WRU pour cold water on ELVs

[Prestwick]

Originally posted by Prestwick
I didn't say he was right.

I didn't say his word was gospel.

I did say that he is highly respected by Warren Gatland however.

Wow, good for him, his columns are all 100% fiction still, whether he's respected by Warren Gatland or the Popes Lover. Relevance your honor?[/b]

Er, relevant in that they all point to the fact that you were talking absolute tripe about me saying his word was gospel and that it shouldn't be questioned and all the other paranoid rubbish you wrote in your post.

What you wrote in your post about what I had allegedly said was incorrect. The Judge therefore states that your objection has been overruled.

Once again, I didn't say he was right, so why are you getting on my case about someone who you can't be bothered to be civil about? Should I have not mentioned him at all? Maybe we could all pretend that he doesn't exist! Maybe he'll go away and vanish!

 

[gingergenius]

Conspiracy theories? The only one with the tin-foil hat is people in this thread (at least you've stopped going about this is all just a plot because of the RWC) who still think it's all John O'Niel's secret agenda to do away with the scrum, despite numerous proof otherwise and the fact the oppisite is true. There's no conspiracy theory about my calling bullshit on Shaun Edward's articles - they are full of made up stats. Fact. They are full of untrue generalisations and exaggerations. Fact. He has no idea what he is talking about. Fact.
[/b]

the irony of it all...

 

[dundeesmiffy]

Backlines have to stand 5m from Scrums - Yes
No carrying the ball into your 22 to kick it out on the full - Yes
Majority of infringements downgraded to free kicks thus ruling out the possibility of penalty after penalty after penalty after penalty after penalty yawnfests that are totally ruining rugby for spectators - Very Yes

Those three rules are the three I hope make it into the game, the whole hands in the ruck issue I don't have a problem with, but I agree it makes for a less tactful game.

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Fine you can debate this forever. Fact is, the game isn't yours to change.
[/b]

Indeed, it's the IRB's, and the ELV's are an IRB initiative. (Where can I pick up my winners trophy?)
[/b][/quote]

Don't mean that just because it suits you lot it should by rights be changed. There's no way the ELVs will be implemented, since they are already unpopular in Europe. And we have 6 major unions, you have 3. [/b][/quote]
Really? So Scotland and Italy are major stakeholders in the game now are they? ****, wasn't aware of that... well in that case I guess we have 6 supporting us as well, given that the PI nations are in favour.
ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc.
This may shock you, but most people in the SH aren't keen on all of them, but rather think that some of them have proven positive and may have a place in the game.

 

[Prestwick]

ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc. [/b]

This is correct. This must go both ways. Neither side can impose things like "you're obviously nuts" or "you can't change something that we own."

That said, as Italy value their forward play much more than they do their back play, I would expect that nations like Italy, Romania and Georgia would be in the England-Ireland-Wales camp.

EDIT: Although, here is one thing.

Zinzan Brooke did say that the ELVs would result in "lots of tiny people running around the field".

Does this mean that the NZRU will switch from poaching loads of Pacific Islanders to poaching loads of Japanese backs?

Will The All Black line up from seven onwards be as follows?

7. McCaw
8. So'oialo
9. Yatomi
10. Carter
11. Hirotoki
12. Taira
13. Imamura
14. Endo
15. Robins

Hey, lets face it, if the Japanese backs can run Wales ragged from one end of the pitch to the other, I don't think anyone in New Zealand should be afraid of an infusion of talent from the land of the rising sun...

EDIT EDIT: Actually, looking at that, I think if you molded the Japanese back line with the All Blacks, you'd have the ultimate back line....

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Fine you can debate this forever. Fact is, the game isn't yours to change.
[/b]

Indeed, it's the IRB's, and the ELV's are an IRB initiative. (Where can I pick up my winners trophy?)
[/b][/quote]

Don't mean that just because it suits you lot it should by rights be changed. There's no way the ELVs will be implemented, since they are already unpopular in Europe. And we have 6 major unions, you have 3. [/b][/quote]
Really? So Scotland and Italy are major stakeholders in the game now are they? ****, wasn't aware of that... well in that case I guess we have 6 supporting us as well, given that the PI nations are in favour.
ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc.
This may shock you, but most people in the SH aren't keen on all of them, but rather think that some of them have proven positive and may have a place in the game.
[/b][/quote]

You're all presenting them as a big new type of rugby that we all should accept.

If you go.. hang on maybe the game might be better if you implemeted the 22 law (for example)... then maybe people wouldn't have such a problem. I mean rugby's had subtle changes throughout its history. But keep them subtle. I think the main opposition in the Northern Hemisphere is because the ELVs are a whole new set of rules, and we are all given the impression that we'll have to either take all or none. Perhaps it might have bee better to have a more conservative approach when it comes to changing a sport that on the whole works fine as it is...

 

[BLR]

That said, as Italy value their forward play much more than they do their back play, I would expect that nations like Italy, Romania and Georgia would be in the England-Ireland-Wales camp.
[/b]

Wouldn't the fact that the amount of scrums per game have almost doubled be more of an incentive for the forward centric Italians?

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'>
That said, as Italy value their forward play much more than they do their back play, I would expect that nations like Italy, Romania and Georgia would be in the England-Ireland-Wales camp.
[/b]

Wouldn't the fact that the amount of scrums per game have almost doubled be more of an incentive for the forward centric Italians? [/b][/quote]

If that's the case, then surely the ARU would be against the ELVs... After all, the Australian coaches and above seem to think that's needed for top class scrummaging is a fat, lazy knacker such as dunning Dunning!

Then wonder why they're a bit crap at set pieces.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
That said, as Italy value their forward play much more than they do their back play, I would expect that nations like Italy, Romania and Georgia would be in the England-Ireland-Wales camp.
[/b]

Wouldn't the fact that the amount of scrums per game have almost doubled be more of an incentive for the forward centric Italians? [/b][/quote]

It goes beyond the scrum though and covers all facets of forward play. Italians and Georgian forwards for example, would not be very thrilled at the five-meter rule at the scrum. I MYSELF HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS RULE*, but I think that this would appall those dyed in the wool broken nosed forwards who ground their teeth into their gums under the Soviet flag of the CCCP.

Simply put, while I MYSELF HAVE NO PROBLEM, people from Georgia, etc might reject this notion by the neocons of Rugby that by transforming the laws, everyone will instantly love this new free running rugby with its emphasis on blurring the lines between forward and back. On the contrary, there will be people who will be naturally against it, and they won't be from the usual, mainstream NH suspects.

If anything, should the likes of Russia and Georgia become major Rugby powers backed by Oligarch petro-dollars, Rugby will be even more forward dominated and serve to thwart the aspirations of the iRB's LPG forever. We salute the heroics in the World Cup exhibited by the likes of Georgia now, but how long before the rose tinted vision wears off and we start to complain about boring physical forward play dominating the game?

(* just covering my arse before I get bundled by a bunch of paranoid hysterical people...)

 

[dundeesmiffy]

Rugby as a sport is changing more and more as the years go by.
I think you all have good points of view and the way I can see this going is a compromise, ie: keeping some of the rules and get rid or changing of the rest.
I think it would appease both camps, those who are more stoic and don't want rugby union turned into league (sic) would retain most of the aspects of the game they enjoy watching and those who want to see exciting free flowing running rugby.

IMO, I'm fed up of watching try-less internationals and high stake matches. I know it's a good way to get some points on the board but it's boring as f***, I just want to watch some nice fancy running rugby and some up front smash and grab rugby union.
As long as the rule that stops so many penalties getting kicked stays I'm not bothered.

 

[gingergenius]

Rugby as a sport is changing more and more as the years go by.
I think you all have good points of view and the way I can see this going is a compromise, ie: keeping some of the rules and get rid or changing of the rest.
I think it would appease both camps, those who are more stoic and don't want rugby union turned into league (sic) would retain most of the aspects of the game they enjoy watching and those who want to see exciting free flowing running rugby.

IMO, I'm fed up of watching try-less internationals and high stake matches. I know it's a good way to get some points on the board but it's boring as f***, I just want to watch some nice fancy running rugby and some up front smash and grab rugby union.
As long as the rule that stops so many penalties getting kicked stays I'm not bothered.
[/b]

in which case Scotland are ******; that's all they're good for.

Can people not accept that the reason people don't play expansive rugby all the time is because it can be more beneficial not to??

Scotland as an example, have two centres who are completely irrelevant who couldn't make the game exciting whatever the rules were. They do, however, have a half decent pack, a fly half who's not bad at kicking the corners and an outstanding goal kicker. Thus they play rugby that way and get (limited) success.

Fiji, on the other hand, have some of the world's most exciting backs and a 7s mentality. So naturally they're more inclined to play an expansive game, which they can and do under the current set of rules.

Currently in the Northern Hemisphere, we have a club game which is thriving. The Heineken Cup is widely regarded as the best competition in the world, there are around 10 outstanding European clubs who play each other regularly in this competition and produce really intense games. We then have the Autumn internationals and the 6 Nations in which 80,000 seater stadiums are filled to capacity. The game here is becoming an increasingly marketable and popular product. There is no need for us to change it.

If the Southern Hemisphere feels differently then fine, that's up to them. But try looking at it from our perspective and see why there is actually no need for change. Can anyone who is pro-ELVs just list what rugby needs changing?

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

<div class='quotemain'>

Fine you can debate this forever. Fact is, the game isn't yours to change.
[/b]

Indeed, it's the IRB's, and the ELV's are an IRB initiative. wink.gif (Where can I pick up my winners trophy?)
[/b]

Don't mean that just because it suits you lot it should by rights be changed. There's no way the ELVs will be implemented, since they are already unpopular in Europe. And we have 6 major unions, you have 3. [/b][/quote]
Really? So Scotland and Italy are major stakeholders in the game now are they? ****, wasn't aware of that... well in that case I guess we have 6 supporting us as well, given that the PI nations are in favour.
ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc.
This may shock you, but most people in the SH aren't keen on all of them, but rather think that some of them have proven positive and may have a place in the game.
[/b][/quote]

You're all presenting them as a big new type of rugby that we all should accept.

If you go.. hang on maybe the game might be better if you implemeted the 22 law (for example)... then maybe people wouldn't have such a problem. I mean rugby's had subtle changes throughout its history. But keep them subtle. I think the main opposition in the Northern Hemisphere is because the ELVs are a whole new set of rules, and we are all given the impression that we'll have to either take all or none. Perhaps it might have bee better to have a more conservative approach when it comes to changing a sport that on the whole works fine as it is... [/b][/quote]
As far as I know the idea of the ELVs was to try as many variations as possible to see what kind changes worked and what didn't. What you're talking about is the image the conflict hungry media have presented... and you've caught by it hook line and sinker.
And in any case I wasn't actually asking you to answer reply to the SH proverbial "all" on behalf of the North, I was asking why YOU don't see a place for any of the 30 new law variations in the game. For example, what's your problem with # being able to throw the backwards on a quick throw line out #having no number restrictions in the line out, #putting a 5 meter gap at scrum time, #not being able to kick out on the full from inside the 22 unless the opposition has sent the ball there? Personally, I'm still not convinced about the ruck penalties, am against collapsing in the maul, have mixed feels on the the 22 kicking rule, and think that renaming touch judges to "assistant referees" is pure pointless vanity (they're still judging from the bloody touch). But I quite like the new line out laws and the 5 meters at the scrum.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

<div class='quotemain'>

Fine you can debate this forever. Fact is, the game isn't yours to change.
[/b]

Indeed, it's the IRB's, and the ELV's are an IRB initiative. wink.gif (Where can I pick up my winners trophy?)
[/b]

Don't mean that just because it suits you lot it should by rights be changed. There's no way the ELVs will be implemented, since they are already unpopular in Europe. And we have 6 major unions, you have 3. [/b][/quote]
Really? So Scotland and Italy are major stakeholders in the game now are they? ****, wasn't aware of that... well in that case I guess we have 6 supporting us as well, given that the PI nations are in favour.
ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc.
This may shock you, but most people in the SH aren't keen on all of them, but rather think that some of them have proven positive and may have a place in the game.
[/b][/quote]

You're all presenting them as a big new type of rugby that we all should accept.

If you go.. hang on maybe the game might be better if you implemeted the 22 law (for example)... then maybe people wouldn't have such a problem. I mean rugby's had subtle changes throughout its history. But keep them subtle. I think the main opposition in the Northern Hemisphere is because the ELVs are a whole new set of rules, and we are all given the impression that we'll have to either take all or none. Perhaps it might have bee better to have a more conservative approach when it comes to changing a sport that on the whole works fine as it is... [/b][/quote]
As far as I know the idea of the ELVs was to try as many variations as possible to see what kind changes worked and what didn't. What you're talking about is the image the conflict hungry media have presented... and you've caught by it hook line and sinker.
And in any case I wasn't actually asking you to answer reply to the SH proverbial "all" on behalf of the North, I was asking why YOU don't see a place for any of the 30 new law variations in the game. For example, what's your problem with # being able to throw the backwards on a quick throw line out #having no number restrictions in the line out, #putting a 5 meter gap at scrum time, #not being able to kick out on the full from inside the 22 unless the opposition has sent the ball there? Personally, I'm still not convinced about the ruck penalties, am against collapsing in the maul, have mixed feels on the the 22 kicking rule, and think that renaming touch judges to "assistant referees" is pure pointless vanity (they're still judging from the bloody touch). But I quite like the new line out laws and the 5 meters at the scrum.
[/b][/quote]

Because, as I've already explained, the game works fine as it is. We've had arguably the best world cup ever this season, the most exciting and open Guinness Premiership season ever and a Heineken Cup which has continued to throw up high-intensity matches, surprises and, though i hope I'm wrong, by this evening there'll be the two best European sides in the final. From where we're standing, there's nothing wrong with rugby as it is.

Now from a SH perspective, Australia have fallen off the wagon internationally, stars are leaving the Super 14 in droves and a lot of people are saying the constant traveling between the 3 countries first in the S14 and then the Tri Nations, playing against largely similar opposition, is getting tedious. I can see why you lot want to change the game. I might suggest however, that there's 3 Pacific Island nations and Argentina who are all more than capable of making things more interesting for you lot. Helping them develop rather than poaching their best talent and snubbing them from competitions might be a better option to liven up SH rugby...

 

[sanzar]

Because, as I've already explained, the game works fine as it is. We've had arguably the best world cup ever this season, the most exciting and open Guinness Premiership season ever and a Heineken Cup which has continued to throw up high-intensity matches, surprises and, though i hope I'm wrong, by this evening there'll be the two best European sides in the final. From where we're standing, there's nothing wrong with rugby as it is.

Now from a SH perspective, Australia have fallen off the wagon internationally, stars are leaving the Super 14 in droves and a lot of people are saying the constant traveling between the 3 countries first in the S14 and then the Tri Nations, playing against largely similar opposition, is getting tedious. I can see why you lot want to change the game. I might suggest however, that there's 3 Pacific Island nations and Argentina who are all more than capable of making things more interesting for you lot. Helping them develop rather than poaching their best talent and snubbing them from competitions might be a better option to liven up SH rugby...
[/b]

Wow... you wrote 2 paragraphs and yet managed to completely avoid answering any of my questions and stuck to the tired old "I'm from the North and your from the South" rubbish. You sir, have clearly been taking notes from our good friend Humphrey Appleby.

 

[dullonien]

Posts and flags around the field
1. Posts and flags around the field (ARC variation)
a. Corner posts will be positioned at the outside junction of the goal line and the touch line.
i. If a player is in possession of the ball and touches a corner post he will not be in touch unless he touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
ii. If the ball is not being carried by a player and it touches the corner post the ball will be deemed to be touch in goal. [/b]

To me, this rule makes almost no difference, I don't think anyone will mind if it's implemented or not!

Inside the 22 metre line
2. When a defending player receives the ball outside the 22 metre line and passes, puts or takes the ball back inside the 22, the following can occur.
a. If the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is in line with where the ball was kicked.
b. If a tackle, ruck or maul is subsequently formed and the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is where the ball crossed the touch line. [/b]

I'm not keen on this rule atall, I believe it will eventually create more aimless kicking, with the fullback who recieves the ball outside his 22 almost forced to put in an up n' under if the chase is decent from the opposing team. Did I mention that I hate Gary Owen's for the most part!

Lineout
3. On a quick throw in, the ball can be thrown straight or backwards towards the defenders goal line, but not forward towards the opposition goal line. [/b]

Again, I don't have much problem with this rule, though it won't change much. How hard is it to throw the ball straightish? Doesn't it come from the fact that it follows a traditional linout, with the Hooker having to throw it in straight?

Breakdown (tackle/post tackle)
4. Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate.
5. Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines.
6. The half back should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball. [/b]

Part four hasn't changed.
Part five I am fiercely against, makes things way to complicated, and is just plain stupid. That video which was posted earlier in this thread shows just how rediculous this rule is.
Part 6, seems an ok rule, though it appears it's already implemented, with players getting penalised if they drag the scrum half into the ruck. So what has changed, and what about if another player acts as scrum half, what happens then?

Scrum
7. The offside line for players who are not in the scrum and who are not the teams scrum half, is 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum. [/b]

This rule is the most interesting imo, I wouldn't mind if it was implemented, but don't see the reasons behind it. As I've said previously, it isn't hard for the attacking team to take 5 steps back if they want extra room, it's their choice not to, so why are we trying to force the defending side to do so? I just don't quite get it personally.

Sanctions
8. For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10-Foul Play, the sanction is a Free Kick. [/b]

I have mixed feeling about this one. On one hand I'd like to see less games like the World Cup final, which was just a penalty shootout borefest. But on the other I think it could eventually hinder the game, because there isn't a punishment of three points for hands in the rucks etc. I know others have explained that penalties are still awarded after a few infingments, but is this enough? I'm still not sure. Players will learn how to bend these rules to their advantage, in order to slow the ball down, I can just see it happening. I just don't think this is quite the right way to go in order to reduce these boring penalty infested games.
They need to tackle the root of the problem, which is hands in the ruck, coming in from the side etc. And reducing the punishment is not the way to reduce these infringements!

 

[sanzar]

Great post dullonien!
Gotta say I agree with pretty much everything you said there too. On the 5 meters though: I think the idea is that while the offense can move back within the current rules, it means they have to potentially sacrifice some territory on a gamble, meaning that teams will be more likely to play it conservatively. Making the defense go back, on the other hand, encourages positive attacking. And on the backwards quick line outs: this actually has had more of an effect than I thought it would. Reason being is that it takes pedantic refereeing out of the equation and also makes the quick through a realistic option even if the defense looks to be moving up (passing back obviously leaves less chance for an intercept).
Lastly, just wanted to make the point that you're absolutely right about the offside at the tackle... the refs still don't get it and I don't think it'll ever be properly implemented.

 

[dullonien]

Cheers for clearing a couple of things up there Sanzar.
The 5 meters thing: I would be perfectly happy to see it implemented.
Quick throw: Again, have no qualms.

Forgot to say on my previous post that I was only commenting on the ELV's which were being trialled in the S14, as I don't see any of the others making it any further than paper.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'>
Because, as I've already explained, the game works fine as it is. We've had arguably the best world cup ever this season, the most exciting and open Guinness Premiership season ever and a Heineken Cup which has continued to throw up high-intensity matches, surprises and, though i hope I'm wrong, by this evening there'll be the two best European sides in the final. From where we're standing, there's nothing wrong with rugby as it is.

Now from a SH perspective, Australia have fallen off the wagon internationally, stars are leaving the Super 14 in droves and a lot of people are saying the constant traveling between the 3 countries first in the S14 and then the Tri Nations, playing against largely similar opposition, is getting tedious. I can see why you lot want to change the game. I might suggest however, that there's 3 Pacific Island nations and Argentina who are all more than capable of making things more interesting for you lot. Helping them develop rather than poaching their best talent and snubbing them from competitions might be a better option to liven up SH rugby...
[/b]

Wow... you wrote 2 paragraphs and yet managed to completely avoid answering any of my questions and stuck to the tired old "I'm from the North and your from the South" rubbish. You sir, have clearly been taking notes from our good friend Humphrey Appleby.
[/b][/quote]

I've outlined why I couldn't care less if any of the new laws would speed the game up. I don't have a clue who Humphrey Appleby is... anyway you can accuse me of being conservative as much as you like, but I'll stick to the mantra 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Rugby (at least in Europe) has never been healthier. From our perspective there's no need to make any changes.

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Because, as I've already explained, the game works fine as it is. We've had arguably the best world cup ever this season, the most exciting and open Guinness Premiership season ever and a Heineken Cup which has continued to throw up high-intensity matches, surprises and, though i hope I'm wrong, by this evening there'll be the two best European sides in the final. From where we're standing, there's nothing wrong with rugby as it is.

Now from a SH perspective, Australia have fallen off the wagon internationally, stars are leaving the Super 14 in droves and a lot of people are saying the constant traveling between the 3 countries first in the S14 and then the Tri Nations, playing against largely similar opposition, is getting tedious. I can see why you lot want to change the game. I might suggest however, that there's 3 Pacific Island nations and Argentina who are all more than capable of making things more interesting for you lot. Helping them develop rather than poaching their best talent and snubbing them from competitions might be a better option to liven up SH rugby...
[/b]

Wow... you wrote 2 paragraphs and yet managed to completely avoid answering any of my questions and stuck to the tired old "I'm from the North and your from the South" rubbish. You sir, have clearly been taking notes from our good friend Humphrey Appleby.
[/b][/quote]

I've outlined why I couldn't care less if any of the new laws would speed the game up. I don't have a clue who Humphrey Appleby is... anyway you can accuse me of being conservative as much as you like, but I'll stick to the mantra 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Rugby (at least in Europe) has never been healthier. From our perspective there's no need to make any changes. [/b][/quote]
Humphrey Appleby is from Yes Minister - best British comedy of all time.
You haven't outlined a thing. All you've said is that you think Rugby is fine in Europe and that the ELVs must exist because Rugby is suffering in the SH... you clearly know next to nothing about the ELVs from your posts and are more concerned with SH bashing because that's what yo think this is about.
Anyway, let me clear a couple things up for you. Rugby in the SH is not suffering... indeed we dominate the international scene (5 of 6 RWCs all won by us remember ), and the Super 14 has been incredibly successful. For example, why would New Zealand ever think that they need to 'change' the game to increase it's popularity? People are crazy about rugby there and no other sport even comes close to rivaling it. Same in South Africa barring soccer (but even then the Springboks seem to get more coverage and have higher standing). Indeed, Australia is the only place where your argument might hold some water because of our unparralleled competative sporting atmosphere (no other country has 4 major football codes each with a professional league), but even in Aus the Super 14 has been massively successful and the wallabies have huge standing and it is GROWING from year to year... there has been no slide in the popularity of Rugby in Austrlia.
But anyway, you've completely missed the issue as far as I'm concerned... what you're ultimately suggesting is that the game should cease to change because it's "fine" in Europe (and as I've pointed out, fine in the SH as well). Which is a ridiculous argument given that at no stage has the game not been "fine" if that's how you define it. As a sport that has only been professional for a little over 10 years (a change that wasn't really necessary given that the game was fine as an amature sport for over 100 years) it has obviously grown in leeps and bounds thanks to the increased media exposure and the appeal of the RWC (a Aus-NZ initiative that the NH was largely against because the game was 'fine'), but to suggest this success is proof the game shouldn't be changed from now on is just pure stupidity given the impact of the game the referees have and the incredible grey areas in the game that, to paraphrase Martin Johnson, leave even veteran players baffled as to why some penalties are given. The ELVs may not fix everything, in fact some have increased referee interference. However, some of reduced the referees say on pedantic issues and also helped with continuity of play.
But I don't know why I'm bothering answering you in all honesty... you clearly have made no effort to really understand the purpose, origin and impact of the ELVs and think that the SH is 'out to get you'.
Good luck with that.

 

[feicarsinn]

what really bugs me about the ELVs has nothing to do with the pro game at all. we have to remember rugby is a participant sport and the great thing about it is theres a position for everyone. now it would be nice to see nothing put tryfests on the international scene with a quicker game but at the cost of the decline of the big fat 40 year old who plays prop for his local 3rd XV and would suffer to the point it wouldnt be worth it to continue, i dont think so