Australia want ELV's introduced across board by 1 Sept.

toomevara

Wallabies pushing the IRB to introduce the ELV S14 variations across the board, having seen what I've seen of them, and I'd have to say, as someone who was hopeful prior to their introduction, I think it would be a disaster...

They just don't work, the rugby is poor, powderpuff stuff which devalues some of the key areas in the game of union....'course if you don't have a functioning scrum they're great...good news for the wallabies on that score...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7301380.stm

Anyone out there for 'em or agin 'em for the NH tournaments?

themont85

I really don't like 90% of those laws. They're trying to mess up what makes union great-scrums,lineouts ect. These new laws will send us down the line of league which I feel is vastly inferior to union in this way. We'll end up with less space on the pitch and down the line less players to accomadate this.

Tim Robbins

themont85 wrote: »

I really don't like 90% of those laws. They're trying to mess up what makes union great-scrums,lineouts ect. These new laws will send us down the line of league which I feel is vastly inferior to union in this way. We'll end up with less space on the pitch and down the line less players to accomadate this.

Agreed.
1.The scrum law where players have to 5M back is going to be a nightmare to ref at the lower levels where you don't have touch judge's.

2. Allowing, collapsing the maul is actually a bit dangerous at lower levels. This law change sounds like sour Aussie grapes after england mauled the SH teams off the park in 2003. As much as I hate up the jumper Rugby, it's rarely used to excess. Munster in 06 and England in 03. And if any decent running teams got their act together both teams could have been beaten.
The maul also is a good way of sucking players in to open up space and a good way of having some tactical variation. This ELV basically gets rid of the maul and an attempt to make Union more like League.

3. Allowing hands in the ruck - again this sounds like a mess.

4. Changing Penalties to Free Kicks, well this will mean teams will have more professional fouling.

Overall it's an attempt to make Union more like League, less rucking, less mauling, less kicking. It will suit the Aussies and the NZ.
The only law I like is the pass back to 22 change.
Other than that, good reff'ing, should ensure for free flowing rugby.

tHE vAGGABOND

We'll end up with less space on the pitch

Where in the world do you get that from?

I like the new line out rules, it should make things good for teams which want quick ball [hooker can stand anywhere, and you can pre grip etc] - quick ball equals space

Less penalties and more free kicks makes the game flow, and is making S14 teams think about what to do, rather than tap and go..

You can collapse a maul - less stupid rolling mauls [and thats a prop speaking!]

Defenders at a scrum have to be 5 meters back from last foot - so the attatckers have more time and space to do something rather than having defenders in their face by the time the 10 has the ball...

Yea, I can see where you get your point from! Make things go quicker and speed up the game, make the defenders stand back - no space at all!

Re: low levels
Schools and Lower club levels have their own different set of rules as it is [Can only push scrum 1 meter etc]. Why do you think they wont do this now?

These laws are targeted at top club and national players - all nations adapt the laws for their lower levels.

Also, if a ref cant judge where a backline should stand and what a ruck or a maul are he should not be on the field

Stev_o

Ffs just because the Aussie's use obese men as props and thus suffer every year at the hands of a better pack doesnt mean they can go whine and change the rule's to benefit themselves.

Spaceman Spiff

If anything the new laws are making a dynamic scrum a more valuable weapon. With the free kicks instead of penalties teams are going right to a scrum if they can't get the quick tap because that is where the best attacking option comes from. If you have a front row like Australia's, losing a scrum can be pretty damaging. What they need to do is enforce a straight ball into the scrum (which isn't going to happen).

The maul law is the one I like least for obvious reasons, but I remember hearing that it has to be stopped or there has to be a signifigant loss of forward momentum (I don't know how this is easer to ref). The idea is to promote quick ball, but if a team wants forward play, they can do it regardless, so this rule wouldn't help IMO.

The 22 pass rule is surprisingly the one I'm most disapointed with because the intent behind it was he best. But rather than seeing loads of counter attacking, you really just see lots of tactical kicking when you could of just had a lineout and be done with it. I wouldn't really care if it were implemented, but I don't think its going to be as revolutionary as people hoped.

To hit on the "short arm penalties" again, I'm warming up to them more than I thought. The penalties they got rid of were generally the toughest ones to enforce and ones with the most inconsistency. Cynical infractions can be given 'full arm' penalties at the referees discretion which should keep the amount of professional fouls down. I think this could be further tweaked that when the opposing team slows down the ball preventing the quick tap (kicking it away, holding it from the scrum half etc.) that it goes straight to a full arm. And then of course it leads to scrums because its the next best option to the quick tap.


All the rules can be tweaked, but so far I'm liking them more than I thought I would (this is coming from a prop as well). But you wont see what they're really like until they're in the Heineken Cup and Premiership.

themont85

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Where in the world do you get that from?

Less set piece ie- scrums , mauls will result in teams packing defences with more forwards who aren't sucked in. Look at league, uncontested scrums-no lineouts and they only have 13 players i think. I think these new ELVs will eventually lead to less players and players becoming far to similar. Rugby Union has a multitude of different skills which isn't just applicable to the naturally athletic backline player. Look at hookers-throwing/against the head in scrums, props scrummaging/lifting/mauling, secondrows-jumping/mauling ect. These guys will really suffer if the Aussies have their way. Also collapsing mauls is dangerous but if teams had learned to defend them better maybe they wouldn't be such a weapon.

tHE vAGGABOND

themont85 - Sorry I think your incorrect! Everyone in both scrums still have to stay bound until the ball is gone, if you have sprinters in your back row so they can get into the midfield before the ball - all credit to you

In the S14 games I have seen, there have been MORE scrums and not less. The free kicks in the middle of the field end up being scrums a lot. There has been a lot of turning of the scrum and a lot of big hits up front to try and gain advantage, rather than rugby league scrums as your making out..

[Not unlike what england did to us, for their first try at weekend, Sheridan made a monster hit, the scrum wheeled, and it basically took our whole back row out of the game for a few vital seconds, which is all they needed]

themont85

Ye your right I understand that currently they haven't changed the scrum laws to uncontested or whatever. But in all the S14 games i've seen i have seen an increase in tap free kicks and a similar amount of scrums. I feel that these laws are the first steps towards the extinction of the rugby set piece which the Aussies want. They're messing about with the maul which undeniably will result in the lineout becoming more of a tap down will forwards becoming backs.

toomevara

I think the scrum area is a concern but for me the biggest issue with the ELVs is the sheer amount of whistle referees are employing...it's a real worry..

The super 14 game between the Brumbies and the Hurricanes last Friday was unbelievable with 39 stoppages! That's one every two minutes... hardly making the game a more interesting, more freeflowing spectacle which I thought was the whole point...

Snickers Man

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Where in the world do you get that from?

You can collapse a maul - less stupid rolling mauls [and thats a prop speaking!]

No you can't. They are not using that ELV in the Super 14. It was discussed but rejected.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with those who say you can't defend a rolling maul. You can. It is simply a matter of committing more players to it and pushing harder. If you can stop eight attackers with six defenders in the maul, fair play to you.

If you need eight defenders in a maul to stop six attackers then fair play to them. They can make use of the additional men outside. But if you want to play league then bugger off to Wigan or Sydney. Leave our game alone.

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Defenders at a scrum have to be 5 meters back from last foot - so the attatckers have more time and space to do something rather than having defenders in their face by the time the 10 has the ball...

I actually like the sound of that law. It is well thought out and has at its intention the creation of space for fast backs to play in.

But it will need proper enforcement. I think at the top levels we should give much more discretion to touch judges to adjudicate on matters like offside and improper binding on the blind side of scrums. IF we enforce existing laws, we won't need so many new ones.

tHE vAGGABOND

No you can't. They are not using that ELV in the Super 14. It was discussed but rejected.

The ones the Super 14 people are not using have not been rejected, the Super 14 people did not want to use all of them, thats all

The full set of them are being used in the New Zealand NPC and Currie Cup in Sa - that will be interesting..

As I said elsewhere, they should have taken them on in the AIL IMHO - make that league interesting!

toomevara

Snickers Man wrote: »

I have no sympathy whatsoever with those who say you can't defend a rolling maul. You can.

Agree completely, just watch the Italian pack in any game, they are masters of defending the rolling maul against all comers. It's difficult, requires enormous cohesion and effort, but it can be done...

I love the rolling maul it is one of the finest sights on a rugby union pitch, I'd absolutely hate to see it removed from the game by an arbitrary law change...

death1234567

Changing Penalties to Free Kicks, well this will mean teams will have more professional fouling. I thought that too, more cynical **** from the simon shaw's and easterby's of this world.

The only laws I like is the pass back to 22 change (which was my idea about 5 years ago) and Allowing hands in the ruck which means more quick ball and more turnovers.

marco_polo

death1234567 wrote: »

Changing Penalties to Free Kicks, well this will mean teams will have more professional fouling. I thought that too, more cynical **** from the simon shaw's and easterby's of this world.

The only laws I like is the pass back to 22 change (which was my idea about 5 years ago) and Allowing hands in the ruck which means more quick ball and more turnovers.

Not too sure that the increased amount of turnovers makes for better rugby, I have seen a few games of of headless chicken rugby in the S14 thus far with way too many turn overs, aimless kicking etc (And thats even though the hands in the ruck rule is not in the S14 trials ).

While I though that the kicking rule would be an improvement, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case thus far.

toomevara

death1234567 wrote: »

The only laws I like is the pass back to 22 change (which was my idea about 5 years ago) and Allowing hands in the ruck which means more quick ball and more turnovers.

Love the ruck law, but the s14 variations of the ELV's aren't using it...they bottled it. A genuine contest for the ball at ruck time will make the breakdown a much more physical contest, tying forwards in (doing what they're supposed to be doing and not standing out in the backline waiting to make the inevitable balls of any back line move) and giving more space out wide....

i've long bemoaned the lack of a genuine contest for the ball at the breakdown once a ruck is called,its fundamentally against the spirit of rugby union..this for me is the most innovative and important ELV. They're using it in the NPC and the currie cup, but I don't know how thats going...The breakdown with the current ELV's is a joke.

Stev_o

toomevara wrote: »

Love the ruck law, but the s14 variations of the ELV's aren't using it...they bottled it. A genuine contest for the ball at ruck time will make the breakdown a much more physical contest, tying forwards in (doing what they're supposed to be doing and not standing out in the backline waiting to make the inevitable balls of any back line move) and giving more space out wide....

i've long bemoaned the lack of a genuine contest for the ball at the breakdown once a ruck is called,its fundamentally against the spirit of rugby union..this for me is the most innovative and important ELV. They're using it in the NPC and the currie cup, but I don't know how thats going...The breakdown with the current ELV's is a joke.

Well the current rules for the breakdown are a joke at the moment anyway iv played 7 and still playing 7 at the moment and there would be matches where the ref would be on my side and actually blow the opposition for holding onto the ball while im contesting it but then the majority matches i play i could be holding onto the ball trying to get the turnover for 5 seconds while the opposition play is still holding on and the ref wont do anything.

Also the commands issued by the ref at ruck time can really mess up your head. The word "release" is used by some ref's for three areas at ruck time, the tackleing player not release the tackled player, the tackled play that wont let go of the ball, the play contesting the ball with his hands on the ball. Its a bloody mess

JWAD

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Agreed.
1.The scrum law where players have to 5M back is going to be a nightmare to ref at the lower levels where you don't have touch judge's

Aw diddums......would be a shame for the TJs to be involved, wouldnt it? lol

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. Allowing, collapsing the maul is actually a bit dangerous at lower levels. This law change sounds like sour Aussie grapes after england mauled the SH teams off the park in 2003. As much as I hate up the jumper Rugby, it's rarely used to excess. Munster in 06 and England in 03. And if any decent running teams got their act together both teams could have been beaten.
The maul also is a good way of sucking players in to open up space and a good way of having some tactical variation. This ELV basically gets rid of the maul and an attempt to make Union more like League

The maul experiment is the one law that will not be changed in my opinion, especially if trying to win over certain unions.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

3. Allowing hands in the ruck - again this sounds like a mess

One of the big problems in the game is all-too-OTT protection of the ball at the ruck. Finding a way of committing forwards to rucks instead of plugging up an already packed defensive line is, in my view, an important way of opening the field up.
Hands in ruck is still pinged, by the way. Its just not a straight arm penalty. Its a free kick.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4. Changing Penalties to Free Kicks, well this will mean teams will have more professional fouling

As opposed to what we have now???

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Overall it's an attempt to make Union more like League, less rucking, less mauling, less kicking. It will suit the Aussies and the NZ.
The only law I like is the pass back to 22 change.
Other than that, good reff'ing, should ensure for free flowing rugby.

There are 15 players onfield on each team. Would be nice if the entire team actually was involved in attacking play instead of backs, especially outside backs, being used for something other than defensive duties or counterattacking only.
Ruckplay is still prevalent. Kicking is still prevalent and mauling is still prevalent. Lineouts still prevalent. More scrums. How is this making the game like RL??
If you want examples of RU playing RL tactics/gameplan, have a look at the Wallabies in 1999, England in 2003 and Wales winning this years Grand Slam.

NotWormBoy

JWAD wrote: »

As opposed to what we have now???

The important word there though was "more". If a team's on the ropes in their own 22, and know that if they can handle it on the ground and not give away a penalty, then they'd be more likely to stick a sly hand in there somewhere and accept the free kick against them. And yes, there's plenty of it goes on now even when the result is a penalty, but rules shouldn't change if the result will be more professional fouling.

By the way, I'm not saying the new ELV's will lead to more professional fouling, I haven't looked into it enough to make up my mind, but it'd be a concern alright from what I've read/seen so far (which is little enough )

EdgarAllenPoo

I can't stand most of the rules. Maybe it's just me but the Aussies seem to want to turn Union into a bastardised form of League.

I can't stand League and I hope countries like New Zealand fight against this.

The Super 14 has been woeful this year and the majority of the laws should be dropped after this season.

I do like the lineout rule and the free kicks and the pass back 22 rule seemed to me like a good idea until it turned games into endless kicking competitions.

Here's a thought, turn penalties into 4 points instead of 3. More incentive for teams not to give away silly penalties and maybe it'll stop games just being won and lost through the number 10's boot.

toomevara

GDM wrote: »

I can't stand most of the rules. Maybe it's just me but the Aussies seem to want to turn Union into a bastardised form of League.

.

Oh, ferchrissakes!! Union as played in the s14, is nothing like league. Why is is that whenever Union degenerates into shapeless anarchy, lovers of the game start comparing it to league.

League is an incredibly structured set piece game which doesn't have anything like the crisis of identity that Union has....like it or loathe it, as is your wont, but for God's sake don't compare the shapeless powderpuff nonsense that currently constituted s14 rugby to league. Its nothing like it in intensity, skill or physicality..

Please, please, please before making spurious analogies between the two codes just watch a good game of league to re-acquaint yourself with how the game is played and structured.

Tim Robbins

Stev_o wrote: »

Well the current rules for the breakdown are a joke at the moment anyway iv played 7 and still playing 7 at the moment and there would be matches where the ref would be on my side and actually blow the opposition for holding onto the ball while im contesting it but then the majority matches i play i could be holding onto the ball trying to get the turnover for 5 seconds while the opposition play is still holding on and the ref wont do anything.

Also the commands issued by the ref at ruck time can really mess up your head. The word "release" is used by some ref's for three areas at ruck time, the tackleing player not release the tackled player, the tackled play that wont let go of the ball, the play contesting the ball with his hands on the ball. Its a bloody mess

Interesting post. Refs are trained to look out for the following at the breakdown
First: Tackler rolls away.
Second: Tackled player releases it.
So if your tackler does not roll away, the ref will never penalise for the tackled player holding onto the ball.

As for contesting the ball, you can only do this while you are third man, as soon as someone from the other team binds onto you it's hands off.

Your comment about "release" is very good and what you should do is ask your captain politely to point it to the ref at the appropriate time. That said, the ref doesn't even have to say release, his does not have to say anything. Some refs (even at the highest levels) say nothing at all. It's your responsibility to get your hands off the ball, when the ruck starts.

Now another thing to bear in mind is that if you the number 7, just put your hand on the ball, unlikely a ref will blow for not releasing. But if you can put your hands on the ball and try to pull it or rip it out i.e. so the ball is moving, on its way back but being stopped by negative play. You should get not releasing.

So what you gotta do, is not just be there, or have your hands somewhere near the ball, attempt to rip it in one quick action while on your feet. It's very hard to do legally.

Very interesting post.

JWAD

GDM wrote: »

I can't stand most of the rules. Maybe it's just me but the Aussies seem to want to turn Union into a bastardised form of League.

I can't stand League and I hope countries like New Zealand fight against this.

It is nothing like RL. As I pointed out earlier, for "bastardised versions" of RL see the RWC99 and RWC2003 finals and of course, Wales' Grand Slam form this year. No ELVs needed to enforce a defensively structured gameplan there now, was there? :rolleyes:

marco_polo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S54fHOLVulY&eurl=http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/03/offside-line-at-tackle-under-elvs.html

If we are going to see penalty tries like this then I am not feeling very positive about the ELVs future

EdgarAllenPoo

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S54fHOLVulY&eurl=http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/03/offside-line-at-tackle-under-elvs.html

If we are going to see penalty tries like this then I am not feeling very positive about the ELVs future

Christ that video doesn't paint a pretty picture for the new offside rule, does it?

Can you just see how much confusion and time wasting stuff like that could cause if it's implemented everywhere.

marco_polo

GDM wrote: »

Christ that video doesn't paint a pretty picture for the new offside rule, does it?

Can you just see how much confusion and time wasting stuff like that could cause if it's implemented everywhere.

Pretty much. It seems to me that if you make a line break and get tackled but manage to offload within a few seconds its a try. Otherwise the defending player has to outrun the support player, get onside and then get positioned for the tackle and make it.

Unless it is Brian Habana trying to get back to tackle John Hayes I can't see how anyone could possibly stop it.

Stev_o

marco_polo wrote: »

Pretty much. It seems to me that if you make a line break and get tackled but manage to offload within a few seconds its a try. Otherwise the defending player has to outrun the support player, get onside and then get positioned for the tackle and make it.

Unless it is Brian Habana trying to get back to tackle John Hayes I can't see how anyone could possibly stop it.

But again that doesnt make sense in the fact that when you offload you'v stopped being tackled and thus the offside line should move then. Seriously what a stupid rule

marco_polo

Stev_o wrote: »

But again that doesnt make sense in the fact that when you offload you'v stopped being tackled and thus the offside line should move then. Seriously what a stupid rule

I couldn't agree more.

I was not aware that the offload from the ground was legal. I thought that once the tackle is completed you have to release the ball or else place it backwards otherwise a penalty to the defending team would result.

Looking up the relevant law as usual it is not is not overly clear but it seems to say that the pass off the floor is ok.

Law 15.5
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

If it was illegal to offload from the ground then the law could work, but otherwise it is pointless.