ELVs - England, Ireland and Wales *OPT* out

[dundeesmiffy]

Nah, I still thought those victories against England were pretty boring, I didn't watch most of those games because of that.

And Prestwick, I'll admit the first two Tri-Nations games were exciting, but they were under the ELV's if I'm not mistaken (on early Saturday mornings my mind tends to work a fraction slower than the rest of the week)...so the general more exciting game play and the significant lack of penalties that were tried made the game more interesting.

Also, NZ vs Aus was maybe the best game I've seen in ages, since I can remember.

 

[Prestwick]

Nah, I still thought those victories against England were pretty boring, I didn't watch most of those games because of that.[/b]

I honestly don't believe that for a second, but I accept that my point has more to do with a discussion about the frankly schitzo attitudes of the four (maybe more) peoples of the British Isles.

And Prestwick, I'll admit the first two Tri-Nations games were exciting, but they were under the ELV's if I'm not mistaken (on early Saturday mornings my mind tends to work a fraction slower than the rest of the week)...so the general more exciting game play and the significant lack of penalties that were tried made the game more interesting.[/b]

The games were under the ELVs but the 'significant' lack of penalties didn't stop teams scoing more points from penalties than from tries. That was my point. The only way you are going to stop that is by removing penalty kicks altogether.

Apart from a noticable increase in free kicks, an interesting period of scrums and New Zealand packing as many players into the line outs, it still looked like the same old game and both teams still looked like they were playing the same old game, only with more aimless kicks downfield.

 

[shtove]

Yeah, looks pretty much the same game. So calling it a shift towards league doesn't convince me.

But me likey the ELVs - they seem to help crack open granite defences, which have become pretty boring lately. Free kicks over penalties are great, much more movement and line breaks. Stephen "Moaning (But Not With Pleasure)" Jones attacked the free kicks, but the only charge he could level is that refs can't be expected to judge consistently when an offence is deliberate. Not convincing either.

Only thing I don't like is the collapse maul rule. It actually slows the game down. Aus were hard done by on that one, when the ABs scored their first try - perfectly good rumble stopped in its tracks by what I think is dishonest play, and then followed by a turnover as a static midfield attack tried to cope with rush defence. Mils finished it off great, but I wasn't clapping - fruit of the poison tree.

Get rid of that rule, and the choice for the future is a no brainer. But our media wonks seem to have prejudged the whole thing. I guess they could look at the last 20 mins of that cracking match and take heart that a bit of grunt and canniness still swings matches. And if the first 60 mins gets repeated regularly then no one is going to doubt the wisdom of switching the rules.

The RWC was disappointing. Rugby needs this change.

 

[Prestwick]

I agree with Shotve (apart from macro-economic policy in the Eurozone). The first two games I saw didn't really change apart from one or two interesting areas which then didn't really alter the game itself, if that makes sense.

I don't know if forcing teams to kick straight downfield makes for good rugby however, a man who is a good judge of distance who can place an accurate kick gets a round of applause in a stadium last time I checked, not a chorus of boos and a round of "boring boring *insert nation here*). I don't know, it just doesn't ring right for me, it just seems to encourage sloppiness and makes it harder for a fly-half to run a game.

One thing though, the scrum law (which openly invites attacking play) conflicts with the line-out law abolishing equal numbers at the line out that ends up with situations like South Africa putting in three men at their line out against most of the All Black team who are put there in a cynical attempt to have as many men as close to the South African team as possible which could stifle attacking play. While it is an interesting quirk, it can confuse.

 

[Steve-o]

Yup everybody except the Aussies haven't seen the two new lineout laws being trialed and so far it seems nobody is for it, including me. I must stress however that the first 4-5 weeks of the S14 was full of aimless kicking and some aimless running, but around the middle to the end of the comp most teams were playing brilliant rugby.
So far the newly added rules aren't impressing but like the S14, they might need a burn-in period.
Hopefully after the TN the answer will be clear.

 

[shtove]

I don't know if forcing teams to kick straight downfield makes for good rugby however, a man who is a good judge of distance who can place an accurate kick gets a round of applause in a stadium last time I checked, not a chorus of boos and a round of "boring boring *insert nation here*). I don't know, it just doesn't ring right for me, it just seems to encourage sloppiness and makes it harder for a fly-half to run a game. [/b]

The high kicks are a problem, but we saw them in the RWC as well. ****, that was tedious. And Barnes and Giteau had plenty of applause for their corner kicks yesterday.

And it looks like the AB outhalf thinks the best way to run a game is by making lightning breaks. Genius.

One thing though, the scrum law (which openly invites attacking play) conflicts with the line-out law abolishing equal numbers at the line out that ends up with situations like South Africa putting in three men at their line out against most of the All Black team who are put there in a cynical attempt to have as many men as close to the South African team as possible which could stifle attacking play. While it is an interesting quirk, it can confuse. [/b]

Not sure I understand the connection? The Saffers could even up the numbers and stop sending big thickoes out wide to mess up their backline play.

Scrum 5 law - good.

Numbers-at-lineout law - good, so long as the attacking pack is allowed to rumble toward the line without collapse being permitted. In that case, stuffing the defensive backline with forwards is a mistake.

On the NH reaction: England is the biggest beast in the rugby jungle, and it looks like Martin Johnson is the biggest beast in English rugby. What are his views on the ELVs? That might give us a show on how the NH unions move forward.

p.s.

I agree with Shotve (apart from macro-economic policy in the Eurozone). [/b]

You're so wrong on the eurozone. But here's someone whose views you can plug in to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Evans-Pritchard

Interesting, but he's even more bearish on the UK!

 

[Prestwick]

The high kicks are a problem, but we saw them in the RWC as well. ****, that was tedious. And Barnes and Giteau had plenty of applause for their corner kicks yesterday.

And it looks like the AB outhalf thinks the best way to run a game is by making lightning breaks. Genius.
[/b]

Yes, you're never going to get rid of aimless kicking and garry owens, no matter how many different rule changes you make sadly.

One thing though, the scrum law (which openly invites attacking play) conflicts with the line-out law abolishing equal numbers at the line out that ends up with situations like South Africa putting in three men at their line out against most of the All Black team who are put there in a cynical attempt to have as many men as close to the South African team as possible which could stifle attacking play. While it is an interesting quirk, it can confuse. [/b]

Not sure I understand the connection? The Saffers could even up the numbers and stop sending big thickoes out wide to mess up their backline play.

Scrum 5 law - good.

Numbers-at-lineout law - good, so long as the attacking pack is allowed to rumble toward the line without collapse being permitted. In that case, stuffing the defensive backline with forwards is a mistake.[/b]

Well they could even up the numbers, but that would eliminate the advantage of having players outside of the line out waiting to run onto the ball. South Africa having their elite line out trio at the line out encourages opposing teams to place their fastest guys in the line out so that they are ten meters away from South Africa (this is just for arguments sake by the way, not picking on South Africa here :wacko: ) rather than the twenty meters that they'd have to be under the new rules.

Thus, the attacking side will find it more difficult to move the ball than before.

On the NH reaction: England is the biggest beast in the rugby jungle, and it looks like Martin Johnson is the biggest beast in English rugby. What are his views on the ELVs? That might give us a show on how the NH unions move forward.[/b]

He hasn't said anything, but his intent is clear in hiring Brian Smith and giving him the license to drill down into as much of the S14 season just gone as well as the current Tri Nations coverage to prepare for the ELVs. I would expect Brian Smith to be scouring every availible resource to try and prepare Johnson for whats coming.

p.s.

I agree with Shotve (apart from macro-economic policy in the Eurozone). [/b]

You're so wrong on the eurozone. But here's someone whose views you can plug in to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Evans-Pritchard

Interesting, but he's even more bearish on the UK!

[/b]

But I'm so right! I could continue but this would threadjack the thread...again...but without the dancing...

 

[Thingimubob]

We also enjoy watching the refree lift his hand up in the air to give away penalties for things like 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side or 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side or 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side or 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side or 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side or 'hands on the ground' or 'holding on' or entering the ruck/maul from the side, the list is endless.

Also, watching the scoreline go like this makes me....well, let's just say we're lucky we have a half time, or I don't think I could cope.

0-0
3-0
3-3
6-3
9-3
9-6
12-6
12-9
15-9
18-9
21-9
21-12

I mean, holy wow!
[/b]

Ok that's a bit of an overstatement, I mean OK, Scotland - England was terrible, but the weather had a massive part of it - which helped Scotland a fair bit, but I mean come on! NH Rugby is not THAT bad!
And I think the NH Teams will cope just fine with the ELV's, and believe Wales can do very well under them. I mean keeping the kicks infield really worked for them in the Six Nations, Ryan Jones, Peel and Phillips can do a lot from the base of the scrum with the extra 5 meters! and Not fussed on the pulling down the maul, and agree with shtove about what he said about that one.
One thing I'd like to check, even though most of the ruck infringements are down to free kicks, players can still be sin binned for them right? Also, do referees penalize/bin players for holding onto the ball after the whistle and preventing the other team taking a quick free kick? Will really slow the game down if they don't do that.
@ shtove - would Stephen 'Moaning' Jones be the rugby journalist who does stuff for The Times and Rugby World? If it is, that guy's spouts crap half the time, so don't worry about what he says. Hated his Rugby World article ***led 'Disband the Welsh Regions' which was just him moaning about how he was annoyed that according to him that (for some odd reason) he, or any other fan, could properly put their support behind a 'region' instead of a town. All I have to say to that one is, yes you can, and believe me, plenty of fans do put their support behind them. Hell I'm one of them for pete sake! Anyway, that's a rant for another time...

 

[Steve-o]

http://www.keo.co.za/2008/07/28/bledisloe-...boost-for-elvs/

Ian MacIntosh says the Bledisloe Cup Test between Australia and New Zealand was the perfect example of what he envisaged the game should look like under the ELVs.

While there was often little evidence of attacking structure, the match was marked by a breathtaking pace and intensity and a high level of skill from both sides. Pundits agreed that it was the most entertaining Bledisloe Test in years and attributed much of the credit for that to how the ELVs have shaped the game.

MacIntosh, who was part of the Laws Project Group who conceptualised the ELVs, was unreserved in his praise of both sides and said the spectacle should serve as the benchmark by which to measure the ability of the new laws to create a more enthralling contest for players and spectators.

“That Test was the perfect example of the ELVs’ ability to create the framework for a outstanding contest,†MacIntosh told keo.co.za.

“What you saw was two teams who wanted to play, allowed the opportunity to do so and the outcome was an amazing spectacle. Both teams were positive and kept the ball in play, and that’s what you want. You don’t want a game’s flow to be interrupted by continual stoppages as scrums and lineouts set. But you also don’t want to completely eliminate those facets of play.

“Under the ELVs teams have the option of quick-tapping or scrumming from short arms or opting to go for a lineout if they get a full arm penalty. So you will always have the option, which refutes the suggestion that teams whose strengths lie in the set phases are compromised.

“The other notable thing was the incredible skill level of the players and the pace and intensity they displayed,†he continued.

“The ELVs force all players to improve their skills and most of what was on show was absolutely sublime. The fitness level of the players, another by-product of the ELVs, was also good to see. They kept going for 80 minutes. Amazing.â€

MacIntosh said referee Craig Joubert must be complimented on his handling of the game.

“While I felt he should have opted for full arm penalties for cynical infringements later in the match, when he did penalise teams at the scrums or rucks it was only a free kick, which took away his power to significantly influence the result.

“It’s sad that we’ve gone back to long arm penalties in the Currie Cup because many of the calls the referee makes at the breakdown or scrums, for example, are subjective, and it’s unfair that matches can be decided by a subjective call.â€

A revised set of ELVs (on show in the Currie Cup) was meant to be trialled worldwide from August 1. However, northern hemisphere unions seem to have back-tracked on that commitment, believing the ELVs will compromise their traditional strengths.

MacIntosh scoffed at those suggestions and even ventured as far as to suggest that the British and Irish Lions, who tour South Africa in 2009, were concerned it would seriously compromise their chances of success.

“Anybody that tells me that the ELVs are not good for rugby is delusional,†he said. “[Lions head coach] Ian McGeechan [whose been a strong critic of the ELVs] recently told me the game was boring under the ELVs, but I can’t accept that. One only needed to have watched the Saturday’s Test to know that.

“I’m convinced he wants a slow game when they tour here because that would suit their strengths. That’s understandable, but you have to ask yourself what’s good for the game and not what’s good for a select group.

“What frustrates me is that all we asked for was for the northern hemisphere to trial the ELVs. A trial, that’s all. It wasn’t written in stone that the laws would be adopted. If they trialled them for a year they would be able to see the benefits and disadvantages and then make an informed choice. Now they’ve rejected them on the basis of assumption, which seems illogical.â€

Turning his attention back to specific ELVs, MacIntosh lamented the fact that the law governing hands in the ruck hadn’t been trialled, as he believed it would have made the game an even better spectacle. “Why not allow a player to compete for the ball if he is on his feet?†he said.

He also highlighted the tactical naivety teams have displayed in failing to take advantage of the law governing collapsing of the rolling maul.

“Teams haven’t fully explored the attacking opportunities that arises when the defence pulls the front pod down in a rolling maul,†he said. “If the back pod can stay on their feet they have the chance to peel free and then it suddenly becomes an unbelievable attacking platform with a range of options.â€



[/b]

I don't agree that this match was the benchmark for ELV's, I saw some better games in the S14 and I feel Joubert was bad overall.

One thing I agree with is his comment about the increase in the teams options. NZ could of decided to scrum more but took a quick tap instead AND also choose to run out of their 22 more times than they kicked it, effectively playing straight into the Aussies hands. However they still put on a spectacle. Although there weren't many lineouts in this Test, in the 2nd NZ vs SA Test tactical kicking was emphasized and lineouts were a vital set piece in the Boks victory. And against still put on spectacle.



BTW what is Mac talking about the NH rejecting the ELV's?

Now they’ve rejected them on the basis of assumption, which seems illogical

[/b]

Is he talking about their attitude or what??

 

[Steve-o]

I read this from a member on keo.co.za named 'Skopskiet', and thought it was quite good (post 7 & 8)

This ’structured game’ they all pander too those that are basically too ch’cken to run with the wolves so they rather cower in the chicken hoop where it is easy to foster an attack from a position of aerial dominance, where one does not need to utilize creativity or ingenuity but rather just shove an opponent similar to a sumo wrestler does over the try line having ’set up’ the highly ingenious ploy through kicking a well positioned penalty punt for some minor infringement close to the oppositions lines.

This to my mind is not structured or visionary or creative rugby whatsoever, it boils down to minimum risk rugby and hence the state of the game was slowly crystallizing and reverting to a negative strategic negating type of game where everyone was playing towards others weaknesses rather than to their own strengths.

Hence the extremely boring one dimensional game structures where world cups are won with no team taking any risks, just keep the opposition at arms length and bombard them with field kicks waiting for them to drop the ball or blink first and surely enough the ref will grant you sufficient opportunity to put over your numerous 3 pointers from favorable field positions over and hopefully we get more of those than the opposition do, else they will win the penalty shoot out and we might lose it next time.

Bah, if thats what we pander towards and call it rugby, then give me NFL football, at least there they try some running strategy and creative blocks and running lines for their touch downs, our game was slowly degenerating into a non combative barrackade and the biggest proponents of that negative style have been SA and England, no wonder we found ourselves squaring off in that no contest WC final last year.

Since the introduction of the ElV’s suddenly the game has some much needed oxygen and new life breathed back into it, maybe closer to what those school boys envisaged back in the school of rugby when they lifted the boring soccer ball up and ran with it towards the opponents line. Since then it had slowly and surely dissipated into an extremely defense oriented format, and it is by virtue of the Elv’s that the much needed breath of life has been force fed into the system, where at long last the players, coaches and strategists have had to start thinking on their feet again and using some of those top two inches of which we are so in short supply of down here.

The players are relishing in it, if the polls that they are conducting have any baring on the matter, and if they prefer it it is obviously a much more fulfilling game than that boring one dimensional kick fest we were succumbing to, and I can say with conviction that the 3N games we have seen so far this year far outperform any 6N or Heineken cup fixture that I have witnessed by a huge margin in every dimension, in tackle count, running strategy, speed and pace, and attrition of effort and endeavor, physically, mentally, strategically, emotionally and by degree of commitment and sheer willingness to perform at optimum level of input.

Pit any SH team that has had one season of ElV’s behind them against any NH side that has not, and see the overwhelming difference in terms of power play, fitness, athleticism, speed and ball sense and control, it is not even a close contest. ElV’s win hands down.

You people are actually saying you prefer to watch England play Scotland under old laws to what you just saw in Australia vs NZ.

I am highly surprised at your preferences, the game we witnessed on Saturday between the two BC competitors probably was the pinnacle of attacking and defensive running rugby and played at a pace and precision and commitment you will not find in any game played under the old stagnant laws of bombard and repress.

I reckon we just prefer our comfort zones and hence are not willing or perhaps are not up to the challenges of utilizing our athleticism and energy resources to the utmost demands, so we rather hide behind this so called penchant for ’structure’. Its easier to pull off lucky packet wins that way, no need to compete the best vs the best.

[/b]

 

[Bullitt]

Meh. More North vs South. Which after looking at many other bits across the net over the past week, I've decided is all the ELVs debate has boiled down to - A global cock swinging contest. Ian MacIntosh is a chuffing idiot though, that was an awful game IMO (only Sivivatu and Mils were anything resembling competent for the ABS) and he's only looking for an excuse to wind up McGeechan.

Still, if the forget about this hands in law and get over themselves about pulling the maul down (it's dangerous), f*** it. It's pointless debating any more as the blazers apparently want it.

Plus, the Aussies have started winning games under the ELVs, therefore they must be the greatest things ever. Ahem. I won't mention the fact there are fewer tries being scored then in last year's Tri-nations...

 

[BLR]

Ian MacIntosh is a chuffing idiot though, that was an awful game IMO (only Sivivatu and Mils were anything resembling competent for the ABS) and he's only looking for an excuse to wind up McGeechan.[/b]

Did it distract you from that drying paint watching you were looking forward to?

 

[Bullitt]

Sorry BLR, I now realize that to you Aussies, whenever your national side wins a game they immediately become the bestest side in the universe evar!11!1!

Oh, wait, no... that's wrong.

BTW, you the local populous down under still think DGs should only be worth 1 point?

 

[BLR]

Sorry BLR, I now realize that to you Aussies, whenever your national side wins a game they immediately become the bestest side in the universe evar!11!1!

Oh, wait, no... that's wrong.

BTW, you the local populous down under still think DGs should only be worth 1 point?[/b]

I think jealousy is creeping in there, it's been well documented that the game was a very good game, there is no argument. Did you not like it as you are sure that your own national side hasn't showed that kind of promise for more than half a decade? It's alright to be sad about your countries play but don't bring down other countries games, a good game is a good game, simple as that.

 

[Bullitt]

Sorry matey, con yourself all you like but it really wasn't. Except maybe to a few typically unbiased and extremely over excited Aussie commentators and journalists about re-gaining the <strike>WC 7th place playoff</strike> Bledisloe cup. What I saw was a steady Aussie side beat an adventurous yet ultimately pathetic All Blacks side severely lacking in brains and leadership on the day.

And I'm not the one who mentioned England. It's well documented what I think of any team coached by Rob Andrew, The RFU, the old-boys network and everything currently involved in the Twickenham setup. Why the hell should I care how England would have instead faired?

 

[jawmalawm24]

I was on the losing side but I still think the game over the weekend has to be one of the best so far in the year. The ELV's have improved the game significantly I couldn't stand watching the refs dictate the game before but the ELV's have put things back into the players hands so I'm all for it.

 

[sanzar]

Whatever you may think of the match on saturday Teh Mite, you have to admire some of the kicking that took place from the Wallabies. It may not have been your cup of tea overall, but I was astonished at how many times Australia were able to put up towery kicks and have them land just outside the 22. That's incredible precision for mine...

 

[Steve-o]

Ahem. I won't mention the fact there are fewer tries being scored then in last year's Tri-nations...
[/b]

Lol, take anything played a few months before the WC with a grain of salt. Did SA even send one 1st choice player over last year? I remember the Aus and NZ threatening to kick us out of the TN because of this. Good times.

 

[dundeesmiffy]

The RWC was disappointing. Rugby needs this change.
[/b]

Nuff said.

 

[Maccaweeny]

Plus, the Aussies have started winning games under the ELVs, therefore they must be the greatest things ever. Ahem. I won't mention the fact there are fewer tries being scored then in last year's Tri-nations...
[/b]

That's a moot point, public opinion in Australia has been in favour of the ELV's since the S14's and arguably the ARC. Hence why some pundits up North started lamenting at an ill-maligned Australian conspiracy aimed at turning RU into RL so that we could win games (never mind that we've won two world cups and still had a 60% win ratio over England under the old rules). If we had lost last night, the public would still have been just as supporting of the ELV's, so it's hard to see the relevance of bringing the game up.

As for drop goals, is there any supporting evidence whatsoever that there was widespread public support for 1 point drop goals? Furthermore, even if there is/was (and no there isn't) I doubt a proponent of such a change would have been swayed by Giteau's drop goal, we were already ahead and scored a try not ten minutes after, wasn't really a critical moment.

Also, steve-o has already addressed the try tally, not only is the comp in its early stages, it is probably the closest tri-nations we've had for the past decade, and incidentally all teams are fielding full strength sides, no one was expecting a try-fest.