Better Rugby Rules

Source: IRB orders refs to be stricter

LONDON – The International Rugby Board ordered referees to be stricter on illegal behaviour at tackles and rucks today.

The IRB said match officials should be aware that players are increasingly falling on top of the ball to prevent opponents from carrying on with play and this should be penalised more often.

It also said referees should give equal treatment to both the attacking and defending teams in rucks, saying players on the ball-carrying team are often allowed to pick up the ball to form a maul. The defenders, meanwhile, are being told they can’t handle the ball, the IRB said.

Referees were also urged to remind scrum halves they must feed the ball straight through the centre of the tunnel at scrums, as the IRB said players are continually ignoring the rule.

My Comments: Or they could allow rucking back into the game, and about time the half back placed the ball in the middle of tunnel, finally !

• – Player Power/Agents: 1
• – NZRU: 0

CARTER: Good luck Dan ! Internationals (most likely at the RWC 2011) and $$$$ not a bad deal for the next 4 years. Well done.

NZRU: Your one negotiating strength  (international selection) can now be down graded from stone to straw. Agents will huff and puff it down from now on, idiots.

The result should have been, stay or go for 4 years, that’s it. If he had gone his status would not reach the lofty heights of All Black great, sure he would be rich. Now he has a chance for both.

The next Lomu, Brook, Patrick, Kirwan, Jones can and will expect the same treatment. This new trend is here to stay.

Mr Tew and the board just hasn’t got large enough nuts to make the big calls. The jury is still out on Mr Tew, and this happened on his watch, so its not looking good.

UPDATE1:

Source: NZ public ‘out of love with All Blacks’ – British press

Meanwhile, the London Independent‘s rugby writer says the biggest issue New Zealand will face is the fallout from the decision to grant Daniel Carter the chance to play in Europe while still being eligible for the All Blacks.

‘By allowing (Carter) to stay on contract and remain a test candidate…the union has finally accepted that northern money calls the tune in modern-day rugby.

“Every employment lawyer from Whangarei to Invercargill is alert to the Carter affair, secure in the expectation that other celebrated All Blacks of the day will demand a piece of the same action.

“Heaven knows, the English do not have everything right. But in pure rugby terms, the red rose is enjoying a vastly better time of it than the silver fern,” he said.

 My Comments: The above is true.

“New Zealand rugby is at a crossroads,” wrote Alistair Eykyn of the BBC.

“The credibility of their national game is at stake. Defeat to England at Eden Park on Saturday night and the All Blacks may well consider themselves at crisis point,” he said.

My Comments: Piss Off !

Source: Carter’s deal a special case, says happy Henry– Duncan Johnstone

But the coach clearly doesn’t want to see a rash of players heading away on short-term deals and says measures need to be put in place to control that. [ME: ha ha ha, too late now !]

“I think you need to qualify (for a sabbatical). I think there needs to be some criteria … maybe a number of test matches, longevity in the All Blacks, that sort of thing,” said Henry.

What does Henry care about the long term effect of this deal, his only concern is winning back his reputation at the next world cup, after that, thats for the next poor bloke ! 

The lack of big nuts by Mr Tew and the NZRU will see in future years the top 5+ players off overseas in the immediate years after the world cup. Dan will be eligible for the All Blacks selection when he comes back, but will not be required to play in the preceding super 14 like his other team mates. Sure he could loose his position, but special deals like this is leaving the door wide open for hungry agents to work harder for more lucrative commissions. Damn NZRU fools ! This is why they couldn’t run a real business. I am sure the current local sponsors (Murdoch) are just rapt, (not) !

I guess sabbaticals will happen, but if the player does not return and play in the Super 14, how can match ups be viewed. Then the selectors personal bias allows an overseas player to walk into the All Blacks, where as currently a one on one contest allows the not in favor player to better the in favor player, and get selected based on true performance.

 All this fuss over Nick Evans, who cares, they guy doesnt know how to pass, its all me me with him ! Far to much media hype has gone to this guys head, hell let go now !

 Other posts on the subject: Dan Carter rule, very naughty!

UPDATE1:

Source: Carter Clause sure to irritate – Wynne Gray

Where there is money, more money, different rewards and criteria, there will be some resentment. The NZRU have done well if they have been able to stitch together some deal but no matter the wording of the press release, when Carter’s sabbatical is ratified, it means they have agreed to pick All Blacks from offshore.

How many other All Blacks would like a similar break and following Carter’s exemption, will feel they deserve the same treatment?

My Comments: Confirmation, thanks Wynne!

Source: (Peter) Thorburn slams trial of maul law changes

There is strong disapproval for one of the new Experimental Law Variations in place for this year’s Tri-Nations.

The International Rugby Board has agreed to a year long trial by SANZAR to allow the pulling down of a maul.

Former All Blacks selector Peter Thorburn says the change is a step backwards. He says the whole point of the maul is to allow players to group their defence and make a choice whether they want to join in or not. He says this is a short-sighted decision to allow players to pull the maul down.

Despite Thorburn’s comments, Wallabies coach Robbie Deans has backed the new changes.

             Crusaders win!

Yes I can honestly say this was one of the better ELV rugby games in the Super 14 season. But what did Robbie Deans work out at the beginning of the season that the other Super 14 coaches did not.

1) ELV rugby laws allows play to be very loose (non structured): Using free kicks solely for tap and go (add to this short lineouts) allows a game to have very little traditional rugby union structure. I believe Robbie new that having scrums and long lineouts (with the odd maul) allowed a better platform for attacking rugby. The final had more than average scrums, long lineouts and mauls. This is why the final was a better representation of rugby union that earlier Super 14 games. Also Robbie doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that the field wide defensive line is removed while executing a scrum or full lineout.

2) The kick and chase game is now critical to acquire territory: Kicking to find a defensive player out of position, up and unders landing outside the defenders 22, kicks that find middle ground and bounce causing defenders to take time to respond. The game of force back is more prevalent under the ELV rugby. To have a smart kicking game you need smart kickers, this means all players numbered 9 to 15 must have an eye for the tactical kick. Just having a smart kicker at first five or fullback is not enough. The aim is to execute running rugby in the opposition half, the Waratahs on occasion broke this rule.

3) Player type selection: Selecting a tight five for solely tight forward duties is over. Brad Thorn is the new tight forward mold, he must be loose and tight when the circumstance requires it (Yes you guessed it, ARU can now go shopping for forwards in the NRL). I guess while scrums still require pushing the only true tight forward is the tight head prop. Mobile, tall and very athletic tight forwards are the prescription. A game for all shapes and sizes, not any more!

3) Fast ball beats defense: This is not just true for ELV rugby, but the execution of fast and accurate passing finally allowed the Crusaders wings to get some space (on one occasion it lead to the try of the game) to run around their opposition.

4) Fitness: Yes having the puff and pace to go the distance, this was very evident in the last 20 minutes of Super 14 final. The side that lacks fitness is slower to set up an attacking back line, slower to run onto the ball, slower to cover the field in defense and more likely to drop a tackle.  The Waratahs were dead in the water in the second half.

Why should I be worried about the state of rugby union when the Super 14 final was confirmed by all as such a good game.

Firstly, there was only 13 out of 23 ELVs applied in the 2008 Super 14 season, yet to be used laws around the maul and lineout allow for more traditional rugby union structure to be removed from the game (see Foundation posts for more discussion). 

Secondly, answer this question:  Is the above style likely to be adopted in every ELV rugby game?  Yes if you want to win! Rugby union may be entering one style of play, the Crusaders way!  I am afraid when ever I watch NRL or AFL all I see is the same generic game every weak, if the players wore the same colors each weeks I wouldn’t know if different teams were playing. Rugby union should not be getting design concepts from NRL or AFL. It would seam otherwise !

The rugby union styles of England, France and South Africa may be morphed into the Crusaders ELV rugby style and the winning of the game will just come down to who executes this style better than the other. This will lead rugby union to be boring and indifferent!

Ian McGeehcan has a point when he said ..”“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”… HERE

A quote before you leave:

..”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.

       Adam Thomson

Source: Henry sends rejection message – Steve Deane

Masoe seemed to be the unluckiest discard, with Hansen saying the versatile flanker had been a casualty of the new experimental laws, which required a different type of player.

That could see a high value being placed on mobile loose forwards with lineout ability, which might explain the recent interest in the athletic, 1.98m Thomson, whom Henry said “wouldn’t have even been mentioned” if the squad had been picked before the Super 14.

MY COMMENTS: Doesn’t Adam Thomson look very much like an AFL player, fast, good balls skills, excellent in broken play, maybe not so great in the mud and tight forward play, but who cares, when is that ever going to happen in ELV rugby!  If the All Black selectors have already recognised that ‘all shapes and sizes’ has been redefined as the game is for ‘fast mobile tall’ players, I can see props getting thinner and taller. Maybe one day they wont need to push (ha) ! More evidence that traditional rugby union structure has been reduced within the game. (see Foundation posts for more).

Source: The ELV debate is a sideshow distracting us from more important questions – Chris S

More points does not mean a more exciting game. Rules that create more points will not necessarily make it more compelling.The biggest global sport by far is soccer – this game commands huge revenues and crowds, but does so with very low scores. (Perhaps an average goal count of 2 per match.) Points do not make games more exciting, in fact it seems that the opposite can be true – it is tension, suspense and occasional flashes of brilliances that win our hearts and have us coming back to watch again. Do we dare try some alternative ELVs that make points harder to score? [My Comments: My point excactly, see my ELV Amendments, this Aussie has got it right !]

Yeah, Robbie don’t care, he got $AUD in the bank !

Source: Struggle to give away tickets for Crusaders-Canes’ semi – The Press

Canterbury rugby officials have had trouble even giving away tickets for the Crusaders’ Super 14 semi-final against the Hurricanes in Christchurch tonight.

The Canterbury Rugby Union (CRU) and radio station More FM staged a promotion yesterday giving away a ticket with each one sold to boost flagging sales to the game.

Union chief executive Hamish Riach said last night that the promotion had generated some sales and extra interest in the match but was “not hugely successful”.

By late yesterday 16,400 tickets had been sold for the 25,000 capacity AMI Stadium. Riach said the response was “puzzling and really frustrating”.

“We have been a little bit caught by surprise at the response.

“The Hurricanes have always been a really good drawcard and we were pretty hopeful of a big crowd.

“It could be Robbie Deans and Reuben Thorne’s last appearance and we know how much they have contributed to the Crusaders’ success.”

Riach said the demolition of the old East Stands at AMI Stadium was a significant factor in crowd attendance.

Many of the seats in the old stands were under cover and were filled by more traditional fans, some of whom said they would not return until the new stand was built. A late surge in sales today could depend on the weather but the forecast is not promising cloud, light rain and cold south-westerlies.

Canterbury Rugby Union president Tane Norton said the shocking weather against the Sharks three weeks ago would have put a lot of people off.

“So they will leave it until the last minute and see what the weather’s like,” he added yesterday.

He said rising costs and the run of home games could also be the cause.

“There’s that old thing of money starting to tell.”

MY COMMENTS: I was at the Holy Grail in Christchurch to watch the game and I had the opportunity to speak to some of the locals. Yes part of the reason was the construction and another was the new style of rugby that does not sit well with the seasoned crusaders rugby viewer. They don’t like the force back and touch football (broken play or non structured) style either. Most of the tries in the Crusaders final was the result of run and bash, there was one excellent back line move by the Hurricanes that was just short of  try. The reviews of this game have re enforced the need for a smart kick and chase game otherwise your not going to profit under the ELV rugby, yes this is just like force back. If this information is hitting the NZRU desks I bet its being ignored and hoped that ‘She will be right’ after time. I guess ticket sales will be the ultimate judge.

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: Sonny Bill could switch codes within two weeks – manager

The manager of Bulldogs player Sonny Bill Williams says the Kiwis forward could walk out on rugby league within two weeks. 

Former Australia coach Eddie Jones said Williams could earn up to $800,000 (AUD)  a year if he headed to Europe.

Jes wayne, news that Dan Carter could earn $1,400,000 NZD for 6 months work in France has the league boys seriously re-thinking rugby union.

Funny that !

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.

Source: RIP rucking — and rugby – Andrew Logan

I was sitting in the sun recently, dreaming idly, when I started trying to remember the last time I saw a real, solid, honest-to-goodness ruck in a game of rugby.

My mind turned the years over like pages on one of those desk calendars and eventually I had to admit that, aside from some noteworthy rucks in various great games I had watched on video (the 1988 19-19 Bledisloe Cup draw at Ballymore had some fantastic footwork), I couldn’t think of one.

“Hang on” I hear you say, “there were hundreds of rucks in the Super 14 last week!”. But I say no way Jose.

When I say ruck, I don’t mean a maul that’s on the ground. I mean ruck as in rucking. As in rucked. As in feet churning over some unfortunate lying on a ball until he gets spat out the back like chaff from a haybaler. Jersey torn, stripes criss-crossing his back like a whipping from some biblical scourger, and hobbling to the next breakdown as though he’d just gone a few rounds with a rotary hoe.

If the defining characteristic of rugby is the contest for the ball, then the most defining characteristic of that contest was the use of feet on an opponent who was obstructing the passage of that ball.

The ruck was quintessentially rugby, and it meant that there were actually only two types of players in the game – the ruckers, and the ruckees.

The ruckers were invariably forwards. Very often loose forwards who were charged with freeing up the ball for their backs. The ruck was as close as any sport came to allowing the players to deal out justice to opponents, and generally the referee stayed well out of it, reasoning that if someone was lying close enough to the ball to cop a shoeing, they probably deserved it.

This is turn created a race of maniacs for whom the ruck was a place to show their daring to the world. Impervious to pain, and feeling that they hadn’t really done anything unless they threw themselves into a 16-footed tree-shredder, breakaways the world over were the benchmarks by which a willingness to absorb punishment was measured. The ruck was their home, and they inhabited it gladly.

Backs mainly stayed out of it, but were occasionally drawn in as collateral damage. A memorable anecdote from All Black winger Stu Wilson had him copping a stray boot and finishing a match with a single livid mark on his ribcage. Anxious to show off his trophy, and his toughness, Wilson entered the shower, where he hissed in a deep breath to draw attention from his fellows, and then turned so that his ruck mark could be fully observed. In the act of turning, he says, he was just in time to see the legendary All Black flanker Mark “Cowboy” Shaw enter the area, covered from shoulder to thigh in bleeding gouges. Shaw turned on the hot water and soaped up with nary a whimper. Wilson remembers skulking away without another word. The ruck was no place for the fainthearted.

However, as much as the ruck was a frontier where the laws where barely observed, it filled a useful function. In the old days, it was simple. The players policed the ruck, and if you wanted to lie over the ball, you would pay the price. The referee was there simply to make sure that the unofficial rules of rucking were observed, and that heads were left alone. This meant that ruck ball was quick ball, continuous ball, and aside from offside or foul play, ruck penalties were relatively rare.

When feet in the ruck were gradually outlawed, in the lead-up to the 1999 World Cup, the game began to grapple with the fallout.

All of a sudden, games were being decided by penalty shootouts because players knew that lying on the ball, particularly in defensive situations, would often result in 3 points rather than 7. And they wouldn’t have a boot laid on them anyway.

Chris Hewett, rugby writer for The Independent in London, said in 1999: “While no one in authority is willing to say as much, the ruck — the single most dynamic mechanism in the attacking armoury, and the phase that provides union with a continuity unique among handling games — will effectively be outlawed during this year’s showpiece event because the administrators fear the negative impact of “boots on bodies” on the TV audience.”.

So television has become the master of rugby, not once, but twice, because the demise of the ruck as we used to know it has now led to the ELV’s in an attempt to remove the blight on the game of kicking from breakdown penalties and return continuity to the sport.

The continuity has come at a price. Phil Kearns at a recent Super 14 preview function was asked: “What differences will we see this year with the new ELV’s?”. His answer? “Skinny players”. Kearns was not joking. The fact remains that under the new laws, players need to be fitter than they have ever been before, and the balance has decisively swung away from the strongman set piece specialist like Andy Sheridan, to a loose utility who can run all day, like Stephen Hoiles.

This is not to denigrate Hoiles, who is a wonderful player. But it is the first step on the road to uniformity in player shape, whereby we lose yet another defining characteristic of rugby.

Which brings me back to that most definitive element of rugby, the ruck.

Had feet in the ruck not been outlawed (under duress from those paying for TV rights), then continuity at the non-maul breakdown would have been maintained. The penalty shootout in its awful modern form would not have evolved to put pressure on the existing laws, and some of the ELV’s at least (certainly free kicks instead of long-arm penalties at the ruck) would never have needed to have been conceived.

Consequently, the quick tap would not have come into vogue with the ELV’s and rugby may have remained Marxist, drawing “from each according to his abilities”, rather than creating die Herrenrasse (the master race) of super fit, super lean automatons.

It is hard to argue with the weekend comments from Springbok half Fourie du Preez: “Rugby is now a different game. It’s like Sevens, with constant counter-attacking. There are not enough set-pieces,” Du Preez said. “It’s less enjoyable to watch and to play.” Even Lote Tuqiri compared the Waratahs vs Hurricanes game to a touch football match.

Rugby is flirting with danger in changing it’s very fabric. It is losing the elements which made it unique in the first place. Sure, restore the continuity in rugby. But do it by maintaining the essence of the sport, rather than playing with the laws.

Bring back feet in the ruck.

MY COMMENTS: Very true, if the reader is over 40 years of age then you will agree with the above, if under you probably have no idea what a real ruck looks like. The rules changes since the death of rucking have not been an adequate replacement. Bl**dy rugby administrator fools, where is Louis Lyut when you need him !

 More here : Rucking

Source: Finals expansion on cards – Greg Growden

..”THE expansion of the Super 14 finals to a six-team play-off next year is all but a certainty after this season’s logjam saw two form teams miss the cut.

SANZAR officials have been considering revamping the finals, with the most obvious first step being to increase the number of teams involved following repeated complaints that a four-team final is far too restrictive.”..

 I have no problem with this, but it obviously a commercial decision for more (Murdoch) TV money, and the ARU and NZRU need the funds (to cover previous management errors).  So more rugby for the elite in the professional game, you can bet the professional players wont be seen in the amateur Air New Zealand cup as much (if at all), not so good for that sponsor. This is of course little concern to the ARU.

More here : Warning – ARU CEO John ONeill, Super rugby – It’s in safe hands (not) !

              Naughty Boy (Dominion Post/NZRU)!

Source: Rule on Carter Needs Backing – Dominion Post

Extract

If the “Daniel Carter Option” that allows the great five-eighth to go to France for six months, earn $1.4 million and then return to play for the All Blacks in June 2009 isn’t a done deal, it should be.

The rule that a player (or a coach, for that matter) has to be involved in the Super 14 tournament is sound, as far as it goes.

But in exceptional cases, where a once-in-a-lifetime player is concerned and a special deal can be arranged, then the rule should be adjusted.

The point about Daniel Carter is that he is not leaving New Zealand rugby for a number of years. It’s a matter of months, only. 

Are you freaking kidding me !

• i) He has done nothing that confirms GREAT, he’s no C Meads or M Jones.
• ii) He has potential, that’s all, but if he does not play internationals he will never get the ‘great’ tag, and that should be up to him, why let him hedge his bets, let him choose the money or forever lasting ‘All Black Great’.
• iii) Once in a life player!  Very early to say that he is nothing more than a solid international player. I think Mr Jonny Wilkinson still holds the ‘world best’ title and if Mr Dan Carter wants to contest this crown let him compete for it the same way any other player does.

Having special rules for your kids means you create envy and animosity. Rugby players are only a decade out from the school play ground, why do you think it will be any different? It’s the same when a wrong goes unpunished, if you remove the deterrent then why would any one follow the rule!

The writer of this article must have one unruly house hold, dam fool ! This goes for the NZRU, if this is so !

More on this post HERE

Source: Where to next ? – Jim Kayes

Extracts..

For a long time one solution had seemed simple.

Create a longer Super competition with the Air New Zealand Cup played at the same time as a feeder competition, leaving plenty of time afterwards for test matches and a decent break over summer.

There you go – problem solved.

It could be argued that South Africa should be excluded from a revamped Super competition. Games in South Africa don’t suit New Zealand and Australian television audiences and the travel for teams is arduous.

The South African sides have largely failed on the field, with the Bulls’ win last year their first title, while the poor crowds they attract in New Zealand suggests Kiwis are not enthralled by the style of rugby they play.

But South Africa is a massive rugby nation and helps deliver a credible product to the broadcaster. It would not be cast aside lightly.

That said, the Tri-Nations is a tired product, with the third round added in 2006 failing to excite punters.

It should be scrapped, or radically trimmed so that tours with midweek games can be re-introduced – a concept that for now collides headfirst with a full calendar.

Ideally an international Super Six or Eight could be played two years after each World Cup with the longer tours held during the “off” years.

It might be back to the future but it’s what people want.

Club rugby can be played while the Super competition is on and flow into the domestic competition, just as the Super tournament will lead into the tests.

Read this with Wynne Gray’s Super Rugby idea HERE

I wonder if the NZRU reads this stuff?

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 : Newby: NZRU must introduce private ownership

 ..”Departing ex-All Black Craig Newby says the NZRU must embrace private ownership of its five Super Rugby franchises in a bid to secure funding to tackle the player drain.

But I would be all for it.

You look at worldwide soccer, and how they are successful with that, it is all privately owned. It is definitely the right way.

The money generated from crowds and sponsors locally is just not going to be big enough. We are only a small country.”

Really, Soccer has the winning formula… What does Kevin Keegan think ?

Source: English Premier League a bore 

“This league is in danger of becoming one of the most boring, but great leagues in the world. The top four next year will be the same top four as this year.

All the great players, the big players, the top players potentially, will go for where the honours are, and then if they don’t make it there, they will drop down to a Newcastle or any of those other clubs.”…

The rich get richer for the benefit of the few. Capitalism does not work in sport, a more socialist approach is affordable and manageable. Players earning megga bucks is good for the player and there commission based agents, it is not good for competitions and national representation. Just look a soccer !

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!