)      Referees have less opportunity to dictate the result of the game thru stiff arm penalties and subsequent kicks at goal.

2)      Backs have more space at scrum time.

3)      Off side line at the tackle. Clear definition of who should be where.

4)      No passing the ball back to 22 to gain distance on the kick out.   

5)      The management of the breakdown with the emphasis on a bent arm penalty is a welcome improvement. See (1) above.

ELV: Please add.

1)      Scrums are a mess. Where has the hooking contest gone? Where has the vertical push test of strength gone? Why allow scrums to screw so much, why are loose forwards consider bound when there wrist is the only part that is attached to the scrum.

2)      Bring back legal rucking at the breakdown. See post on rucking.

3)      Yellow/Red cards: A player missing from the 15 aside game makes the contest very lop sided and not worth the money paid to view it. I feel that the TV referee should have the final say as to removal of a player. The on field referee can get this so very wrong. The on field referee can put his case to the TV referee, (i.e. warnings given, his view), but the actual incident should be confirmed by the TV referee before any sending off. I would also accept the rugby league method of placing a player on report. This allows the game to continue on as a 15 man contest for a yellow card type offence.

4)      No short lineouts. The short lineouts allow forwards to stand in the back line, and this reduces structure from the game. As the ELVs have boosted the occurrence of non structured play, we need to add some structure back into the game by only allowing full lineouts. This gives more opporunity for backs to be backs and forwards to be forwards.

5)   Rugby 50/22 Rule. Just as rugby league has a 20/40 rule, rugby union should have a rule that if a kick is made from a teams half and it bounces out in the other teams 22, then kicking team receives the put in. The kick can not be made from a pass back, and must not go out on the full, the bounce need not be in the 22 but the touch line breach must be in the 22. This will reward tactical kicking and force the defending team to have players further back, another way to get players out of the flat defensive line. Also if (4) above is introduced then a full lineout will enable more opportunity for tries from a successful 50/22 kick. I would exclude kick offs and 22 drop outs from this rule. If a team has secured possession thru continual phase play, this rule will allow the game to switch from phase to structured play while allow the attacking team to maintain possession. This has got to be good for the game !

6)  The TV referee can examine a try to see from the immediate build up (from the last tackle or structure play)  that the ball was in play and there were no forward passes. (ABs vs France RWC quarter finals. Didn’t the referee look stupid, and it would have saved a massive amount of embarrassment for the game on the international stage. The American market would not tolerate such a massive foo-pa !)

I expand on mauls and lineouts in a latter post : ELVs – Endangered Species: Maul and Lineout 

To conclude.  

Yes I like some of the ELVS, but what I detest the most is the merge of the forwards playing as backs and backs playing as forwards. Then you must ask yourself as a selector, why do you need either, all you need is 15 loose forwards. Don’t get me wrong, this is part of the game and should remain, but it should not be the most prevalent part of it.  An even balance is required between structured and non structured play, the current super rugby ELVs have swung the pendulum to far towards non structured play.

 The back bone of rugby union is the structure in the game.  To allow the specialised skills within the combinations of a rugby side to get more than a fair chance to be exercised on the field. Change or reduce the need for structure then you reduce the need of the specialised skills. And that my friends would be very sad, and a true hybrid of the game would be born.  

 There should always be a place for the player that is a little slower around the field, that does not look like Dan Carter in his jockeys, who rarely gets a chance to pass the ball in open play, but has immense skill in the scrum, ruck, maul and lineout. (Richard Loe, Carl Hayman, Os Durant, Gary Knight, Andy Haden, any tight forward you can think of !). 

I recently watched a super 14 game (round 6) where the Hurricanes played, and the very talented player Conrad Smith (mid field centre) skills were basically not on show as he was rarely matched up with his combination partners (2nd five, wings, full back) during non structured play, as his inside and outside support were tight and loose forwards.

UPDATE1: Consider the arguments for the ELVs (As seen in 2008 Super 14 Rugby)

1)     The RWC 2007 finals were boring and lacked tries.

2)     The ball is in play longer.

3)     It’s a faster more expansive game.

4)     There are more tries being scored in super rugby than non ELV years.

5)     There are more scrums statistically in the super rugby than non ELV years.

6)     It’s a step forward as to making the game easier to understand for a global market.

Before any rule change can be considered, there must first be an examination of the execution of the current rules.  Referee interpretations have plagued rugby union, and maybe the issue can be overcome by an improved execution of the current rules. 

There is no rugby environment like RWC semi or final rugby, you will not find it in the Tri Nations or Six Nations (Just ask Mr Henry). They are unique within world rugby. It is my feeling that the promotion of non structured rugby (continual phase play) would produce very boring horizontal lines of offence and defense in these very tight games. This type of play does not represent the specialized skill that has evolved within rugby over the last 100 years. Structured rugby has been the base of the some of the greatest tries of all time. There is a place for both structured and non structure rugby, sir it is a question of balance.

It should never be the question of the ‘number of tries’ or the ‘length of time the ball is in play’ or ‘the game is more expansive’, no sir! It should be a question of the quality of rugby play within these statistics. Further the quality of rugby play should be a measured by the execution of the specialized skills of each player involved within the play concerned. Quality first, quantity second, just ask Mr Rolls and Mr Royce!

Yes there are more scrums, and as I understand it there are less lineout’s in this years super 14 rugby. If you find favor with my proposal of only allowing full lineouts and introduce the 50/22 rule (see ‘ELVs Please Add’ discussion above) you will see more lineouts. In there current form lineouts are a bias towards a defense play than attacking, because a short lineout can be selected to allow forwards to stand in the back line. A full lineout is a better base for an attack because the traditional forward and back roles are restored.

Allowing the 50/22 rule in the game would reward the attacking team for an excellent tactical kick, this is better than loosing possession and loosing the opportunity for a follow up attack after such a great kick. This would also encourage the defending team to ensure there are players out of the defensive line to counter such a kick, this surely must promote attack over defense and the tries will follow.

Trying to explain the concept of rugby to (say) an American is the same as been asked to explain cricket. They are both complex, but this is not sound reason to change the rules. Rugby’s ‘confusion richter scale’ can be minimized by finding an even balance of structure and non structured play, assisted by the rules being executed correctly. (Update : Use the chess vs checkers story as a learning tool for the yanks)

Note: My word processor uses and American spell check dictionary, I mean who puts a ‘z’ in minimized, really!

UPDATE2: Review of the Blues (22) vs Crusaders (26) Super 14 Rugby 25-04-2008

Conditions: Dry, good for ball handling. So we must wait as see how a ELV game performs in the deep cold winter, when handling conditions are not so favorable.  

The game was very entertaining, but I would still introduce the 50/22 rule and not allow short lineouts as the non structured phase play dominated the playing time (I have written extensively on this imbalance above).

The scrummaging was the downside of the game (and conditions were good, so what will it be like when ground not so good), the continual twisting and players not binding correctly.

The bent arm penalties at the break down is preferred over the stiff arm penalties as the referee has less effect on the score of the game. 

To pay for the game (either being there or pay TV)  bugs me as a fan to see the game reduced to 15 vs 14 players after the crusaders no 2 was sin binned, why not place the player on report and deal with it after the game, the contest of 15 vs 15 must remain unless extreme foul play has occurred. This is also one of my most server criticisms. 

Also,one of the crusaders tries was scored after a player placed his foot on the touch line (as seen on TV, not seen by touch judge), I guess another rugby league precedent can be stolen to look back for infringements (player out, forward pass only) thru third TV referee when a try is scored. Just imagine if this was the RWC final, the game of rugby would be severely embarrassed, as the blues should have won !