WRU pour cold water on ELVs

[gingergenius]

How am I underestimating them? By telling you the IRB won't accept this rogue behaviour from up North?
[/b]

What's wrong with the game as it is? We like it. France just made millions out of a very exciting world cup with ordinary rugby rules.

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game. New countries have a habit of running off and creating their own games. American Football, AFL etc. Well you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.

Probably a similar situation in England. Nobody probably has even thought about the ELVs right now and probably won't until at least later next season.



EDIT: The only major figures in the North other than Wales to have come out against the ELVs to my knowledge has been Ian Mcgeechan who joins New Zealand Coach Graham Henry in the "No" camp.

EDIT EDIT: Also, it isn't a dead cert that the ELVs will be rolled out world wide next season. The issue comes up for vote at an iRB council meeting in Dublin on the 1st of May. The yes camp need 75% of the council votes to get it through. However, if the Home Nations & Canada go against the proposals, that will be enough to sink the deal. Thus, so far, Wales need the support of England & Ireland as well as Scotland and Canada to prevent the ELVs from entering the NH next year.

The RFU is rumoured to be privatly briefing against the ELVs but, as usual, is dithering. France it seems are the same.
[/b]

Shaun Edwards has written a number of Guardian articles fiercely criticising the ELVs.

 

[Fushitsusha]

<div class='quotemain'>
How am I underestimating them? By telling you the IRB won't accept this rogue behaviour from up North?
[/b]

and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.
[/b][/quote]

You obviously haven't watched the Super 14 this year?

The scrum is being used even MORE as a weapon due to the amount of free kicks.

Maybe you should actually watch a game for yourself and not read into the ridiculous nonsense some others have been writing?

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'>
How am I underestimating them? By telling you the IRB won't accept this rogue behaviour from up North?
[/b]

What's wrong with the game as it is? We like it. France just made millions out of a very exciting world cup with ordinary rugby rules.

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game. New countries have a habit of running off and creating their own games. American Football, AFL etc. Well you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.
[/b][/quote]
:wall: :wall: :wall:
Jesus f#cking Christ. How many times are we going to have to point this out to you lot??? WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE ELVs!!!!! Wanna know who did? YOU!!! This is an IRB initiative and last time I checked the IRB was pretty heavily dominated by the north.
And say what you like about the insignificance of the SH Unions, but we've won all but one of the RWCs held, so like it or not that gives us a fair bit of say.

 

[DonBilly]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
How am I underestimating them? By telling you the IRB won't accept this rogue behaviour from up North?
[/b]

What's wrong with the game as it is? We like it. France just made millions out of a very exciting world cup with ordinary rugby rules.

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game. New countries have a habit of running off and creating their own games. American Football, AFL etc. Well you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.
[/b][/quote]
:wall: :wall: :wall:
Jesus f#cking Christ. How many times are we going to have to point this out to you lot??? WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE ELVs!!!!! Wanna know who did? YOU!!! This is an IRB initiative and last time I checked the IRB was pretty heavily dominated by the north.
And say what you like about the insignificance of the SH Unions, but we've won all but one of the RWCs held, so like it or not that gives us a fair bit of say.
[/b][/quote]

No problem. As far as I am concerned I don't want to enter in a yet again inter-Hemisphere conflict.

I know that the committee which originally proposed the the so-called Stellenboch rules was well balanced and included representatives of Unions from both North and South.

SA and Australia were the first Unions to test the new rules in some of their domestic leagues. Some of the rules were skipped and the new set of Rugby laws was called ELVs.

The end of the Super14 approaching it's time to seat and reflect about what was positive and what should be skipped. NH leagues should then start playing with the new rules.

As far as Test Rugby is concerned I would not apply these revised ELVs before next year 6N and 3N.

 

[Macsen]

National conversation on ELVs:

Wales: Mae ELVs yn fantastic, less scrums, gwych byt.

France: Non, non, non, il n'est pas possible.

* Wales push French scrum off the ball *

Wales: Ooh hiraeth for the old rules, they were such hwyl, etc...

France: Nous pouvons reconsidérer... zut.

 

[nick_w]

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game.

... you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.

[/b]

I'm sorry, but this seems a little bit of a backwards way of looking at it. Just because we invented the game, why should no one else have any input with how to improve it? I don't want to be offensive or start a conflict, but thats a pretty arrogant attitude.

As for having three codes, surely that would damage the game rather than improve it. I imagine it would create such boundaries in international rugby that myself, as well as a number of other people on this board I would like to think, would be uncomfortable and generally upset with.

As for the ELV's, I think the general consensus is to certainly bring some of them to fruitation in the NH. At the end of the day, rugby is played for entertainment. If it makes the game more interesting, and make teams take more risks, what loss is there? OK, some don't work (imho the free kick debate could make a completely different topic, and quite an interesting discussion), but I truly feel some could really improve the game as a whole.

 

[Prestwick]

Listen, I think its safe to say that if the NH Unions can barely agree on what to put out on a damn press release regarding the ELVs, I seriously doubt they're going to back a worldwide expansion of them when it comes up in the 1st of May meeting in Dublin.

My opinion, some of the rules seem to just remove any rhyme and rhythmn to the game and it just seems like you have three choices: run, run and run some more. Also, there are one or two really, really screwed up quirks in the rules which need ironing out, such as the offside line at the tackle which I think frankly is absurd.

I like some variety and I think the existing rules deliver that bar one or two circumstances. I think Ieuan Evans put it quite well when he said that the beauty of Union was in its "imperfect nature".

It kind of reflects on this very modern obsession with tinkering with things. We're always changing things, moving things around, fitting new stuff, removing old stuff, rewriting stuff, changing supplier, changing supermarket, rewriting tax codes, passing new laws, replacing old laws, launching white/green/red/yellow/blue papers proposing changes to existing legislation, announcing intentions to become a republic, announcing intentions to stay a constitutional monarchy, the list goes on.

Whatever happened to taking a step back, having a breather and taking stock of what the situation is. People need to ask themselves the following questions:

Is the game growing under the existing rules across the world? Yes, the code's increasing popularity in nations like the USA, Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan point to this along with surging crowds in the Home Nations and France.

Is the game in danger of shrinkage due to a negative reaction of the existing rules by new fans? No, see above.

Is there a pressing need to make changes to the rules? No, there is no major rule which causes games to become skewed or pose a serious threat the safety of players and/or match officials.

So, one must ask this question: why are we going ahead with this? There just seems to be this sense of dull resignation where people are saying "mmf, well if he's doing it, I guess I'll have to do it too" even though there isn't exactly a pressing need apart from a frankly ideological driven idea that one must tinker with something roughly every six months.

Let me get this perfectly clear: I'm not going to burn my jersey or boycott games over this, nor will I picket HQ if the ELVs ever come to England, but it seems difficult to deny that the issue will end the world wide roll out of the ELVs.

Mark my words, it might not be next year, or the year after that but eventually, and we'll be posting to a thread discussing an iRB proposal to roll out the rest of Stellenbosche. And then after that we'll be posting on a thread to change Union even more beyond recognition.

And this is another major question which nobody has seemed to answer: where is this going to end?

Just my two cents. If the board pass the proposal then roll on the ELVs! If not, then we'll be left to speculate on what the Rugby Universe might have looked like.

 

[paretrooper]

What's wrong with the game as it is? We like it. France just made millions out of a very exciting world cup with ordinary rugby rules.

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game. New countries have a habit of running off and creating their own games. American Football, AFL etc. Well you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.[/b]

and they say the all blacks and kiwis are arrogant. We invented the game!! what are you five fighting
over a ball in the sandpit. that smacks of "it's my ball and im going home" this is a good topic
to be throwin about. no rule has been set in stone yet if any rule must be replaced in this game
it is bring back rucking!! full stop!!! so cheer up little man or just pick up your ball and f**k off home
then.

 

[BLR]

The north should at least TRY it, that's putting aside whether they should implement it permanently....the differing style of NH rugby will surely create a different dynamic to the game eg. the increased importance of scrumming and tactical kicking....if they don't like it they have a 30 day money back guarentee.

PS. I prettied up your quote paretrooper, you can thank me later.

 

[DonBilly]

<div class='quotemain'>What's wrong with the game as it is? We like it. France just made millions out of a very exciting world cup with ordinary rugby rules.

The Super 14 represents 3 unions. The North has 6. We invented the game. The SH has no right to dictate to anyone how to play the game. New countries have a habit of running off and creating their own games. American Football, AFL etc. Well you can have your ELV rugby, we're happy with our Original Rugby. Let's have 3 codes... and then you can make the game as fast as you want and take out the fatties and the scrums etc.[/b]

and they say the all blacks and kiwis are arrogant. We invented the game!! what are you five fighting
over a ball in the sandpit. that smacks of "it's my ball and im going home" this is a good topic
to be throwin about. no rule has been set in stone yet if any rule must be replaced in this game
it is bring back rucking!! full stop!!! so cheer up little man or just pick up your ball and f**k off home
then. [/b][/quote]

Come on, I am pretty sure you can get your brain working a bit today. So who "they"? There's one guy who makes such a statement and you think that the 4 billion people who lives in the NH are arrogant pricks?

 

[BLR]

Come on, I am pretty sure you can get your brain working a bit today. So who "they"? There's one guy who makes such a statement and you think that the 4 billion people who lives in the NH are arrogant pricks?
[/b]

Down here unfortunately we hear about alot of the NH's worse douche bag media types...the ones who oppose the ELV's because they honestly believe it is some sinister plot by Australia to weaken the scrum. (despite the fact it actually increases its importance, the thing it weakens if anything is the lineout, which we are good at anyway) The problem with this is that the comments are ignorant and as there aren't many NH media types putting out arguments that acknowledge even the slightest benefits of such rules. So the post basically re-affirmed the view amongst alot of SH people that the NH people seem to be saying they won't even try the ELV's simply because we tried it first, the simple fact that the reluctance to even trial them is pretty high, well that DOES stink of arrogance. If we had to trial them, why can't you?

 

[DonBilly]

<div class='quotemain'>
Come on, I am pretty sure you can get your brain working a bit today. So who "they"? There's one guy who makes such a statement and you think that the 4 billion people who lives in the NH are arrogant pricks?
[/b]

Down here unfortunately we hear about alot of the NH's worse douche bag media types...the ones who oppose the ELV's because they honestly believe it is some sinister plot by Australia to weaken the scrum. (despite the fact it actually increases its importance, the thing it weakens if anything is the lineout, which we are good at anyway) The problem with this is that the comments are ignorant and as there aren't many NH media types putting out arguments that acknowledge even the slightest benefits of such rules. So the post basically re-affirmed the view amongst alot of SH people that the NH people seem to be saying they won't even try the ELV's simply because we tried it first, the simple fact that the reluctance to even trial them is pretty high, well that DOES stink of arrogance. If we had to trial them, why can't you? [/b][/quote]

Well to put things back in perspective the new rules are not debated so much in France except in some Rugby circles. Some London papers have treated this subject and several points of view were expressed both in favour or against the ELVs. Usual discussion, and there's no point in being upset by that.

The WRU is the only one Union to have stated their views on the ELVs. The others have not yet released their position.

Testing the ELVs in Europe due to the intrication of the different competitions would mean adopting the ELVs for all club Rugby season. You cannot a team having to go back and forth to the ELVs during the season.

ELVs have been geographically tested and designed first in SA and were expanded to Australia and NZ. I don't think Agentinian or Pacific Island leagues have adopted ELVs yet. So there's a simplistic view that they are kind of SANZAR toy and it can trigger the endless arguments between North and South about Rugby evolution.

As usual there are people very opiniated who strongly express their views but don't be too quick to generalize and assume that all the people living above in the other Hemisphere share the same view.

 

[Steve-o]

This has gotta be the 5th or 6th thread where the ELV's are discussed and people still don't get it.

Rugby changes. It's been doing so for a long time. If we were always just stuck to the rules rugby began with it would be FAR from what it is today.
So the rugby you watch today, ginger the "genius", is in fact a hybrid of what your ancestors invented. Just because what rugby is now fits into your own little reality, doesn't mean it should stop progressing there. And that goes to everybody who doesn't get what's going on here.
This is normal people!

I'm still not convinced the critics on this forum have been watching the S14 consistently. Whoever says the only options are run, run and run is a fool. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and watch some S14 games.
It should be encouraging to the NH unions that SA is trialling these rules.

If you're scared of change then go found an Amish rugby organisation.

 

[paretrooper]

cheers BLR

 

[Prestwick]

Rugby changes. It's been doing so for a long time. If we were always just stuck to the rules rugby began with it would be FAR from what it is today.
So the rugby you watch today, ginger the "genius", is in fact a hybrid of what your ancestors invented. Just because what rugby is now fits into your own little reality, doesn't mean it should stop progressing there. And that goes to everybody who doesn't get what's going on here.
This is normal people![/b]

Yes thank you for informing us about how rugby has evolved. In fact, the reason why a try is called what it is was because inititally, there was no points value attached to it at all. Touching the ball down only rewarded you with the chance to "try" and convert your score. This is where the words "try" and "conversion" come from and that is why they are unique words to the sport.

However, this is different. Over the past 100 years, the odd rule here and the there have been changed, occassionally without much fanfare and incident because the tinkering wasn't enough to cause wholesale disruption to the game.

Right or wrong, the ELVs are a major, major proposition but nobody has adequately explained quite why we need to comprehensively change the game so. So far we have had outlandish claims like "its an Australian conspiracy!" and then we've had people saying they are there to make the game flow easier and give teams more ball time, to 'fix' some problems with the game and even to make the game easier to referee. None of these reasons have been posted at the same time.

Simply saying that we have to change for change's sake is stupid and incredibly naive. Naive because you could end up wrecking the very thing you were trying to preserve by changing. You change because there is a pressing need to change.

Simply put, if I were a member of the iRB board and someone told me to accept the ELVs with no adequate reason other than "BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CHANGE! CH-CH-CH-CHANGES! *goes into David Bowie song 'changes' " then frankly I'd probably resign and go retire because the world had finally gone nuts on me.

I'm still not convinced the critics on this forum have been watching the S14 consistently. Whoever says the only options are run, run and run is a fool. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and watch some S14 games.[/b]

Oooh yes, thats right, just dismiss out of hand those who dare question the new rules! Do you realise just how silly you sound? For your information, I've gone through so much trouble and money to watch S14 game and follow the 'caines via DirecTV so I'd appreciate it if people could stop telling me what I am and am not watching please.

It should be encouraging to the NH unions that SA is trialling these rules.

If you're scared of change then go found an Amish rugby organisation. [/b]

We're not scared of change, I'm not scared of change anyway, I'd still go watch Saracens even if they approved adopting Rugby League, we're not Amish, we just asking this simple question: why at a time when the game is pretty much as good as it is, when popularity of the game is going through the roof, are we proposing such controversial and wide-ranging 'reform' of the game?

Seriously, simply being lazy and saying "CH-CH-CH-CHANGES" doesn't cut it. I need to be convinced. Convince me without being an ass and with some flesh on your reasoning please.

EDIT: If you fail, I'll just wait for the 1st of May meeting for some rational people to do what essentially we have comprehensively failed to do. Regardless of if they approve the ELVs or not, I'll still be looking forward to next years season. But simply dismissing out of hand people who dare question the rule changes as amish people who should get their heads out of their asses isn't exactly the best way to sell the ELVs.

 

[dullonien]

I almost entirely agree with the comment Ieuan Evans made on Scrum V. A couple of the ELV's are interesting and are worth considering, but most are a load of utter sh*t. The problem I have with them is that I can't see one or two being implemented, it's gonna be all (the ones being tried out in the S14) or nothing. If that's the case, nothing for me please!

The passing back into the 22 is a nothing rule, there's already too many f*cking up n' unders as there is, this rule will surely increase this? I don't really see how it'll improve things. What's the point then?

The defending team being 5m back from a scrum is interesting, but at the same time it's quite pointless! If the attacking team want's more room, how hard is it for them to take a few steps back! Why should the defending team automatically loose 5m, it's up to the attacking team to decide whether they'd prefer to have more space to attack with (with the chance of being tackled the wrong side of the advantage line) or stay flat and get over the advantage line.

The free kick rule is another piece of rubbish. Rugby is rugby, there's two ways to play it. Penalties are important to punish the team who penalizes, how doesn't that make sense? I'm not a fan of the stick it up yer jumper and kick the penalties type of game, but it's part of rugby and I accept that. Would I like to see less of it, sure, but as long as Wales play with attacking flair, I can enjoy rugby and be proud of the way they are trying to play.

I'm not gonna bother talking about any other, Pres has already shown how absurd the offside line at the tackle is and pulling down the mall, no matter how nice it would be is just plain dangerous.

The ELV's are meant to increase ball in play time, yet in one of Wales' 6 nations game the ball was in play for 33 minutes in one half. How much more do you want? This shows it's possible to play that kinda game under the current rules.

Imo, the things that need to be looked at haven't, two things only. The scrum and the ruck. I'm getting fed up of each and every scrum taking 5minutes and several resets. Something needs to be done to improve this. And the ruck, hmm................... mayb we could BRING BACK RUCKING!

 

[Steve-o]

@ Prestwick - Ah yes, you're a Canes fan now hey? Funny, I asked where you were in the Hurricanes vs Stormers thread, still waiting for a reply on that one. The Canes love their running rugby so maybe that's why you think ELVs are one dimensional?
Anyway, I personally think the law that was more drastic than the ELVs was the change to allowing players to be lifted in a line out or kick offs. I mean it was illegal before that. What can you compare that to in the ELVs?
I don't know how I'm sounding silly, I'm embracing an IRB initiative. That's on trial I might add. I'm not gonna even try convince you to have a positive attitude about them, really, I've tried to help people have an open mind in the last 5 ELV related threads (being a former critic myself)
One thing pops up every time: Ignorance

Dullonien, collapsing the maul is still illegal. Any Canes will tell you that (Pres?), the Sharks were awarded a penalty try in the Canes game, for that very offence.

Bottom line is people don't the laws properly.

 

[sanzar]

I almost entirely agree with the comment Ieuan Evans made on Scrum V. A couple of the ELV's are interesting and are worth considering, but most are a load of utter sh*t. The problem I have with them is that I can't see one or two being implemented, it's gonna be all (the ones being tried out in the S14) or nothing. If that's the case, nothing for me please!

The passing back into the 22 is a nothing rule, there's already too many f*cking up n' unders as there is, this rule will surely increase this? I don't really see how it'll improve things. What's the point then?

The defending team being 5m back from a scrum is interesting, but at the same time it's quite pointless! If the attacking team want's more room, how hard is it for them to take a few steps back! Why should the defending team automatically loose 5m, it's up to the attacking team to decide whether they'd prefer to have more space to attack with (with the chance of being tackled the wrong side of the advantage line) or stay flat and get over the advantage line.

The free kick rule is another piece of rubbish. Rugby is rugby, there's two ways to play it. Penalties are important to punish the team who penalizes, how doesn't that make sense? I'm not a fan of the stick it up yer jumper and kick the penalties type of game, but it's part of rugby and I accept that. Would I like to see less of it, sure, but as long as Wales play with attacking flair, I can enjoy rugby and be proud of the way they are trying to play.

I'm not gonna bother talking about any other, Pres has already shown how absurd the offside line at the tackle is and pulling down the mall, no matter how nice it would be is just plain dangerous.

The ELV's are meant to increase ball in play time, yet in one of Wales' 6 nations game the ball was in play for 33 minutes in one half. How much more do you want? This shows it's possible to play that kinda game under the current rules.

Imo, the things that need to be looked at haven't, two things only. The scrum and the ruck. I'm getting fed up of each and every scrum taking 5minutes and several resets. Something needs to be done to improve this. And the ruck, hmm................... mayb we could BRING BACK RUCKING! [/b]

Wow, a few bits of this post were directly plagerised from an article I read...
Anyway, you are right about the ruck. They probably could do with bringing back rucking, but I doubt it because of the unsightly nature of it... shame, but that's just a consequence of seeking wider appeal I guess.
I also have to say that I'm begining to agree with the 22 rule being not so great... so many teams just put up high balls and it's feels like watching the AFL when you see a couple of the less adventurous teams playing. Still though, I do like the 5 meters back at the scrum and I don't think it hampers the defence much (I've noticed at times that it helps it because it gives them more of a running start to nail the attack with momentum).

 

[Prestwick]

You see Steve, you did absolutely nothing to answer my question there. Thus, I'm just going to wait for the 1st of May because the only answer I've gotten so far is that we're all a bunch of ignorant, Amish guys with our heads stuck up our arses.

However, if you're really that desperate not to put some thought into fighting the corner of the ELVs, I'll humour you and say that I was sitting in front of my computer wondering why I had spent so much time fiddling to get DirecTV going when I could have gone into London to watch the game instead.

Sanzar and Shtove however have probably done more to logically argue the case other than saying "Durrr, its change, innit! Wats not to liek 'bout it, durrr!"

I mark that attempt as a "fail" and I await the iRB's board meeting with a'bated breath, uncomfortable fudge-ville here we come!

I also have to say that I'm begining to agree with the 22 rule being not so great... so many teams just put up high balls and it's feels like watching the AFL when you see a couple of the less adventurous teams playing. Still though, I do like the 5 meters back at the scrum and I don't think it hampers the defence much (I've noticed at times that it helps it because it gives them more of a running start to nail the attack with momentum).[/b]

The five meter rule has had a really interesting reaction from players here. In the Wales camp, former backs like Ieuan Evans perfectly understand the rule and like it, forwards like Martyn Williams however look absolutely appauled for obvious reasons. Although, on the flip side, forwards asking for that rule would be like Turkeys voting for nuclear armageddon.

 

[Steve-o]

Prestwick, I can't answer your questions because they're based on negative assumptions.
If people think that it's legal to collapse a maul, which it isn't, that's ignorance. That's one example. If that's not having your head up your ass, what is?

Point is most people, like you, think the ELVs reforms the game. It doesn't. People point and say they don't like this and that, but have no standing because they obviously not watching the games.
Theoretically there should be more up and unders. I can't say that I've seen a game under the ELVs that had more up and unders than Argentinas opening game of the WC. Not even close.

Another is that the value of a scrum is less. That's incorrect.
There are more scrums AND you get an extra 5m on attack. That makes a scrum a favourable attacking set piece.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line hasn't changed. If have been watching the S14 I wouldn't have to explain this.

There are negatives, that's why the IRB wants to trial them abroad. To iron them out.



...1 May