ELV talk

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by gingergenius, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    I know we've discussed this to the ends of the earth, but now we've had an entire season of S14, Tri Nations, Summer and Autumn internationals, Six Nations and the majority of the European club season to trial these new laws and I think it's time to restart it. I agree with everything this article says, and it got me thinking.

    Personally, I think they're awful. This time last year the SH guys were saying we were too conservative. After a few weeks of trialling when we still complained, they said we needed time to get used to them. We've had more than enough time now. And I struggle to think of anyone up here who thinks rugby is a better game than it was before the ELVs.

    Ok, so I accept maybe a couple of them are useful. But these are rather like the inevitable rule-changes that evolve with rugby.. like marking and so on.

    The whole-scale rule-changes were designed to 1) make the game more watchable, 2) make the game easier to referree.

    It has done neither, at least not in the Northern Hemisphere. I could make a point about how 'watchable' translates to 'we want to reverse a declining audience', but I'll simply implore any pro-ELV chaps to watch a game of 6N/ premiership rugby and tell me that the law changes have made it more watchable.

    And the refereeing has certainly not got easier. Unless by easier you mean: "The scrum is a tricky area, so as soon as it collapses let's take the easy option and award a free kick." It was so refreshing to see a few penalty tries awarded in the GP last weekend to sides with a superior scrum... something completely lacking from a huge number of 6N games (most notably England vs France).

    I really cannot see why anyone would want to change rugby from what it was pre-ELVs. Why make it more dazzling to watch? When I want to watch a game based on high-skill, running angles and so on, I can and do watch Rugby League. When I want a game with a contest for possession, I watch Union. The ELVs, apart from anything else, have reduced the importance of the scrum which is one of the key areas for contesting posession. Don't come with stats saying there are now more scrums. There may well be, but quality is more important than quantity and the way they're legislated and referreed means the quality has become shocking.

    discuss. I want to hear the opinions of someone who's watched this season up north and think it's been better.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. dullonien

    dullonien Guest

    Hmm, I distinctly remember saying what the negative effects of ELV's would be, especially the passing back into the 22 rule. It was obviously going to turn the game into a kicking fest when the stakes are big. And look what's happened, boring ping pong for minutes in almost every game in the NH. Maybe things will change soon, when teams remember running the ball and scoring tries is better than trying to force a knock on etc.

    In the end, it's turned out exactly as I thought, except the 5m rule from scrum which has seen a resurgance of crash ball centres to get over the gain line from first faze. Overall though, I say keep the 5m rule, the corner flag rule, the quick linout rule and the numbers in the linout rule. Get rid of the rest as they are having negative effect on the game (look at Italy who are really struggling without the driving maul).
     
  4. These are the ELVs which are in use in European rugby:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    Taking each on it's merits:

    1. Sensible but touch judges still pass the buck. The effect on the game is neutral.

    2. Removes a technicality from the law book. The effect on the game is neutral.

    3. Has resulted in forwards fanning across the field in defense leaving less room to attack. Has had a negative effect on the sport.

    4. Has resulted in some seemingly aimless kicking but without this law we wouldn't have had tension like the last 5 minutes in Cardiff on Saturday when Jones punted it out on the full which led to O'Gara's drop goal to win the game. The effect is neutral.

    5. Has improved the flow of the game. Positive effect on rugby.

    6. Makes it easier for referees and removes a technicality from the law book. Positive effect.

    7. Neutral effect on the game.

    8. Don't see the point of it since it doesn't reward quick throws back to the hooker from the front of the lineout. If defenders don't man the 5 metre channel, that's their own bloody fault. Negative effect.

    9. Legalises something which was already happening. Makes it easier on referees. Positive effect.

    10. Same as above. Positive.

    11. Puts space between defenders and attackers leaving room to get over the gain line. Hasn't been as good as expected (which I'll get to later) but rewards solid scrums since they give an even better platform to attack and barnstorming ball carriers. Positive effect.

    12. Has had no material effect on the game. Neutral.

    13. Completely sensible. Positive effect.

    In short that's just two ELVs which are in use in the European rugby scene which should be binned.

    Now, addressing some of the points brought up in this topic:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    Collapsing scrums is not an effect of the ELVs. It is something which needs to be addressed but John O'Neill and friends can't be blamed for it. My idea for how to fix (or attempt to fix )the ugly spectacle of constantly collapsing scrums is for another thread and probably wouldn't go down too well with some.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    I also love the contest for possession in Union. The iRB directed referees to become more strict at the breakdown so this could happen more frequently. It shifted the balance in favour of defenses with the net result that teams in possession would rather kick it away than risk losing it in the tackle. That has resulted in ping pong which has afflicted rugby this year. Guess what? This directive isn't one of the ELVs. The iRB could bin every last one of the ELVs but unless they sort out the breakdown (and the stricter protocol which was brought in to open it up), we'll still see aerial ping pong plaguing the sport.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    The reason we're seeing inside centres and number 8s crash up the ball is because they're more likely to have support around them for the resulting ruck, thus they're less likely to be penalised for holding on. If a winger is caught in possession from a backline move following a scrum, it's a 50:50 call whether he'll have support around him or give away a penalty for being isolated and holding on. Sort out the breakdown (and I'm not going to profess to knowing how this will be achieved) and you'll see more balls flung out wide rather than centres bashing it up.

    In my opinion, most of the ELVs employed in European rugby are completely sensible. The ELV I'm least in favour of (in conjunction with the one concerning the maul) is the overuse of free kicks in the Super 14/Tri Nations. The European countries were completely correct in refusing to trial it. It's a "cheaters charter" - put your hands in the ruck and you probably won't risk conceding 3 points. That's the main area where the iRB have messed up the ELVs. Dumbing the game down/making it easier to referee in the hope of speeding it up doesn't make rugby a more attractive spectacle. I'd propse going the other way. Bring in more laws which don't materially effect the sport but do encourage attacking rugby (whether via boot, through the backs or mauling it forward). Again, this isn't the place to outline them (but I'd be more than willing to explain them elsewhere!). Dumbing the sport down runs the risk of making it a structureless mess.
     
  5. frntline

    frntline Guest

    OK i got a big question we had a scrimmage today and had a Ref come to help and he said he said that it is now Illegal for a player in a ruck to grab onto a player on the floor. So the question is it Illegal cause as a smaller player that's all i can do to win a ruck otherwise i just get blown off.

    Here's a picture of what i mean its a bad pictures but cant find another [​IMG]
     
  6. Fushitsusha

    Fushitsusha Guest

    I don't see how the ELV's have reduced the importance of the scrum?

    If anything it's done the opposite.

    Also, there are still plenty of full arm penalties being awarded down here for teams who infringe at scrum time. The ELV hasn't changed the way that the scrum is refereed. As it was before they were introduced - it depends on the severity of the incident.

    In fact, a penalty try was awarded to the Brumbies' scrum against the Force a few weeks back after they continued to collapse it.

    My only problem with the ELV's is the collapsing of the scrum.

    In regards to the rucks - free kicks instead of full arm penalties for ruck infringements has improved the game greatly.

    Unfortunately the ruck is such a complicated area of the game that it can be ruined by the referee's interpretation of it, and full arm penalties for all ruck infringements allow the referee to have a lil' too much influence in the outcome of the game. Of course the ruck would become so much simpler if the IRB would actually reintroduce rucking but it isn't going to happen. Anyways, there are still full arm penalties awarded for repeated ruck infringements or penalties inside the 22m. Players are still receiving yellow cards for professional fouls and repeated infringements.
     
  7. QLD

    QLD Guest

    The worst is the collapsed maul by far. NFI why they brought that one in.

    Has anyone actually got off their arses and played the game of rugby union with the ELVS? I've been training under them and basically, teams with the fittest players who are better at structuring their play every time will dominate. I'm playing my first games next week.
     
  8. Jer1cho

    Jer1cho Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Mar 26 2009, 09:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree with everything you say. Good post, so a + rep for you...

    Anyway, i am perfectly happy with the rules staying the same as they were without the ELV's. The ONLY thing i still want changed is what is currently happening in the Super 14 with regards to more free kicks being given instead of full-arm penalties. I much prefer it when free-kicks are given for things like holding onto the ball or not rolling away as the tackler.

    It keeps the momentum of the previous move going. There is nothing more frustrating than watching a team do so much hard work, but goal kicks are the only things that ever come out of it...
     
  9. Fushitsusha

    Fushitsusha Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fushitsusha @ Mar 26 2009, 08:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Sorry... that's what I meant to say...
     
  10. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Mar 26 2009, 08:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree with everything you say. Good post, so a + rep for you...

    Anyway, i am perfectly happy with the rules staying the same as they were without the ELV's. The ONLY thing i still want changed is what is currently happening in the Super 14 with regards to more free kicks being given instead of full-arm penalties. I much prefer it when free-kicks are given for things like holding onto the ball or not rolling away as the tackler.

    It keeps the momentum of the previous move going. There is nothing more frustrating than watching a team do so much hard work, but goal kicks are the only things that ever come out of it...
    [/b][/quote]

    but not rolling away and holding on can both be cynical offences to slow down posession, which makes it harder to attack anyway. So you punish cheating with a penalty. seems fair enough.

    Personally, I like the rule regarding quick throws which could have been brought in as one of the constant evolutions rugby is under. The rest, as far as I'm concerned, should be binned. Because even the touch judges one, which makes perfect sense, is not enforced... touch judges seem to spend 80 minutes watching for foul-play and not as extra eyes for the referree in general. I'd love to see the day when a touch judge pulls up someone for feeding in the scrums, or not binding properly when the referee is on the other side...
     
  11. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Mar 26 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree with everything you say. Good post, so a + rep for you...

    Anyway, i am perfectly happy with the rules staying the same as they were without the ELV's. The ONLY thing i still want changed is what is currently happening in the Super 14 with regards to more free kicks being given instead of full-arm penalties. I much prefer it when free-kicks are given for things like holding onto the ball or not rolling away as the tackler.

    It keeps the momentum of the previous move going. There is nothing more frustrating than watching a team do so much hard work, but goal kicks are the only things that ever come out of it...
    [/b][/quote]

    but not rolling away and holding on can both be cynical offences to slow down posession, which makes it harder to attack anyway. So you punish cheating with a penalty. seems fair enough.

    Personally, I like the rule regarding quick throws which could have been brought in as one of the constant evolutions rugby is under. The rest, as far as I'm concerned, should be binned. Because even the touch judges one, which makes perfect sense, is not enforced... touch judges seem to spend 80 minutes watching for foul-play and not as extra eyes for the referree in general. I'd love to see the day when a touch judge pulls up someone for feeding in the scrums, or not binding properly when the referee is on the other side...
    [/b][/quote]

    you'll be in your cold cold grave before you see that happen ... note to self, stop talking about poster's graves!
     
  12. Jer1cho

    Jer1cho Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Mar 26 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    That's not the point. The point is, stopping the momentum completely, then having 40 kicks at goal per match because of silly infringements is what frustrates me. When a try is scored, i cheer myself stupid! But when the crowd is roaring, we gain ground, then all of a sudden we just kick at goal. Screw that. If i wanted kicks deciding every game i would become a football fan. Offsides and deliberate fouls i can deal with, but i just prefer the flowing game! When i watched Ireland vs Wales the other day, i was witnessing how kicking was going to snatch the Irish of their victory! It was so painful to watch. I think it's crap that a team can win scoring less tries than the other, but they have a 'Francois Steyn' who only needs 60m to do his thing.

    Look, i'm not saying that we should turn the game into sevens, or league. I just think that having tries decide matches is better than having kick decide them. Obviously penalty kicks are a massive part of the game, and they should be. They just shouldn't run every darn game!

    The Chiefs vs Blues game on the weekend was a prime example of what happens when you get a referee that knows how to handle the ELV's. I think we can all agree that the World Cup final 2 years ago would have been a heck of a lot better had there been some law variations in place.
     
  13. Fushitsusha

    Fushitsusha Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Mar 26 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Indeed... which is why full arm penalties are generally awarded in instances of cynical play/repeat offences and most ruck infringements that occur inside the opposition's 22m.

    But for the most part of the game, the free kicks allow things to keep flowing...
     
  14. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Mar 26 2009, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    That's exactly how I feel. I suggested before that if a team misses a shot at goal, the defending team have an option of a scrum from where the ball was kicked. It wouldn't penalise good kickers, would decrease the amount of speculative kicks (from a range which only has a 50:50 chance at best of going over) at goal, would decrease time wasting (which is often a reason for long, speculative shots late in games), would increase the frequency of teams attacking the corner from penalties. It would also potentially increase the value of having a good scrum and a good captain who has a bigger decision to make with regards what to do when awarded a penalty.

    Some may say that if a kick is missed then it rewards the team who conceded the penalty with good field position. Perhaps that's true but it could equally be said that when a referee blows up for a crooked feed into a scrum, it's the team who were initially penalised who benefit by getting the ball back. By adding an more of an element of risk/reward to goalkicking, it increases the excitement level of the sport without radically changing it.
     
  15. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    I think the consolation of field position for missing a kick is quite scant to be honest, no way should a team that's conceded a penalty have the option of a scrum back if it's missed. Punnishing a team because you failed to punnish a team has a rather twisted sense of logic to it.
     
  16. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Mar 26 2009, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I can see that argument (and it has a lot of merit to it) but it's the same twisted logic that rewards the initially penalised team when a crooked ball is put into the subsequent scrum. How is it fair for a number 8 to have a free 10 metre charge at opponents when his team have knocked the ball on (for example), just because a referee pings a scrum half for a crooked feed/technicality? In my opinion, the current situation where a team can miss a kick yet still (probably) retain possession from the subsequent kick to touch/22 drop out, rewards mediocrity.

    If a team is given added incentive to go to the corner and seek a try, it's good for the game in my opinion. Basically if you make a balls of your possession, you concede possession/field position to the opposition. For it to work properly the ELV which basically renders the maul impotent must be reversed.
     
  17. Cymro

    Cymro Guest

    If you award a free kick for holding on the floor etc then you will start to take the lineout out of the game, okay you will still have them for kicking to touch directly and indirectly and running out but surely a offence like holding on the floor deserves the team who have won the penalty to be able to kick for touch and gain the ground instead of kicking the ball into touch and not get the ball at the lineout.

    Also what annoys me the most about the ELV's is the increase in the amount of ball that is kicked like a ping pong match!
     
  18. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    I don't really buy the comparison, feeding the ball crooked into a scrum and missing a kick are 2 entirely different things, the scrum half is cheating, the kicker isn't.
     
  19. Cymro

    Cymro Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Mar 26 2009, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    A bit unrealistic ....
     
  20. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Mar 26 2009, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I can see that argument (and it has a lot of merit to it) but it's the same twisted logic that rewards the initially penalised team when a crooked ball is put into the subsequent scrum. How is it fair for a number 8 to have a free 10 metre charge at opponents when his team have knocked the ball on (for example), just because a referee pings a scrum half for a crooked feed/technicality? In my opinion, the current situation where a team can miss a kick yet still (probably) retain possession from the subsequent kick to touch/22 drop out, rewards mediocrity.
    [/b][/quote]

    It may reward mediocrity but it's still a punnishment against the defending team, you haven't conceded the 3 points but you're not going to get better field position purely because the oposition kicker isn't up to the task.
     
  21. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Mar 26 2009, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Cheating? Unarguably yes but does it decrease the enjoyment of the game when a scrumhalf throws it in his teams direction? Not a bit.

    Does a long, speculative missed kick at goal which takes a minute off the clock decrease the enjoyment/atmosphere of a game? Unquestionably yes.

    For example, a minute into the Wales v Ireland game, Ronan O'Gara lined up a kick at goal from roughly 50 metres out, wide on the right hand side of the field. Had there been more of an element of risk to attempting to kick, it would have given Brian O'Driscoll more to ponder. Go for the jugular early by kicking to the corner? Kick for goal and attempt to put points on the board? Consider the implications of a missed kick? At the time it was obvious to everybody in the crowd that O'Gara would try to get a cheap 3 points (for wont of a better term) early on despite it being on the very edge of his range. O'Driscoll had no decision to make. O'Gara missed and Ireland got the ball back. In essence they got a 2nd chance to do something having screwed up their initial effort. That example hold true for countless games.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page