ELVs - England, Ireland and Wales *OPT* out

[Cymro]

<div class='quotemain'>
Yes well done for getting the map out and telling me that I allready know, I dont regard myself as being British, even though I was born and raised technically in Wales which is in Great Britain, so unfortunatly for you, you are wrong! End Of!

What makes me laugh is the actual fact I have an argument and you fail to recoginse that your great John O'Neill did actually say this and it seems that you have lost any creditbility for not seeing this.[/b]

British does not mean English, you cannot just renounce the fact Wales is in the British Isles. You can renounce your Englishness as that is incorrect, you cannot renounce your Britishness as you would need to say you are no longer Welsh.

O'Neill is a douchebag, I am saying to not listen to what he says, his comments don't represent outside of NSW most of the time, let alone the rest of SANZAR. [/b][/quote]

Well done for pointing out the British issue for me, im surely unsure of not being Welsh <_< ....

Watch out Plaid Cymru will be on its way to my house now ....

Regarding O'Neill its still the fact that he has come out with the comments and its much reaction after moaning about the money needed to bid for the World Cup!

 

[dullonien]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
1. Im not British im Welsh (and no don't start it either)[/b]

British Isles. End Of.

The fact of the matter John O'Neill is getting upset because he is getting out-priced for Australia to have the chance to host the World Cup again! [/b]

Haha, you don't help your credibility when you come up with rubbish like that, what does J'ON have to do with anything? You have no argument.
[/b][/quote]

******** sitting and watching this pile of gash getting spoken by the 'Great and Al Mighty' SH nations

Yes well done for getting the map out and telling me that I already know, I don't regard myself as being British, even though I was born and raised technically in Wales which is in Great Britain, so unfortunately for you, you are wrong! End Of! [/b][/quote]

You tell em Cymro, I have not or never will be British. No matter what my passport says, I am Welsh.

Now please BLR, keep your little jibes out of things you don't understand.

Right, all better now. Let's wait and see what is actually happening, as Prestwick has said, there is nothing in the news over here (apart than the droning of John O'Neill) to suggest there's gonna be any boycott.

British does not mean English, you cannot just renounce the fact Wales is in the British Isles. You can renounce your Englishness as that is incorrect, you cannot renounce your Britishness as you would need to say you are no longer Welsh.[/b]

Don't f***ing start, ok?

 

[Prestwick]

Hey guys,

Red sky at night, shepherds delight!

Red sky in the morning...some Welsh Nationalists set all yer bloody sheep on fire!

 

[Cymro]

Hey guys,

Red sky at night, shepherds delight!

Red sky in the morning...some Welsh Nationalists set all yer bloody sheep on fire! [/b]

My case rests!

 

[Bullitt]

Whenever I apply for a passport etc. I always fill in nationality as "English".

The "Great Britain" only exists in the minds of Gordon Brown and the BBC. The majority of the public in England, Wales and Scotland all want to go their separate ways and govern themselves (I'll leave that hot potato of N.I. alone), do their own thing and live to their own standards.

The only thing we all actually agree on is that the old laws are much better then the "let's turn Union into a League/AFL Hybrid" ELVs.

 

[Cymro]

Whenever I apply for a passport etc. I always fill in nationality as "English".

The "Great Britain" only exists in the minds of Gordon Brown and the BBC. The majority of the public in England, Wales and Scotland all want to go their separate ways and govern themselves (I'll leave that hot potato of N.I. alone), do their own thing and live to their own standards.

The only thing we all actually agree on is that the old laws are much better then the "let's turn Union into a League/AFL Hybrid" ELVs. [/b]

You also forgot the BNP <_<

 

[Bullitt]

Well, that's forgivable, bloody Nazis.

 

[dullonien]

The only thing we all actually agree on is that the old laws are much better then the "let's turn Union into a League/AFL Hybrid" ELVs. [/b]

Well, not quite. I wanna see them trialled. I also think they will suit Wales' way of playing, weren't we already playing ELV's in 2005, when Peel used to take quick taps from most penalties? Anyway, thanks for diffusing that with your witty little poem, lol.

 

[candybum]

ELV's don't make union into league! i just to see how some of these people reckon its becoming like league?

Come on, give the ELV's a chance, please lol poo c's

 

[Prestwick]

I'm an unashamed pragmatic Unionist. I always believe that I am British first, English second. It was how I was brought up and it will be how I bring my children up. I was brought up on proud stories of Union Flags being waved at the 1966 World Cup Final and a much better understanding between the english speaking peoples of the British Isles (and the Welsh).

The problem is that gradually, everyone is becoming more and more introverted. Less people are travelling to Universities in other parts of the Union thanks to a plethoria of (crap) polytechnics springing up in England, Scotland & Wales. However we try to hide it, there is far less cultural understanding between everyone than there used to be. My Dad for example remembers the words to the old Scottish song "the road to the isles" amongst others as it was taught in his Primary School in England. You just don't get that now.

There is less 'cross-talk' if you will between the members of the Uk these days. We are all becoming much more introverted as member nations, nobody is willing to share their culture with anyone else terrified that it might get tagged with the word "British". I think that is an awful state of affairs and it is to the detrement of these sceptered isles that we've allowed ourselves to get to this stage.

A far smaller military as well as a greatly reduced MoD real estate in real terms across the British Isles means that less people get the chance to go to other places in the UK and meet other people from other parts of the UK. A large Scottish contingent means bugger all if the Armed forces overall has greatly shrunk over the last twenty years alone.

Its sad really, we are far weaker socially, economically and culturally as a result. As I observed in my time in Scotland, self centered cultural navel gazing counts for nought if you are the only ones hearing it.

 

[Steve-o]

The only thing we all actually agree on is that the old laws are much better then the "let's turn Union into a League/AFL Hybrid" ELVs. [/b]

The sad thing about your whole argument, saying Rugby won, is that Union is already a hybrid Mite. Just because you have grown used to this form of Union doesn't mean it's the REAL Rugby Union.

Get some footage of matches that were played back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, and you'll notice that rugby today is very different from what the original was. It was not forward based (in fact is was VERY open, all the props looked like Niel Back and Phil Waugh), there were no lifting in the line outs, there was no 'mark' rule, there were no yellow or red cards, scrums were less organised (no touch, pause, engage. In fact the ref had no problem with the loosies no being bound when the ball was put in). So your argument is extremely weak, in fact it's useless. New laws and rules have been added over time constantly, to improve the game, so in it's very essence Rugby Union is an ever changing game. End of.

 

[Bullitt]

The reason for the openness of the of the games from back then wasn't "because of different laws", that was purely down to the fitness levels of those players and the amateur era of the time. The gulf between the speed and strength of backs and forwards is a far cry from 40 years ago, where backrows now are just as adapt in cardio-vascular training as any centre. Coincidentally, centres now tend to be just as strong as their 6, 7 & 8 counterparts.

Since teams have turned professional, drills and work rates have improved leading to tighter defenses. Again in turn, referees are better drilled on the letters of the law and now will ping a forward for not binding. Those laws are there for the safety of the players involved.

And, speaking of safety, let me say where I see this going...

Allowing for the pulling down of mauls is the most hair brained idea any chuffing donkey has ever come up with. The reason it's a penalty to pull down the maul is because it's a dangerous thing to do which can and has gotten players killed. Yes, Killed. Not injured for a few weeks, not out for the season, killed, be it a broken neck or whatever.

So, because of the risk involved, it's a back door method of forcing them out of the game. Once a few players pick up serious injuries or worse, an inquiry will form, some doctor from Nottingham will send in his report and they'll end up getting outlawed completely. Then they'll start looking at anything else that can potentially injure a player.

Through all this time, you lot in the SH will continue harping on "oh look, the ELVs are great because the ball is in play for an extra 2 minutes per match although it's only the fullback holding it just outside his 22".

Next will come the scrum. What can we do to keep the ball in play a bit longer... Feeding, there's a good start. If they feed it, they can push it out to the backs quicker and that'll be more exciting!

Then, the next report will come through, along with a case study on Matt Hampson, so Rucking and scrumming will be up for review. After all, a prop ("who apparently did this scrumming thing a lot" say the health and safety boffins) broke his neck and is now a paraplegic because of a collapsed maul. They're similar to these ruck things. Let's outlaw them. But that scrumming thing he did, it definitely puts too much pressure on the neck and back, despite being pussified 2 years ago with this "touch" ********. Lets make that non contested, it's much safer that way.

And finally, just as a way to create even MORE space for "the only exciting bit of rugby", running, we'll drop a couple of players. And make them only allowed to tackle 6 times before a turn over. That'll give them the want to go forwards.

Finally, being as the Oussies haven't won a game by a drop goal in a couple of months, they must be unhappy with the amount of points they're worth. Lets drop that from 3 to 1. That'll keep them happy. Ah, while we're at it, tries are only worth 4, what the heck! In for a penny, in for a pound!

 

[candybum]

I would strongly add that the IRB are bunch of marnus's. Change the game here and give us 100 millions bucks if you want to host the World Cup there. They're just donkey kongs really. They want to improve the game but really?

 

[nam97]

The point was that O'Neill was holding up the New Zealand vs South Africa game as a shining example against "penalty shoot-outs" when for the most part, there were more penalties in the first round of the Tri Nations than in the two England vs New Zealand games.

Read the Guardian quote again, properly, and you'll see what I mean.

My view on the ELV hasn't changed: that I've found my space on the fence and I'm sticking to it! That press cutting had nothing to do with my views on the ELVs, it was more a reference to how much John O'Neill talks out of his arse. He had a million high scoring, low penalty, Super 14 ELV games to choose from and he decided to contradict himself by chosing a low scoring, high penalty and poorly reffed Tri-Nations game? :huh:

As for the ref, I'd put it down to "man who cannot swim thrown in deep end" syndrome. Poor guy was so nervous about making a mistake he ended up making loads by just stopping the game every five seconds.

As for the news on the so called 'rift' it seems to be emerging that the RFU & WRU specifically have not yet agreed on whether to implement the part of the agrement stipulating that the most controversial ELVs be "trialled in a major NH cup competition".

Well, there are only three major cup comps up here: the HEC, the ECC and the EDF (paper) Cup. Thus, it looks like the RFU & WRU drew the short straw and are dragging their feet.

However, there is no suggestion that the ELVs period are off. This is just speculation and frankly fear mongoring by the SH press. There is nothing about it up here but obviously, someone 10,000 miles away editing stuff.co.nz knows more about the inner workings of the RFU than some of the most seasoned rugby hacks of the English press.
[/b]

What, you saying I can't read? Bring it! I'll smash you! :box: :box: :box:

 

[Jer1cho]

You guys are a bunch of silly billy's.

 

[BLR]

I read somewhere that there was actually less instances of injuries under the ELV's maul laws then with the old laws. The reason for this is that players are prepared for the collapse and ready themselves.

The game is now professional, shouldn't the laws reflect this, we have some draconian laws which are no longer relevant with the high fitness professionals that play the game today and of which make the referee a huge determinant of a game outcome, not the players themselves.

We went from a amateur game to a professional game without much change in the laws at all, maybe IRB are thinking that it's time to bring the game into the 21st century?

Australia has nothing to do with the ELV's Mite, the scapegoat you are searching for is the IRB. A collection of members from all over the world looking at rugby in an objective manner. I wonder what the RFU's motives are in not bringing in the ELV's? It comes down to Objective views of the IRB verse the highly subjective and self-interested views of the 'home unions'. And I must say I have always valued objectivity above all else when it came to making a decision.

 

[Steve-o]

The reason for the openness of the of the games from back then wasn't "because of different laws", that was purely down to the fitness levels of those players and the amateur era of the time. The gulf between the speed and strength of backs and forwards is a far cry from 40 years ago, where backrows now are just as adapt in cardio-vascular training as any centre. Coincidentally, centres now tend to be just as strong as their 6, 7 & 8 counterparts.


[/b]

You didn't acknowledge anything I said besides the props being smaller back in the day. What about the mark rule, what about the lifting in a lineout rule, what about yellow and red cards? heck let's even add when the points allocation for tries, conversions and penalties changed. You decide to overlook ALL of that so you can explain to me why some players are bigger now. Scrum were a mess back then, now they're an integral part of the ELV's. Mite answer the real questions here. Or doesn't that suit you? Just like only very recently (the 90's and modern rugby) has rugby become more forwards based in the NH, and because England seems to be pretty good at it, you'll decide that that's OK and that's how rugby SHOULD be. Weak...

And, speaking of safety, let me say where I see this going...

Allowing for the pulling down of mauls is the most hair brained idea any chuffing donkey has ever come up with. The reason it's a penalty to pull down the maul is because it's a dangerous thing to do which can and has gotten players killed. Yes, Killed. Not injured for a few weeks, not out for the season, killed, be it a broken neck or whatever.

So, because of the risk involved, it's a back door method of forcing them out of the game. Once a few players pick up serious injuries or worse, an inquiry will form, some doctor from Nottingham will send in his report and they'll end up getting outlawed completely. Then they'll start looking at anything else that can potentially injure a player.

Through all this time, you lot in the SH will continue harping on "oh look, the ELVs are great because the ball is in play for an extra 2 minutes per match although it's only the fullback holding it just outside his 22".
[/b]

South Africa had 6 successful rolling mauls against New Zealand last weekend. I didn't like the pulling down the maul rule either (I'll admit, I was uninformed) until I saw it in action. You can only pull a maul down from a players waist, which if you seen it is pretty damn difficult!. No diving underneath, no collar pulling, no leg pulling, none of the kind of stuff. Please give me a list of people who have died in a collapsed maul, because I can give you a list of people who have died in a ruck as well as a list of people who became paralyzed in a ruck. But we don't wanna do that... Because rugby is a contact sport, and people know the risks. I'm still on the fence on this one BTW, it wasn't used in the S14 and from the 2 Tests its been trialled in I see no big difference really.

Next will come the scrum. What can we do to keep the ball in play a bit longer... Feeding, there's a good start. If they feed it, they can push it out to the backs quicker and that'll be more exciting!

Then, the next report will come through, along with a case study on Matt Hampson, so Rucking and scrumming will be up for review. After all, a prop ("who apparently did this scrumming thing a lot" say the health and safety boffins) broke his neck and is now a paraplegic because of a collapsed maul. They're similar to these ruck things. Let's outlaw them. But that scrumming thing he did, it definitely puts too much pressure on the neck and back, despite being pussified 2 years ago with this "touch" ********. Lets make that non contested, it's much safer that way.

And finally, just as a way to create even MORE space for "the only exciting bit of rugby", running, we'll drop a couple of players. And make them only allowed to tackle 6 times before a turn over. That'll give them the want to go forwards.

And, being as the Oussies haven't won a game by a drop goal in a couple of months, they must be unhappy with the amount of points they're worth. Lets drop that from 3 to 1. That'll keep them happy.

Ah, while we're at it, tries are only worth 4, what the heck! In for a penny, in for a pound! [/b]

Now that's just paranoid. Uncontested scrums, less players, 6 times before turn over... Bullshit! The ELV's make the set pieces more important than ever. Look at the stats of the SA-NZ game, NZ had the most possession and territory but SA dominanted the set pieces. Now it's impossible to judge from just one match but most will agree that was the best match they've watched all year, and personally the best in 3 years easily. Did you manage to watch that game after all negative remarks about the ELVs or were you content on just keeping yourself in the dark?

 

[Fushitsusha]

Finally, being as the Oussies haven't won a game by a drop goal in a couple of months, they must be unhappy with the amount of points they're worth. Lets drop that from 3 to 1. That'll keep them happy. Ah, while we're at it, tries are only worth 4, what the heck! In for a penny, in for a pound!
[/b]

It wasn't even 20 years ago that tries were only worth 4 points... how'd you feel when they changed it to 5?

 

[Incredible Schalk]

Im pleased that atleast the SRU was happy to implement the changes. These laws should be compulsory as the overall standard of international rugby is pretty poor. So the club arguments dont do it for me. ELV's arent a huge change like some seem to think, they just make attacking a bit easier which at the end of the day is what every rugby fan wants to see.

 

[Prestwick]

What, you saying I can't read? Bring it! I'll smash you! :box: :box: :box: [/b]

Bring it on, minge-face! :box: :box: :box:

I read somewhere that there was actually less instances of injuries under the ELV's maul laws then with the old laws. The reason for this is that players are prepared for the collapse and ready themselves. [/b]

I would say that it has more to do with better coaching on how to safely collapse a maul (if such a method is possible considering how random an event it is).