ELV Poll

[peppers07]

I might be wrong here but isnt there a law that says its only a free kick for holding on the ground ithis means that if you get isolated you might as well hold on. Because if you let go the enemy will take the ball if you dont theyl still get the same thing only your defense will be back and set

 

[BLR]

If anyone says 'Why fix what's not broken' one more time I swear I'm going to find out where you live.

Tired old rhetoric...

 

[Prestwick]

Oops my bad [/b]

No probs, I had to check on irb.com myself to make sure.

 

[peppers07]

If anyone says 'Why fix what's not broken' one more time I swear I'm going to find out where you live.

Tired old rhetoric...
[/b]

But its true :wall:

 

[BLR]

But its true :wall:
[/b]

The rules are evolving the laws and attempting to take the subjectivity out of referrees. Now point out to me what broken thing is it trying to fix?

 

[sanzar]

The game is more popular than its ever been teams are allready playing more and more free flowing rugby Why try and fix whats not broken? Many of the rule changes are so minor theres no point implementing them others are just stupid pulling down the maul legal what the f***? World rugby oficails are retards theyve decided to have different rules for each leage lol what a joke. Only its not funny [/b]

As BLR said, lets not get into this whole "don't fix what aint broken" routine, because it's a false analogy. I mean, why except that new high paying job when there's nothing wrong with your current job? Why bother developing better technology when our current technology works fine? By this analogy human innovation would cease and civilisation would stagnate, and only the most moronic human being would argue that is a good thing.

And in any case the game is far from perfect and could use a bit of tinkering, which is what this is all about. The idea behind trying different laws in different hemespheres is all about efficiency. Rather than forcing everyone to trial all the new laws everywhere they are splitting them and seeing how different ELVs (E = EXPERIMENTAL btw) work in different places and on different levels. This means the trial period needn't be as long and that way they can decide what should stay and what should go. In the end probably only a few of the laws will be adopted, but that doesn't mean this was a waste of time, inovation and experimentation is a positive thing.

All sports are evolving organisms, and change is a certainty when perfection is unatainable and Rugby has been changing since it's inception. Get used to it.

 

[Ripper]

<div class='quotemain'>
If anyone says 'Why fix what's not broken' one more time I swear I'm going to find out where you live.

Tired old rhetoric...
[/b]

But its true :wall: [/b][/quote]

Games like last year's RWC Final from last year is definatly going to convert the masses to the game.

 

[Prestwick]

Flawed logic.

Games like the World Cup Final may not attract newcomers, but games like the Wales vs Fiji game and even the England vs Australia quarter final definitely would.

Also, many of this years HEC games have been total corkers under the existing rules.

Not changing my position on the ELVs, and I'm not saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because there are boring games under the existing rules, just saying that its flawed logic to use one match to tar the entire system. Text book example of over-generalization...

EDIT: Also, one thing to keep in mind is that a decision must be made by the iRB on the rules by 2009. The rules state that there cannot be any rule changes in the two years leading up to a world cup. Thus, someone, somewhere will have to make their mind up on this matter next year...just don't depend on Mike Miller for any input..

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
If anyone says 'Why fix what's not broken' one more time I swear I'm going to find out where you live.

Tired old rhetoric...
[/b]

But its true :wall: [/b][/quote]

Games like last year's RWC Final from last year is definatly going to convert the masses to the game.
[/b][/quote]

going on about the world cup final is as tired as us going on about 'it ain't broke don't fix it'. It's a world cup final. South Africa were the better team, but they had to contain an England team that was pumped and very physical. It was never going to be an exhibition of expansive rugby. If you want physical intensity then the final was an awesome match...

 

[Number10]

I think that its awesome that they are going to introduce them worldwide from the 1st of August

 

[BLR]

Games like the World Cup Final may not attract newcomers, but games like the Wales vs Fiji game and even the England vs Australia quarter final definitely would.[/b]

I agree with your first one but a newcomer watching England v Australa would not have been attracted to the game. It was a rubbish game, one team playing it close yet, not showing much attack while another showing how inept they are...yes, real attractive to non-rugby fans. :wacko:

 

[peppers07]

No matter what rule changes you make there will always be **** matches you cant change that. There was plenty of unreal matchs in world cup to. Have any of you been watching the heineken cup and challenge cup this year theres been hardly any boring matchs. Im scared that many of the retarderd rules such as the ruck infringments only a free kick, the you might as well hold on the ground and give your defense a chance rule, the pulling down the mall is allowed rule, or the **** new lineout rules,
One of these is bound to get implemented and ruin the game

<div class='quotemain'>
But its true :wall:
[/b]

The rules are evolving the laws and attempting to take the subjectivity out of referrees. Now point out to me what broken thing is it trying to fix?
[/b][/quote]

The rules dont need to be changed the referees just all need to be taught the same interpretation and learn to enforce them properly.

 

[sanzar]

No matter what rule changes you make there will always be **** matches you cant change that. There was plenty of unreal matchs in world cup to. Have any of you been watching the heineken cup and challenge cup this year theres been hardly any boring matchs. Im scared that many of the retarderd rules such as the ruck infringments only a free kick, the you might as well hold on the ground and give your defense a chance rule, the pulling down the mall is allowed rule, or the **** new lineout rules,
One of these is bound to get implemented and ruin the game

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
But its true :wall:
[/b]

The rules are evolving the laws and attempting to take the subjectivity out of referrees. Now point out to me what broken thing is it trying to fix?
[/b][/quote]

The rules dont need to be changed the referees just all need to be taught the same interpretation and learn to enforce them properly. [/b][/quote]
They tried that. In fact they've been trying it for about 10 years now. Time for a new strategy.

 

[BernieOlivier]

I'm happy with 90% of the ELV's, Just the "offside tackle rule" is a problem

 

[BLR]

The rules dont need to be changed the referees just all need to be taught the same interpretation and learn to enforce them properly.
[/b]

The general consensus amongst referees and top class players is that many of the current rules are un-neccarily complicated, it's like you are trying to argue the point that accounting students should learn by doing example after example to learn the subject when they get the same result from actually understanding the theory behind what they are doing.

As for the free kick thing...read the previous discussions, must we keep going over old topics..after repeat infrigements or DELIBERATE infringement a long arm will be given which is more likely to have a yellow card given out depending on how deliberate it is, have you watched any Super 14, it happens in most games....

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
Games like the World Cup Final may not attract newcomers, but games like the Wales vs Fiji game and even the England vs Australia quarter final definitely would.[/b]

I agree with your first one but a newcomer watching England v Australa would not have been attracted to the game. It was a rubbish game, one team playing it close yet, not showing much attack while another showing how inept they are...yes, real attractive to non-rugby fans. :wacko: [/b][/quote]

The only thing thats rubbish is your interpretation of the game. It was a superb game with one team playing a sublime forward orientated game that never did bog down like you would expect it to coupled with some mind boggling destruction work at the scrum which was facinating to watch.

This is the problem, you're expecting all non-rugby fans to just want to watch fast, runing rugby with them throwing balls around and that essentially nobody wants to watch any player with a number below 9 and that in fact if the first eight players suddenly vanished, nobody in new rugby fans would care much anyway. Utter rubbish. At the Saracens vs Ospreys HEC game we saw some absolutely incredible work at the breakdown, in the tackle and in the loose by the Saracens pack (Richard Hill especially) which left people walking away, especially new fans, saying "bloody hell, Saracens really deserved that, look at all that stuff they did between the tries" and they'd be badgering their more knowledgable rugby friends to explain what they Saracens and Ospreys guys were doing at the various areas of the forward game.

Another example is that of Italy or even Argentina. Behind Argentina's dazzling backs is one of the most efficient and destructive packs in world rugby today on which their games so urgently depend upon. Never forget that and never forget the utter hypocrisy exhibited when people shower plaudits upon Argentina for doing essentially the same as other Northern Hemisphere sides do for little or even negative credit.

I'm not saying this should impact upon the ELV debate in any way, just don't expect all fans to want the same thing. Like I said, a chap from Italy, Argentina or Georgia might well argue with passion for the very things you hate, BLR.

 

[BLR]

Your assuming too much about me as well Prestwick. I have no problem with a tight game, (SHOCK HORROR!) but I also like games where two teams are having a crack, and that was not what England v Australia was. Australia never got into the game at all, I assume you call 90 point drubbings are good rugby as well right?

You see, despite the grandeur you built up in your mind about the English fighting back with huge courage against impossible odds, they were playing against a car-wreck of a team that decided it was smart to rest thier joint leading scorer of all time in World Cups with no game plan besides 'win'.

The best games were the games with the island nations in them as they constantly had a crack and always looked dangerous, Australia never looked dangerous in the game...a game is NOT good if both teams don't show up, and this is to neutrals that is, the different of course would be the case of people with English or Australian bias.

Stop painting me as hating forward work, I used to be a prop as a kid for gods sake!

 

[scuubasteve]

There's defintely some ignorance on both sides of this arguement. NH folk will argue that their rugby is moving along great now and that flashy backplay is becoming an exciting addition to the traditionally forward grinding affairs that lend credence to the stereotype.

On the flipside, if NH folk chose to watch the Super14 this year they would notice that forward power is a tool that cannot be ignored if you want to win. Scrums are great attacking platforms and sides with a weak scrum are seriously detrimented by loosing this attacking option.

Prop forwards and hard nosed lock forwards are also key to securing the much more valuable ruck ball. What has changed is that these guys can no longer be the absolute monsters that have began to creep into the game in recent years. Props also must be able to last long enough, but cannot be extra loosies, because scrums and rucks are so important.

The game is undoubtably more simplistic when mauls can be pulled down and lineout numbers are as pedantic.

It is also important to note that pulling down mauls still has rules. It has to be done between the shoulders and hips. So no diving at the legs, and no pulling the head. Teams will still be able to maul effectively, they'll just adapt the current skills of peeling off when parts become detached.

 

[Jer1cho]

I wonder what the WC final score would have been with the EVL's in place?
3 - 0 maybe?

 

[sanzar]

I wonder what the WC final score would have been with the EVL's in place?
3 - 0 maybe? [/b]

Really? You think both sides would have been that inept? The RWC final was won for SA through their significantly superior line out, and as such they put the ball out a lot. The new laws have reduced the frequency of line-outs somewhat so there would likely have been more running and more scrummaging. There still may not have been any tries scored, but with the limited number of full arm penalties I'd imagine drop goals would have been attempted a fair bit. The RWC final was a perfect example of 2 teams trying desperately not to lose, and the new laws won't eradicate that, but hopefully it will make those games a tad less dour.