Better Rugby Rules

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 NZHerald : Wynne Gray: Forget the world, let’s make it more interesting at home

 Extract..

Let’s consider a few alternatives and start with the World Cup, which is not going to disappear. That event is scheduled quadrennially for September and October.

So in the other three years of the cycle let’s make that the time for both inbound and outbound tours or tests. Forget the sort of unbecoming drive-by internationals we are getting from Ireland and England in June.

The Super series should begin in April and run for about 20 weeks of round robin and finals competition. New Zealand rugby would be better served if the competition had the same number of teams but no South African content.

Time zones and an absence of provincial tribalism are sporting enemies in the Super series. Transtasman combat is an answer; eight NZ sides and six from Oz playing in front of capacity crowds at smaller stadiums would also be more financially sustainable, logical, interesting and easier to follow.

Players would have the progressive build-up of club and country, while an amateur club and amateur NPC competitions could run underneath the professional series.

A gap between the round robin and finals could be put aside for the Bledisloe Cup, while tests against the Springboks would become far more appealing if they went into the September-October international window. The distinctive honour of tests would return if players were involved in six or eight a year rather than double that as they are now.

The All Blacks could then take leave before Christmas. All professionals could have January and February to condition and March to prepare with their team before an April start.

More on this subject : Super rugby – It’s in safe hands (not) ! 

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 !

The RWC is rugby Olympics.

(Note: It was the NZRU that wanted the RWC, so bite your tongue, before you scream.)

In most Olympic sports, there are the lull years immediate after the games. An athlete can not be primed to 110% all the time.

If a player does remove themselves from the local NZ competition it is conceivable that some other young bright thing will step up, or maybe the player sees that the grass is so green on the other side they will never return. Those are the risks.

But I must make it clear, the NZRU should NEVER allow an overseas player to be selected for international duties. To do so would remove the union final and only bargaining chip. Players must play for super rugby prior to the international season to be available for international duties. To do so would be a transfer of power from union to player. Not Jona, Dan, Fitz or any player group is greater than the game, not ever !

A player that has international achievements will always trump those that have only national achievements, for all time!

Good luck to you Dan Carter, see post here.

Didn’t Leon MacDonald look good after his return from Japan, and another Troy Flavell well not so much !

Also it should work both ways, hey Jonny Wilkinson do you need a sabbatical down under?

It also should be noted that the richest New Zealand rugby player (a couple of years ago now) had played ZERO internationals. I understand the son of the great AllBlack Fergie McCormick was earning $1 mil a year in Japan. But who cares, his name is, dunno, there you see no international kudos! (But he did do well, well done.)

UPDATE1: Chris Rattue: Sweetheart deals will rip All Blacks apart 

On the individual deal for Dan Carter.

Extracts..

..”What the NZRU is saying is that Carter has an automatic ride into the test side without the same examination that will be applied to every other player.

What is so mind boggling is that any Carter deal would open the escape hatch for the very players the NZRU are trying to keep. Richie McCaw would be a sitter for a dispensation, as should Ali Williams and a few others.

If all the best players are on special deals overseas, what is the point of the rule in the first place?

The ground will also be ripe for resentment and rebellion among those who are denied the favoured status on the whim of men such as Tew and Graham Henry, whose competence to judge these matters must be in severe doubt anyway, given their rotten performance in running the World Cup campaign last year”… 

..”The moment this code of unity is broken is the moment that players abandon the last vestiges of common good that are vital for the test match battle and instead rediscover their instincts of self-interest.”..

..”Now, with the crumbling ruins piling up around it, the NZRU is preparing to tear away the remaining bonds which can still make the All Blacks great. They are separating players into categories, creating division that is likely to rip them apart.”…

“…The game is over. Rather than heralding the great new dawn, sneaky Carter-type deals signal the beginning of the end.”..

WARNING: New Zealand will be the Brazil (in soccer) of world rugby.

I never agreed to allow Dan Carter to have automatic selection into international duties, he is not that good and I would not care if he was. I did say if a player wished to bugger off for a break, and come back and try his luck (by playing super rugby, and take a pay cut) for the All Blacks then that’s fine.

The article above implies that the BROADCASTER CEO and SPONSOR CEO are talking to the NZRU CEO, saying that Dan Carter is worth more to the game in hard cash than the game its self . NO, NO, no player is bigger than the game. DUDE its not golf, tennis or motor racing its a team sport. I refer you back to the Robbie Deans advert ‘A great team will always beat a great player!’. Money is rulling the game.

If what Chris Rattue is saying is true, then CEO Steve Tew (and the board) is a ‘blood idiot’ and he (they) should drink and drive to confirm it. Or resign as his many years in the NZRU have been correlated with some of the most stupid rugby administrator decisions of all time. See this post.

 Thanks to:  Chris ‘Patton‘ Rattue .

 UDPATE2: Peter Bills : Top Springboks must choose between country and fortune

Extract..

…”The suddenly emboldened union has told its most prized men if they want to represent their country they must be prepared to forego a financial bonanza overseas.”…

…”But the union is playing hard to get. As an insider said: “We know that every single agent in South Africa is watching the outcome of this case like a hawk. Our fear is that if we agree to make up the rest of the money involved, the agents will advise their players to sign for a top club in France or England and then wait for us to buy them back when they want to play for the Springboks. We would be mad to agree to that. We just can’t afford it.”…

Good on ya SARFU, wish NZRU had them selves the same hairy clankers ! 

Have you started a blog yet, to vent your spleen, while your game is getting flushed down the outside dunny. Rise up, protest, sing out loud, do something!

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 latest headline is that Super Rugby will be re vamped, maybe as early as 2009. Broadcasters say that viewing numbers are falling, SANZAR must re jig the competition to keep players at home and to spark more interest for the fans and players. (Source : rugbyheaven.com.au)

Why the rush for change, why by 2009. Why not take more time to research, plan,  explain and sell the changes to the fan base. Are the fans deserting the game in droves because there love for the game has diminished, is this the reason or is it because the administrators have completely stuffed up. By over paying players (ARU), by resting players (NZRFU), allowing second rate players to be selected (SAFRU to boost the black player profile), or have unions miss managed there affairs producing financial losses (Yr 2007 results: ARU -$7 mil, NZFRU -$1.7 mil).

Playing viewing numbers should not be expected to sky rocket every year, remember the viewer has economic boundaries and an attention span that can only support so much rugby in a calendar year. So I put the forward the notion that the demand for the change in super rugby is not fan demand lead, it is administrator incompetence lead.

So what can the pandora box of a new re vamp super rugby competition be leading the fan into, god only knows, but rest assured fan, you are in good hands as the new plan has been well researched and thought out, all will be well (not) ! See more on performance of NZRFU and ARU in this post.

Do we really want Auckland to be a fruit salad of players (ooops it is now) from many different countries of origin? Do we really want to see the Western Force sign all the players from Christchurch boys high school 1st 15 with the promise of massive salaries?  (Ok maybe not in year one, but these new super rugby rules will be the yellow brick road for these changes !).

There may be a serious economic slowdown around the corner and the business of rugby will not escape a consumer lead recession.  So SANZAR priority must be to develop the quality of the product to ensure its survival. I get the real feeling that a lot of the super rugby changes will be throw of the dice and hope ! The fan is at the mercy of the pinheads running the game.

Some much needed guidelines for the Rugby Administrator:

1) See post on this blog, Win back the Fans. I have just read and article by Paul Lewis: NZRU in need of outside help to revitalise game , here there is no mention of the ELVs, I would estimate that the ELVs and the Checkers vs Chess posts cover at least 60% of the problem. Another article by Richard Loe: Tough encounter guide to All Blacks stating that the Blues vs Crusaders super rugby game on 25-4-08 was the ‘best game of the season’, and I thought that if this game was the RWC final it would be a massive embarrassment to world rugby  (see my review on the  ELVs post UPDATE2 at the bottom).  Where have the deep thinking philosophers of the game gone?

2) The best fan draw card is a contest between great teams, good players are secondary. Robbie Deans TV advert quote ‘A great team will always beat a great player !’ I would add a great rugby chess game within the contest is the best draw card of all.

3) Rugby fan loyalty has always been geographically based. If you are an Aucklander born and bred then Auckland will be your team. However this fan loyalty may be severely tested if the players are not Aucklanders born and bred. This is the tribe vs tribe theory. How are the Warriors doing with there 6 Aussie players, didn’t Eric Watson say he wanted to beat the Aussies at there own game (with Kiwis) ? A sound fan base is built best on the tribe theory and not the fickle ‘we won last week’ theory.

4) Get super rugby on free to view TV and or internet (Delayed, most likely).

5) Dont over charge at the stadium gate. There have been some very high ticket prices set for game’s. I think the French at the RWC 2007 did a fantastic job of getting attendance by packaging multiple games together for a single ticket.

6) Maintain national identity within super rugby teams. For the NZFRU to allow a New Zealander like ‘Dan Carter’ or ‘Jona Lomu’ to play for a non New Zealand super rugby side for $1.5 mil just so you can keep him happy and allow him to be in the national squad is opening the door for a rugby mad billionaire to come along and buy (say) the ‘Western Force’ and fill his team ‘star’ players at sky high prices. Oops the dawn of a soccer style rugby club. Then the ‘price’ of star players will have no limit. This will prove to be a major fundamental error of SANZAR. If a player wants the money then let him go, and dont allow him to be selected for international duties. The SANZAR unions must hold onto the international duties as there only valuable bargaining chip, once this is gone, they are doomed. No individual or group of players is greater than the game. So let them go! When the famed coach of the rugby league team the Broncos ‘Wayne Bennett’ had players demanding top dollar, after years of developing the young players up thru the grades, his response was ‘See ya latter!’. Yet players a like Allan Langer and Darren Lockyer never left the Broncos club for the big bucks. Loyalty, team culture and a sense of family is worth more to a player than cash. If it’s not let them go, you will never win with cash motivated player! Currently super rugby has a major fan pull of tribe vs tribe, thats Blues (tribe:NZ) vs  Brumbies (tribe:AUS), and it would be negative to see ‘Harlequins’ (tribe ?) vs ‘Badgers’ (tribe ?). It is not so much the individual match up of Dan Carter vs Stephen Bretts, its not tennis dude, it is a team (and combinations) contest.

7) Tax Break. Ok lets do the sums, NZ has about 150 professional players, lets say the player average income is $130,000 per year. That is gross revenue of $19.5 Mil, tax to the IRD at 30% equals $5.8 Mil. Lets give the players a tax rate of 15%. So thats reduced the players tax bill by 50% and the government looses $2.4 mil. But do they? If the commercial spin offs from professional rugby were to die off then the tax revenues lost from a poor performing super and international rugby season would be much greater than $2.4 mil. Would the government offer such a tax break, well the gave the Americas Cup Team $30 Mil plus, and there has been little return so far!

8) Create a SANZAR (and/or NZRFU) Official Super Rugby Internet Email Forum. An email forum where threads can be posted by the fan and answered by administrators and officials. Participation from the union CEO down to the touch judge is critical to the effectiveness of such a forum. The English RFU have such a forum were I have often seen administrators partake in ‘one on one’ fan issue discussions. This is a must have ! They are currently running a forum thread on the ELVs, good on the English RFU ! (If there is one already I cant find it !)

9) Player exodus. What benefit is it to french rugby to have a club like Toulon import so many foreign players just to get it out of the second division. This setup is purely a billionaires play thing, how does a flood of non french players improve the opportunities of french rugby players (Example, just consider the depth and experience of english soccer players for there national side). The player exodus is fueled by supplied side economics, that is the supply of money from a non central body, the control is not with a central rugby union. Therefore the central union should fight back and cap the number of foreign players per team. IRB please step up! Correct me if I am wrong, didn’t English cricket step and cap the number of foreign players for each county side.

10) This article is so important Pinetree blasts All Blacks coaches, NZRU. I bet before the day is over he will be rubbished and written off as a silly old fart and completely ignored.

This part is priceless…

The report was on the RWC 2007 failure.

“When the report was out [this month] the only one who was discredited was Richie McCaw because he didn’t instruct someone to have a dropped goal. Yet Graham Henry swears he sent down messages to them. What the bloody hell is rugby coming to? You have someone sitting in the box and trying to get a message to the captain.

“In our days we weren’t even allowed to leave the field at halftime. Once the game was on the captain was in charge and you never even heard from the coach until after the game.

“I think we’re getting over-coached and over- organised. You now have four selectors, a tackling coach, a scrum coach, a lineout coach and you have a couple of technical advisers. Now, which of those buggers do you have to listen to?”

Notice:

Join the fight to save the game, start a blog, email NZRFU.

Here are the necessary steps. 

1)      Return the traditional rugby structure back into the game. See Foundation Posts and ‘My ELV Amendments’ on home page ( right hand side).

2)      Move south island games from 7.30pm during Jun/Aug to 5.00pm (or earlier).

3)      Re vamp the repetitive boring tri nations.

4)      Some how, make sure northern touring teams are at full strength.

5)      I guess it will happen (sad), and that’s a minor (amateur) and major (professional) rugby competitions that run side by side from March to June.

6)      International playing window. See post of the same name.

7)      3 months break from rugby on our screens (Dec to Feb).

8)     Ensure that the contest is 15 vs 15, unless extreme foul play has occurred, get smart like Rugby league and use the ‘player on report’ system. If a player is to leave the field use the 3rd Ref TV ability to make sure the decision is correct. Rugby is destroyed when it is reduced to a uneven contest, and referee’s are made to look stupid if a sending off is not legitimate.

9)     Make sure that each try is legitimate, get smart like rugby league (again) and have a look back for ‘forward passes’ and the ‘ball is in touch’ to confirm each try. TV replays can make the game look very stupid, cricket and rugby league is way ahead of rugby union on this issue.

1)      Using silver jerseys in the 2007 RWC

2)      Playing any rugby after 7.00 pm between Jun and Aug in the NZ South Island

3)      Appointing co Coaches in the 1999 RWC.

4)      Failure to co manager the 2003 RWC in Australia.

5)      Allowing Adidas to design such stupid rugby playing gear.

6)      Resting players from Super 14 2007.

7)      TV fund raising for heartland rugby via Justin Marshall advert.

8)      After the release of ‘Why we lost RWC 2007’ report, keeping Henry as coach. And please explain how Wayne Smith is still the backs coach, how does this happen!

9) Spending $8 MIL on a ‘Higher Performance Development’ project between 2004-2008.  Was this type of project ever needed between 1901 and 2000, and we did ok !

And these should never happen..ever

a) Allowing overseas players to be selected for the All Blacks (consider Brazil in soccer)

b) The loss of legal and financial control over player contracts.

c) The dismantling of rugby union in the high schools.

d) Allowing rugby to slip into a hybrid game, and loose its identity.

Some good things

a) RWC 2011.

b) Womans NZ Rugby.

c) NZ Rugby sevens.

d) Thinking….thinking…will get back to this…

The IRB should:

1)      Put aside two months in the calendar year and call it the ‘The Rugby International Playing Series’. The series would include international games no matter of the playing rank of the teams. (eg England vs All Blacks, Kenya vs Sri Lanka, etc). Does not include regular yearly competitions. (ie Tri Nations and Six Nations).

2)      Sell this playing series to all the broadcasters around the world. Just like the RWC. It has been proved via the RWC that some of the lesser ranked games punched above there weight in TV ratings and rugby excitement. Remember Georgia vs Ireland RWC 2008.

3)      A vehicle like this would also attract international sponsorship, but I concede not to the same extent as the RWC. However, it could be the ‘Coca Cola Rugby International Playing Series 20XX’.

4)      Gate fees should be split 75% to home union, 25% to visitor to union.

5)      Total world wide broadcasting revenue from the playing series should be split on a similar formula used for RWC revenues.

6)      Internationals outside this window are private affairs between unions.

7)      My guess is that Oct/Nov as the best suited months.

As the playing series will included more internationals I would think the world wide revenue would greater than individually negotiated tours. For example All Blacks vs Japan may provide a larger contribution to total series revenues than All Blacks vs England. Even the revenue rich England could expect bumper profits, plus smaller unions secure funding outside the RWC cup year.

Capitalism does not work in sport, as the rich get richer. A more socialist approach will produce a very secure funding foundation for world rugby development.

 The financial model the international window must look at is the American Football model (gridion) where the TV revenues are split evenly between all teams (The 52 states within the USA are basically 52 countries). The international playing window should be used to balance out the wealth, in a professional sport this is the only way to foster a very sparse field of competitive international rugby teams. Currently and for possible the next 25 years the RWC trophy is only really likely to be won by 5 teams (France, England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand). But as the administrators of these countries are the power of the IRB, well I guess nothing will happen !

You may think the most dangerous thing in southern hemisphere rugby over the last 20 years was Jona Lomu running down a touchline. Wrong, there is something more ferocious and that is a rugby administrator trying to capture the glory days after his union posted a $7 MIL AUD loss for the 2007 year. John ONeill is possibly the most destructive force in world rugby. Why, he is determined to compete with ARL and NFL in Australia. To do this he needs a game that can be sold to the fans that watch these other games. Rugby in its current form is not pulling these fans away from AFL/NRL. So if you can’t beat them join them. Hence the current ELVs will be the yellow brick road to a hybrid rugby union/league game. The famed coach of the Queensland Broncos, Wayne Bennett agrees that a hybrid game between union and league would be a very real possibility. Rugby league coaches are seeing that union is moving closer to league, so why cant the IRB.

Domestic Australian rugby has no viable national competition like the Air New Zealand cup or Curry Cup. The losses suffered by the ARU have been due to the failed national club competition and paying former rugby league players very high salaries. The real truth about Australian rugby is that in the 1990s it punched very high above its weight, and received the appropriate accolades. But the ARU player depth has been eroded by the smarter AFL/NFL unions getting into high schools and pushing rugby out. There is only one government school in Sydney playing rugby union (and they get thrashed every week), rugby union is played by mostly by private (non government) schools. So I am afraid ARU is not a union like New Zealand, England, France or South Africa, so how can it expect to have the same base as these other unions. The John ONeill growth plan is to bring other unions down to its level by touting a ‘bigger market’, TV revenues, the need to ‘progress’ or freshen up for the modern demands of the viewing fan. You must be able to smell the spin, by now!

We have heard proposals from John ONeill for a 26 week Super 16 competition. ARU can only see growth in there playing base by introducing more Australian teams into the Super rugby mix. So the super rugby competition is finally a mirror of the NRL or AFL. This of course would destroy the quality domestic competitions in New Zealand and South Africa. This is of no concern to John.

So why is a domestic rugby competition like the Air New Zealand Cup worth defending in a professional rugby world?

1)      By default the Super 14 rugby teams from New Zealand were awarded to the larger economic geographic areas. The Air NZ Cup allows the Super rugby unions to defend there super rugby status against the non super rugby unions. The Air NZ cup in 2007 saw Hawkes Bay in the finals. Sending a wake up call the super rugby unions. God forbid if they had won the grand final. Go the bay!

2)      The fact that super rugby unions must travel to non super rugby unions keeps the local interest in the game very much at the front of the queue. New Zealand very strong rugby base is in high school rugby (both government and non government schools play the game religiously), failure to have national games at the local union allow a door open for other codes. Take your rugby base for granted and over time you will see it destroyed. (Attention Mr S Tew – CEO NZRFU).

3)      The Air New Zealand Cup will remain profitable if the game is managed correctly. In New Zealand playing night games in the south between June and August is just not inviting attractive rugby viewing on TV, yet it’s a policy that is still pursed as TV broadcasting insists upon it. Maybe the broadcasters never played the game, maybe the union needs to take a cut in revenue to see that the game is supporting by the local New Zealand fan and not a Welsh fan having his breakfast cornflakes in Cardiff. The point is that quality always becomes before quantity.

But, I believe we will see in NZ and South Africa the demise of the domestic provincial competitions. I think we will see a longer Super rugby season, followed by the international season. I can see the creation of an amateur competition underneath the professional competition, very much like the minors and majors in professional sport in the USA. I guess I will be dragged kicking and screaming into this new world, as this is the only way a rugby season can be reduced from 11 months to (say) 9 months.  This will also give the much needed ‘international window’ a chance to work.

The New Zealand rugby union is about to post a very large loss for 2007. Due to a failed expansion of the Air New Zealand cup, failed RWC effort, failed Super 14 in 2007. We are now playing ARU vs NZRFU in Hong Kong for cash. I guess we can expect more financially motivated decisions.

UPDATE: The NZRFU posted a loss of $1.7 MIL. This loss was limited by forex hedging. Makes me wonder why the original Adidas deal was not done in NZD, hm ?

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 !

Rugby union is like chess and rugby league is like checkers.  

Checkers is a game where the checker piece does the same thing.

Rugby league is a game where all the players do the same thing, they take the ball up, on the tackle they put the ball thru there legs and start again. Rugby league scrums are golden oldie scrums so that doesn’t count, there are no lineouts or mauls. Sure, running the ball up has a different degree on demand between the forward and backs but not much. To disallow one team having all the possession there is a six tackle count, as the game does not allow more contests to see possession changes hands. The rugby league player, if lined up in a police lineout would all look the same physical design.   

Chess is a game where the chess piece does very different things.

The array of very different abilities of each chess piece allows the chess player to be very creative when it comes down to playing tactics. Chess has more structure than checkers, I submit that union has more structure than league, and it should remain so. 

Rugby union can be broken down into combinations: Front row, back row, loose forwards, back of scrum, centre field, back three. These combinations perform as units within the structured game of rugby, performing specialised roles, with specific skills and body shape. Fracturing the demand for a player with these specialised skills is a move away from the structured (chess) game and a move towards a more generic player (checkers). The generic player will be selected on his ability to multi task rather than perform a specialised role (ie15 loose forwards).

Please note that rugby has been able to live within a fine balance of structured (scrums, malls, kick offs, 22 drop outs, full lineouts) and non structured play (phase play, quick taps, quick lineouts). The operative word is ‘balance’, and all rule changes should be measured on how they keep this very fine balance (see my comments on ELVs) .  Balance is critical, as it allows a fair chance for the rugby player (prop, half back, 2nd 5/8, etc) specialised skill to be exercised within the games many contests (Front row contests, mid field contests, tall timber lineout contests, speedster wing contests, back of the scrum contests). Non structured play reduces the fair chance of these type of contests occurring within a game as the player one on one contest is random and not structured. Just as chess is divided between non structured pieces (the pawn) and other more structured chess pieces (Queen, King, Rook, Castle, Bishop), so in a way is rugby union by way of the nature of mix between structured and non structured play.

If rugby administrators break the rule ‘rugby is like chess’, they will have a hybrid game that is some where between checkers (union) and chess (league). A hybrid game will see rugby lose its hard won identity and the marketing boys will tell you that to have a good brand your need a distinctive point of difference from the competition.

The honest intention to attract TV revenues from the temporary fan (those that watch rugby league, Australian rules, American football, and soccer) is commendable, but not at the expense of the ‘true rugby fan’. Rule changes and playing times suitable for TV viewing are not always in the best interest of the rugby fan, administrators must protect the base that got the game to from 1901 to 2008. 

Note: Sorry rugby league fans if you don’t see it my way.

The above philosophy is my light house when I discuss all matters playing the game, and it supports this blog title : Forwards should be forwards, and backs should be backs. A game for fatties, skinnies, tall and short players!

Any thing else is not the rugby game that I fell for when I was a young fella watching the All Blacks win and lose. If I my views are in the minority, then I will be another number in the statistic titled: “Declining attendance”.

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.

PLEASE READ OTHER LEADING POSTS HERE : Foundation Posts