ELVs - England, Ireland and Wales *OPT* out

[Maccaweeny]

1. People who read the Guardian are also the sort of people who voted for Tony Blair, drive 2CVs and spend their weekends in tree-houses.
2. The Irish Times article hardly says any "game of the year" statements
3. IRB. lol.
4. BBC. ROFL.

How about some statements of which you claim from credible sources?
[/b]

I'm loving this logical discourse, so let me get this straight. You denigrate my first source through spouting some derogatory stereotype, my second by merely ignoring the words 'seven try thriller' (I never said anything about game of the year), and my last two by posting internet acronyms.

The fact of the matter is that you wouldn't believe that publications on both sides of the equator received the game positively, and when irrefutable evidence is presented proving my point (from some of the most-read sports publications in the world), your rebuttle is....lol, ROFL, and a little bit of vitriolic diarrhea aimed at insulting a broad-ranging class of people. OH wait, that's what you've been doing this whole thread.

 

[Fushitsusha]

<div class='quotemain'>
1. People who read the Guardian are also the sort of people who voted for Tony Blair, drive 2CVs and spend their weekends in tree-houses.
2. The Irish Times article hardly says any "game of the year" statements
3. IRB. lol.
4. BBC. ROFL.

How about some statements of which you claim from credible sources?
[/b]

I'm loving this logical discourse, so let me get this straight. You denigrate my first source through spouting some derogatory stereotype, my second by merely ignoring the words 'seven try thriller' (I never said anything about game of the year), and my last two by posting internet acronyms.

The fact of the matter is that you wouldn't believe that publications on both sides of the equator received the game positively, and when irrefutable evidence is presented proving my point (from some of the most-read sports publications in the world), your rebuttle is....lol, ROFL, and a little bit of vitriolic diarrhea aimed at insulting a broad-ranging class of people. OH wait, that's what you've been doing this whole thread.
[/b][/quote]

But... but... but... John Connolly once said...

And... and... and... Australians want to turn union into league... because...

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotemain'>
How is it bad rugby to over power and stop your opponent being able to play in their chosen manor? Surely that's the whole point of contact sport?
[/b]

It's not, that's the point and that is why Australia beating the All Blacks is not from forcing them to make huge mistakes, not the ineptitude of the All Blacks themselves.

Muliaina kick straight into Tuqiri who led to the first try was like a schoolboy error.
How many times was a big forward first receiver ?[/b]

Players make mistakes when under pressure, call it a rush of blood to the head but Mils is one of the best backs in the world, you cannot possibly say his skills are less then near perfect. An error in judgement is caused at this level largely by the opposition, they are professional players and know how to handle pressure but the fact that they were put off by the Wallabies so much shows how good the Wallabies played, they got under the skin of the All Blacks and it was a hell of a lot more convincing then the freak loss against the Saffas. [/b][/quote]

An error at this level (like many others ex wrong decisions, poor handling, poor defence) is caused by non ending periods of play consisting of sloppy razzle-dazzle, aimless kicks, fifty-fifty passes , one off rugby and overall exhaustion of the player lacking the set-pieces breaks.

Exciting play is good, but not when produced by tacticals and personnal errors. I'm not against the ELV's , in fact I can't wait to see them trialled here because it will hugely suit us if anything but I think the back in the 22 rule and the defensive free kick are bad rules that make a mess of the game.
The balance between set pieces, tactical play and length of the pitch stuff is lost.

Anyway; I 'll make my mind at the end of the coming season. The rugby here is different, so the outcome with the ELV will probably be different as well.

 

[shtove]

I haven't been negative toward the ELV's, what I said was that the old laws work fine if teams decide to play positive rugby.

Heineken Cup Final: Munster were playing; 'nuff said.
[/b]

There you have it - when the big moment comes, Munster play it narrow through the forwards and kick the corners. They do it because it wins games. Why choose positive?

I'm with Steve-O, mostly.

Munster will do well under the ELVs. They will figure out a way to get 22 position and attack with the scrum - so would the English and French (but not the Welsh!). I like the 5m rule, but the straight feed should be enforced as well to give a true competition. And Munster have been smart enough (with plenty funds) to stir it up in the backline as well, bringing in players who can break the line. That part of their game is still in preparation, but with the ELVs it will be crucial.

I hate the collapsed maul. An Aus source from the rules committee said last week he was amazed that teams hadn't figured out that on collapse the second row of the maul could keep going and walk through for a try. Unrealistic - it only takes one or two defenders to collapse, and the guys holding on to the ball have to unbind to move forward ... in to the arms of the other defenders who didn't join the maul. The maul may be slow, but it does give constant movement, and collapsing it slows the game down. Get rid of that rule, and the lineout is restored as an attack piece. It's just that there will be fewer of them because of the excellent preference for free kicks over penalties, which loosens up the game and delivers us from the tyranny of "set piece" defence.

The RWC was NOT amazing. All the jazz was played in the pool stages, and defence dominated almost everything after that.

Last year's 3N was interesting only because we were trying to figure out who would win the RWC, from a pool of countries that support the ELVs.

The NH will come on board. It's a matter of time.

 

[harry_kewell]

I dont know why they dont just trial the ELV's and find out how well they work in the north. Is it because it may upset the power balance in the North?

If the next rugby world cup has them in, as it is in South Africa, and the NH teams get overwelmed because of they failed to have a go, that will make the whole comp a little sad. i dont like the NH forward dominated way at all, but they will all need to be competitive to make a goo RWC.

Does anyone know if the ELV's will be in the RWC, or are they trying ti kill it off before then?

 

[DonBilly]

I dont know why they dont just trial the ELV's and find out how well they work in the north. Is it because it may upset the power balance in the North?

If the next rugby world cup has them in, as it is in South Africa, and the NH teams get overwelmed because of they failed to have a go, that will make the whole comp a little sad. i dont like the NH forward dominated way at all, but they will all need to be competitive to make a goo RWC.

Does anyone know if the ELV's will be in the RWC, or are they trying ti kill it off before then? [/b]

As far as I know all NH competitions from the 1st of August will play according to the 13 laws agreed upon last May. Note that these 13 laws don't include the replacement of most of the penalty kick by free kicks nor the law about the unplayable balls in case after tackling which were adopted for the Super14 and the 3N.

I am curious to sse what's going to happen with the mauls. When you read the law the mauls can be collapsed if the holder of the balls is tackled on the upper part of the body. This is feasible but not easy. I won't be surprised that after some time and training some of the team play again mauls with the ball at the very back of the maul. It is not allowed to enter by the side.