Does anyone else think these new ELV's are a joke?

twinytwo

What have they done for the game?.. they were brought in to "stimulate" the game but in reality it was to try and draw the shrinking crowds back to SH rugby. TBH i dont think the game has benifited .. take the whole cant kick for touch if u carry the ball back into your own 22.. The only only option a FB has to to kick the ball down the pitch unless he fancies running from his own 22 ... so the opposite FB catches the ball and does the exact same thing(As in thw wales /SA game where this went on for a while).. Now the suits see this as a great thing but infact the ball when not in had is effectively dead ball. The amount of kicking seems to only have increased. Being able to bring down the maul is a total joke i mean seriously why not just remove it from the game. All i can say is thank god the NH has drawn the line at some point and not used the all......

thoughts?

Serenity Now!

*sigh*
The kicking to and fro has nothing to do with ELVs. It is because teams are afraid to ruck in their own quarter and for the umpteenth time, you should know there are no ruck variations in the ELVs.
Ulster showed the other provinces how it should be done, last friday.
The Super14 and TriNations sides took a while to adapt an even greater change to the game using the variations that were in place. As it happens now, it seems to have benefited them as they have had damn fine tours to Europe.

RugbyFanatic

I'm going to agree that the quality of the game has diminished since the introduction of the new ELVs.

Also there was nothing I liked more than seeing a good maul driving its way to the line personally I always found it exciting when your team was mauling slowly towards the try line maybe I am alone in that thinking.

ThomasH

twinytwo wrote: »

What have they done for the game?.. they were brought in to "stimulate" the game but in reality it was to try and draw the shrinking crowds back to SH rugby. TBH i dont think the game has benifited .. take the whole cant kick for touch if u carry the ball back into your own 22.. The only only option a FB has to to kick the ball down the pitch unless he fancies running from his own 22 ... so the opposite FB catches the ball and does the exact same thing(As in thw wales /SA game where this went on for a while).. Now the suits see this as a great thing but infact the ball when not in had is effectively dead ball. The amount of kicking seems to only have increased. Being able to bring down the maul is a total joke i mean seriously why not just remove it from the game. All i can say is thank god the NH has drawn the line at some point and not used the all......
thoughts?

The SH did not bring in the new laws, they only applied it and it made it a faster pace game, which the NH struggle to cope with. Right now the IRB chairmain is a French man from the NH I believe and they asked for the ELVs to be tested.

I do agree that the kicking is a bit ott but teams with the ball should be smarter and attack instead of kicking.

NH has drawn the line and lost 19 out of 20 AI test matches. The fact that no team could score a try against NZ. The fact that both Aus/SA were averaged and won all bar Aus defeat. I guess that's good for NH rugby :rolleyes: since I reckon the next WC will go to another SH team unless NH adapts and change their slow pace forward oriented game.

twinytwo

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I'm going to agree that the quality of the game has diminished since the introduction of the new ELVs.

Also there was nothing I liked more than seeing a good maul driving its way to the line personally I always found it exciting when your team was mauling slowly towards the try line maybe I am alone in that thinking.

Nope i was the same... basically it has removed massive kickers like Wiko and packs like munster and the 03 english pack that could maul down most of the pitch

ThomasH

Serenity Now! wrote: »

*sigh*
The kicking to and fro has nothing to do with ELVs. It is because teams are afraid to ruck in their own quarter and for the umpteenth time, you should know there are no ruck variations in the ELVs.
Ulster showed the other provinces how it should be done, last friday.
The Super14 and TriNations sides took a while to adapt an even greater change to the game using the variations that were in place. As it happens now, it seems to have benefited them as they have had damn fine tours to Europe.

Spot on dude.

Serenity Now!

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I'm going to agree that the quality of the game has diminished since the introduction of the new ELVs.

Also there was nothing I liked more than seeing a good maul driving its way to the line personally I always found it exciting when your team was mauling slowly towards the try line maybe I am alone in that thinking.

While I don't agree with the maul variation (mainly for safety reasons) I'll point out that the quality of the game was already on the slide apart from a small number of gems.

twinytwo

ThomasH wrote: »

The SH did not bring in the new laws, they only applied it and it made it a faster pace game, which the NH struggle to cope with. Right now the IRB chairmain is a French man from the NH I believe and they asked for the ELVs to be tested.

I do agree that the kicking is a bit ott but teams with the ball should be smarter and attack instead of kicking.

NH has drawn the line and lost 19 out of 20 AI test matches. The fact that no team could score a try against NZ. The fact that both Aus/SA were averaged and won all bar Aus defeat. I guess that's good for NH rugby :rolleyes: since I reckon the next WC will go to another SH team unless NH adapts and change their slow pace forward oriented game.

that has nothing to do with the Elv's... ireland and englands shocking displays for example have nothing to do with the ELV's

ThomasH

twinytwo wrote: »

that has nothing to do with the Elv's... ireland and englands shocking displays for example have nothing to do with the ELV's

It has everything to do with the ELVs. For the millionth time the ELVs allows a much faster game which the NH could not cope with. TBH, Ireland was not bad, the ABs were just much fitter because of the ELVs. England was shocking alright but then they are rebuilding.

Serenity Now!

ThomasH wrote: »

The SH did not bring in the new laws, they only applied it and it made it a faster pace game, which the NH struggle to cope with

The variation which jolted the Tri Nations and Super14 has not been used anywhere else and will not be used again ie. the free kick for certain ruck infringements.
The SH and NH played different variations.

Stev_o

After probably the best weekend of HC rugby we'v had so far its disappoting to see this thread. Teams were finally taking risks to run the ball.

Go watch the Glasgow vs Bath match and then come back and complain, fantastic match the best of the HC so far and probably the best club match of the year.

twinytwo

Stev_o wrote: »

After probably the best weekend of HC rugby we'v had so far its disappoting to see this thread. Teams were finally taking risks to run the ball.

Go watch the Glasgow vs Bath match and then come back and complain, fantastic match the best of the HC so far and probably the best club match of the year.

The NH and SH play different styles of rugby basically im in favor of whatever wins if its running or mauling. But the SH have always been better at running as we see time and time again...obviously there are exceptions. But take england who in 03 had a fantastic pack do u think they would have won the WC if the ELV's and been in then??. So basically some teams have to give up their strengths infavor of more "Exciting" rugby?

ThomasH

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The variation which jolted the Tri Nations and Super14 has not been used anywhere else and will not be used again ie. the free kick for certain ruck infringements.
The SH and NH played different variations.

There is the issue and also your answer.

Have you watched some of the AI games? The referring was so inconsistent because refs were very confused about the rucking. Some gave away too many free kicks others didnt, etc.

I agree with Steve_O, the rugby is getting better in the HC but NH teams are going to have to take more risks and stop playing it safe if they want to beat SH teams on a more regurlar basis.

ThomasH

twinytwo wrote: »

The NH and SH play different styles of rugby basically im in favor of whatever wins if its running or mauling. But the SH have always been better at running as we see time and time again...obviously there are exceptions. But take england who in 03 had a fantastic pack do u think they would have won the WC if the ELV's and been in then??. So basically some teams have to give up their strengths infavor of more "Exciting" rugby?

No, because Eng traditional likes a forward oriented game. That's what brought them to the final of WC07. They will have to learn and apapt to play better attacking rugby under the new ELVS because with the excellent defence some teams put up your old traditional forward base game is not going to work anymore.

Webbs

ThomasH wrote: »

No, because Eng traditional likes a forward oriented game. That's what brought them to the final of WC07. They will have to learn and apapt to play better attacking rugby under the new ELVS because with the excellent defence some teams put up your old traditional forward base game is not going to work anymore.

While I dont really have an issue with the ELVs - what I dont like is the fact that some within the game are trying to change the game from what most people started watching/playing, there should be a place for those teams with the big mauling packs and those who want to take it on in the backs. Its getting all a bit League like for me

ThomasH

Webbs wrote: »

While I dont really have an issue with the ELVs - what I dont like is the fact that some within the game are trying to change the game from what most people started watching/playing, there should be a place for those teams with the big mauling packs and those who want to take it on in the backs. Its getting all a bit League like for me

TBH, I hate league and could not watch it so know where you're coming from. My point is that teams have to become smarter in the attack and defence to create a bit of a biz. Teams can still maul they just have to do it better and outsmart the opposition - didn't Munster do some good mauling against NZ under the ELVs?

corny

Can i ask what exact rule change has speeded up the game? For me the pace of any game in the NH has not changed nor has any teams ambition to play more attacking rugby changed. Munster won the HC last year playing high tempo rugby that this year under the ELVs they have been unable to match (bar arguably the game against NZ). The SH version of the ELV's did speed up the game alright but any S14 game i watched was ridiculous. Constant infringements, turnover after turnover and the obligatory aimless kicking just created a game so alien it wasn't worth watching! Call me old fashioned but there was nothing wrong with our game before the ELV's. Not sure of specifics but nearly sure attendences were rising everywhere and the HC grew in popularity each year.

The only rule change i like is backs being 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum. Everything else is to the detremint of the game. If anyone calls aimless kicking in any direction for 10 mins progress they need their head examined.

Lets hope the E in ELV is exactly that so we can get back to what worked.

Serenity Now!

corny wrote: »

Call me old fashioned but there was nothing wrong with our game before the ELV's. Not sure of specifics but nearly sure attendences were rising everywhere and the HC grew in popularity each year

The game was not fine. Some people seem to love this delusion of the game being a wonderful display beforehand and that nothing needed to be done to tweak it. The Six Nations games have all been godsends have they? The RWC a fine example of the sport and no kicking from 22 to 22?
Don't kid yourself, corny.

corny wrote: »

Everything else is to the detremint of the game. If anyone calls aimless kicking in any direction for 10 mins progress they need their head examined

How are the other twelve variations "to the detriment of the game"? I'll ask again, which variation exactly causes aimless kicking?

Tim Robbins

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I'm going to agree that the quality of the game has diminished since the introduction of the new ELVs.

Also there was nothing I liked more than seeing a good maul driving its way to the line personally I always found it exciting when your team was mauling slowly towards the try line maybe I am alone in that thinking.

The quality of the game was diminishing before the ELVs.
There wasn't a contest at the breakdown.

I'd like to see another ELV where you can only kick the ball once in open play until it goes out of play or dead.

That would remove ping pong, which is the by far the worst aspect of Rugby.

corny

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The game was not fine. Some people seem to love this delusion of the game being a wonderful display beforehand and that nothing needed to be done to tweak it. The Six Nations games have all been godsends have they? The RWC a fine example of the sport and no kicking from 22 to 22?
Don't kid yourself, corny.


How are the other twelve variations "to the detriment of the game"? I'll ask again, which variation exactly causes aimless kicking?

The game was fine, always has been. Whats all this about godsends? I think your confusing style with relative ability. Over the last 5 years Scotland for example haven't had the players to produce fine free flowing rugby to entertain you nor have England and Italy. Thats nothing to do with style or the rules of rugby thats just players. Thats the reality. The 6N is what it is and the ELV's won't make Scotland, England and Italy entertain you more FACT.

The effective removal of the maul is most certainly to the detriment of the game in answer to your question. Also, imagine this scenario. A team has a line out just outside their 22. Now instead of clean catch, drive set a good platform for attack or kick its now catch, pull down (static ball) pass back to the outhalf and instead of find a relieving touch he has NO choice but to kick the ball as hard as possible in any direction. Now in this scenario ELV Nr.3 - Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down and ELV Nr.4 - If a team puts ball back into its own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch, there is no gain in ground are directly causing aimless kicking. This happens loads of times during a game. Add to that the new interpretations around the breakdown, why would a team want to attack from deep unable to create effective go forward ball in the forwards and with every phase risk giving away 3 points from inconsistant referees at the breakdown? The rules are prohibitive to a good game of rugby in my view. Its the Aussies trying to turn it into a game of rugby league because they have useless forwards thats the problem

Downtime

There are definitely some positives from the 14 ELVs The 5 meters at the scrum is great allowing for more attacking play from scrums. The lineout is much better and easier to manage for referees. I would like to the the kicking from the 22 one removed but keep the pulling down of the maul intact.

There is a good survey for you to air your greviences on the IRFU webiste.

puntosporting

I think the maul should be putback to as it was personnaly so teams can at least use a maul as a weapon of choice!
Happy with the scrum and the 22 rule myself some positives some negatives in there!

Tim Robbins

The biggest problem is too much kicking in Rugby. I'd like to see an ELV which directly address this by limiting a team to only being allowed to kick the ball once either per phase or until it went dead or out of play.

This would immediately remove ping - pong.

What do people think?

twinytwo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The biggest problem is too much kicking in Rugby. I'd like to see an ELV which directly address this by limiting a team to only being allowed to kick the ball once either per phase or until it went dead or out of play.

This would immediately remove ping - pong.

What do people think?

Would that not remove all types of kicking like the chip and chase etc?

Serenity Now!

corny wrote: »

The game was fine, always has been. Whats all this about godsends? I think your confusing style with relative ability. Over the last 5 years Scotland for example haven't had the players to produce fine free flowing rugby to entertain you nor have England and Italy. Thats nothing to do with style or the rules of rugby thats just players. Thats the reality. The 6N is what it is and the ELV's won't make Scotland, England and Italy entertain you more FACT.

And rugby union in Scotland and Italy is kicking botty is it? No, it isn't. Scotland is now down to two regionals with the lowest schoolboy-to-club rate it has ever had. And outside of two clubs, Italian rugby union is a haven for the ex-pat.

corny wrote: »

The effective removal of the maul is most certainly to the detriment of the game in answer to your question. Also, imagine this scenario. A team has a line out just outside their 22. Now instead of clean catch, drive set a good platform for attack or kick its now catch, pull down (static ball) pass back to the outhalf and instead of find a relieving touch he has NO choice but to kick the ball as hard as possible in any direction. Now in this scenario ELV Nr.3 - Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down and ELV Nr.4 - If a team puts ball back into its own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch, there is no gain in ground are directly causing aimless kicking. This happens loads of times during a game. Add to that the new interpretations around the breakdown, why would a team want to attack from deep unable to create effective go forward ball in the forwards and with every phase risk giving away 3 points from inconsistant referees at the breakdown? The rules are prohibitive to a good game of rugby in my view

The maul is the one law I'd revert back but purely out of a safety aspect.
The breakdown interpretations instructed by the IRB to all referees are not ELVs.
The kicking downfield is caused by teams hoofing ball out of their territory for fear of one thing: contested breakdowns in their own quarter where they can lose the ball or give a penalty away.
As has been pointed out in various other threads on the subject, teams are getting used to the variations and last week's round of games is testament to this. If a team hasn't the balls or savvy to use phases or a better kicking game when a ball is passed back over the 22 then THEY are detriment to the game.

corny wrote: »

Its the Aussies trying to turn it into a game of rugby league because they have useless forwards thats the problem

Another myth :rolleyes:
Australia has two IRB board votes. Two. The IRB has a duty to keep the game healthy as possible in all of its regions. Just because rugby union is doing good at this time in the likes of Ireland or England, I'm All Right Jack and sod the rest? Thats not how a sport should be globally administered.

As for the "turning the game into league" line: Uncontested breakdowns are more like a rugby league PTB than a contestable effort. There are no lineouts in RL. No contested scrums. No ripping the ball in the tackle. No need to retreat 10 when a team restarts (unless in a penalty). Barging is permitted.

Answer me this: Why do you think crowds vociferously applaud a team opting for a lineout at a penalty than a three pointer?

Stev_o

The best match to be played under the ELV's enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATnsaARPtb4

corny

Serenity Now! wrote: »

And rugby union in Scotland and Italy is kicking botty is it? No, it isn't. Scotland is now down to two regionals with the lowest schoolboy-to-club rate it has ever had. And outside of two clubs, Italian rugby union is a haven for the ex-pat.

The maul is the one law I'd revert back but purely out of a safety aspect.
The breakdown interpretations instructed by the IRB to all referees are not ELVs.
The kicking downfield is caused by teams hoofing ball out of their territory for fear of one thing: contested breakdowns in their own quarter where they can lose the ball or give a penalty away.
As has been pointed out in various other threads on the subject, teams are getting used to the variations and last week's round of games is testament to this. If a team hasn't the balls or savvy to use phases or a better kicking game when a ball is passed back over the 22 then THEY are detriment to the game.


Another myth :rolleyes:
Australia has two IRB board votes. Two. The IRB has a duty to keep the game healthy as possible in all of its regions. Just because rugby union is doing good at this time in the likes of Ireland or England, I'm All Right Jack and sod the rest? Thats not how a sport should be globally administered.

As for the "turning the game into league" line: Uncontested breakdowns are more like a rugby league PTB than a contestable effort. There are no lineouts in RL. No contested scrums. No ripping the ball in the tackle. No need to retreat 10 when a team restarts (unless in a penalty). Barging is permitted.

Answer me this: Why do you think crowds vociferously applaud a team opting for a lineout at a penalty than a three pointer?

Didn't i say that.

And who said the breakdown interpretations were ELV's? Underline something else.

And thanks for clarifying the differences between League and Union i honestly hadn't a clue. Thought they were the same game.

Your arguing with yourself in the rest of your piece so i'll leave it at that and let you argue semantics somewhere else.

Tim Robbins

twinytwo wrote: »

Would that not remove all types of kicking like the chip and chase etc?

You can do it once. Or if you regain it, as many times as you like.
U13 youth teams do something like this, to stop teams kicking it.

Serenity Now!

corny wrote: »

Didn't i say that

No, you didn't.

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

Can i ask what exact rule change has speeded up the game? For me the pace of any game in the NH has not changed nor has any teams ambition to play more attacking rugby changed. Munster won the HC last year playing high tempo rugby that this year under the ELVs they have been unable to match (bar arguably the game against NZ). The SH version of the ELV's did speed up the game alright but any S14 game i watched was ridiculous. Constant infringements, turnover after turnover and the obligatory aimless kicking just created a game so alien it wasn't worth watching! Call me old fashioned but there was nothing wrong with our game before the ELV's. Not sure of specifics but nearly sure attendences were rising everywhere and the HC grew in popularity each year.

The only rule change i like is backs being 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum. Everything else is to the detremint of the game. If anyone calls aimless kicking in any direction for 10 mins progress they need their head examined.

Lets hope the E in ELV is exactly that so we can get back to what worked.

You can check out the rules under www.irb.com - gives a good insight as to why they were introduced.

The bold print - that's the problem with the NH rugby at the moment. It's not that the rugby is weak, boring or good enough. It's just that as the game grows at a phenomenal number spectators don't want to pay a fortune and go see a match (like WC07 final) where there was no tries and only a defence ping ping game. Spectators should get good value for their money and if they do then more viewers will join which again will raise revenues in sponsorhips, etc. to make it more exciting.

Ever started on a small tricycle as a child and then wanted a bigger bike next xmas?

crisco10

Downtime wrote: »

There is a good survey for you to air your greviences on the IRFU webiste.

I did this survey, well the one on the IRB website and was surprised. I thought I didn't like the ELV's but I ended up ticking boxes for each one saying I thought each individual ELV was agreeable to me. Very surprising. Granted, the ELV about free kicks for everything wasn't there. There is no word strong enough to highlight my distaste for that one.

Then, in the "General state of the game" section, I opened up a rant about kicking ping pong etc

Seriously, though, people should go do the survey, let the IRB know...if they bother to read the results of course:rolleyes:

Here is the link:

http://online.tns-global.com/wix1/p382676172.aspx

corny

ThomasH wrote: »

You can check out the rules under www.irb.com - gives a good insight as to why they were introduced.

The bold print - that's the problem with the NH rugby at the moment. It's not that the rugby is weak, boring or good enough. It's just that as the game grows at a phenomenal number spectators don't want to pay a fortune and go see a match (like WC07 final) where there was no tries and only a defence ping ping game. Spectators should get good value for their money and if they do then more viewers will join which again will raise revenues in sponsorhips, etc. to make it more exciting.

Ever started on a small tricycle as a child and then wanted a bigger bike next xmas?

I'm well aware of the reasons why the ELV's were introduced and for me its a kneejerk reaction to what was in all fairness a poor World Cup. The growing tendancy now (i think Ali Williams brought this up a while ago) is for the 4 inter years between WC's to be 'rebuliding' or 'building towards the WC' times. Its nearly got to a stage where the WC is the be all and end all. With the huge emphasis placed on last years WC teams played very low risk rugby in fear of losing. SA won by preying off mistakes rather than constructing anything themselves. If this is true i'll ask you what ELV will change the game and prevent this happening in 2011? Seriously i'd like peoples thoughts on this. It won't is my honest answer. If anything it will introduce more kicking because unable to find touch from your 22 will lead to the aerial ping pong your talking about. The only 2 in my view that will have a positive effect are the 5 metre offside line at scrumtime and throwing crooked in a quick lineout.

People seem to championing the ideal rather than looking at the facts.

BTW there was nothing wrong with club rugby or the 6N before WC2007. The game grew steadily in popularity for one reason. People were very happy with the product, so don't assume to tell us what people want. The evidence speaks for itself.

corny

Serenity Now! wrote: »

No, you didn't.

"why would a team want to attack from deep unable to create effective go forward ball in the forwards and with every phase risk giving away 3 points from inconsistant referees at the breakdown? The rules are prohibitive to a good game of rugby in my view."

What meaning did you take from that?

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

Its nearly got to a stage where the WC is the be all and end all. With the huge emphasis placed on last years WC teams played very low risk rugby in fear of losing. SA won by preying off mistakes rather than constructing anything themselves. If this is true i'll ask you what ELV will change the game and prevent this happening in 2011? Seriously i'd like peoples thoughts on this. It won't is my honest answer. If anything it will introduce more kicking because unable to find touch from your 22 will lead to the aerial ping pong your talking about. The only 2 in my view that will have a positive effect are the 5 metre offside line at scrumtime and throwing crooked in a quick lineout.QUOTE]

The WC is the be all and end all. Have you not noticed how people, countries, media, etc. get all hyped up over their teams and only when their teams are eliminated then all of a sudden they have no interest in WC anymore.

Teams in last year's WC did not play low risk rugby. SA scored second highest tries. Only reason why NZ was ahead because they had teams like Portugal, Romania, Italy and Scotland.

The ELVs in this year's matchs for SH have already changed things around in that SH teams are fitter than before and can play for full 80 min and still won even on an off day. Previous years the NH teams have done better in the AI without the ELVs. So in my opinion the ELVs are working.

BTW there was nothing wrong with club rugby or the 6N before WC2007. The game grew steadily in popularity for one reason. People were very happy with the product, so don't assume to tell us what people want. The evidence speaks for itself.

Have you asked each supporter this? I never said there was anything wrong, I mentioned that the game can improve. I have no doubt that people are happy with the product but if teams don't perform then people won't be happy, simple as. Where is the evidence?

Real FM

Booourns to the ELVs.

One of the key problems is that their not maintained properly. Like in mauls you're no supposed to pull them down from below the waist. This always happens. Secondly, did anyone see the last 20 minutes of NZ against Munster. NZ hit every ruck off their feet. Refs must be consistent - especially on new rules which are under everyones inspection.

The rolling maul was one of the best aspects of watching rugby and I'd love to see it come back. Everyone seems to hate the ELVs except NZ, and since the IRB share a bed with them, I'd be a bit scepitical.

corny

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

Its nearly got to a stage where the WC is the be all and end all. With the huge emphasis placed on last years WC teams played very low risk rugby in fear of losing. SA won by preying off mistakes rather than constructing anything themselves. If this is true i'll ask you what ELV will change the game and prevent this happening in 2011? Seriously i'd like peoples thoughts on this. It won't is my honest answer. If anything it will introduce more kicking because unable to find touch from your 22 will lead to the aerial ping pong your talking about. The only 2 in my view that will have a positive effect are the 5 metre offside line at scrumtime and throwing crooked in a quick lineout.QUOTE]

The WC is the be all and end all. Have you not noticed how people, countries, media, etc. get all hyped up over their teams and only when their teams are eliminated then all of a sudden they have no interest in WC anymore.

Teams in last year's WC did not play low risk rugby. SA scored second highest tries. Only reason why NZ was ahead because they had teams like Portugal, Romania, Italy and Scotland.

The ELVs in this year's matchs for SH have already changed things around in that SH teams are fitter than before and can play for full 80 min and still won even on an off day. Previous years the NH teams have done better in the AI without the ELVs. So in my opinion the ELVs are working.

Have you asked each supporter this? I never said there was anything wrong, I mentioned that the game can improve. I have no doubt that people are happy with the product but if teams don't perform then people won't be happy, simple as. Where is the evidence?

Teams didn't play low risk rugby! Are you serious? SA were vastly superior (and i don't use that word lightly) to every side they played against. NZ V France too. Did you watch the French for 60 mins downright refuse to play rugby. Argentina would not play rugby in their own half either. England gave new meaning to 10 man rugby. The list is endless. It will be the same in 2011. Teams will be afraid to lose then too and a few law variations won't change that. I can guarantee that for ye.

Also the ELV's have nothing to do with results in the Autumn internationals. On paper New Zealand and SA are light years ahead of every country in the NH. Nothing to do with fitness or ELV's. They're just better teams with much better players. For example tell me which English player would get into the Springbok or NZ side? Even one?

The game won't improve with these ELV's. I for one am sad theres no such thing as a maul anymore. It was part of the game and if you haven't noticed a marked increase in aimless kicking north and especially south of the equator you haven't really been watching.

And you don't call Munster buliding an increased capacity stadium and Leinsters average attendence jumping from 4,833 in 2000 to 15,861 last year an increase in popularity? Also according to Wikipedia: 'Following England Rugby's success with capturing the 2003 Rugby World Cup, popularity of rugby union in England practically doubled according to research that was conducted as part of MORI’s SportsTracker'. I don't need to site evidence rugby unions general increase in popularity is common knowledge. Sure NZ might not be able to field a team at the next WC given the rate they're leaving and flocking over here!

Downtime

I've been involved in or seen over 50 games since September. I have seen mauls pulled down from below the waist on about 3 occasions and they were penalised on two. Secondly you can go off your feet a rucks as long as you are not preventing competition for the ball. If you hit a guy you are likely to go off your feet and there is nothing wrong with this. It is at the point of contact where you kill the ball that is this issue.

Referees are consitent within the game but different referees have different interpretations and getting consitency here is difficult. I think the 14 elvs have been refereed correctly and consitently this season. There are however some aspects of law I'd like to see changed with regard to kicking, like most people.

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

Teams didn't play low risk rugby! Are you serious? SA were vastly superior (and i don't use that word lightly) to every side they played against. NZ V France too. Did you watch the French for 60 mins downright refuse to play rugby. Argentina would not play rugby in their own half either. England gave new meaning to 10 man rugby. The list is endless. It will be the same in 2011. Teams will be afraid to lose then too and a few law variations won't change that. I can guarantee that for ye.

I'm dead serious. You took examples from NZ vs Fra (exception which was close for play offs) and Eng who typical always play a 10 man rugby. Arg played very expansive rugby even in the end against SA. Have you seen China, Portugal, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, etc. they all played expansive rugby and if you don't agree then visit www.rugbydump.com, youtube or buy a WC rugby dvd.

Also the ELV's have nothing to do with results in the Autumn internationals. On paper New Zealand and SA are light years ahead of every country in the NH. Nothing to do with fitness or ELV's. They're just better teams with much better players. For example tell me which English player would get into the Springbok or NZ side? Even one?

NZ is an exception but last few years SA & AUS with the same players were beaten by NH teams. This year none of the SH teams even went into third gear and still managed to win all bar one. Wales, Ireland and Scotland put in thundering displays for at least 60 mins and then got tired. NZ played for 30-40 min in all their matches and never looked tired. The same goes for SA and AUS. that's all down to fitness and quick pace of the game thanks to ELVs. Maybe Josh Lewsey I don't know. Eng has the biggest club pool in the world and since 2003 could not become a powerfull force in the world because of their traditional forward oriented game.

The game won't improve with these ELV's. I for one am sad theres no such thing as a maul anymore. It was part of the game and if you haven't noticed a marked increase in aimless kicking north and especially south of the equator you haven't really been watching.

Again, the game has already changed tremedously with the NH teams suffering to keep up with the fast pace game played by SH teams which again one will take the WC11 unless they change. I also don't like the maul being pulled down but as I've said before teams have to become more clever at doing it right to get over these obstacles.

And you don't call Munster buliding an increased capacity stadium and Leinsters average attendence jumping from 4,833 in 2000 to 15,861 last year an increase in popularity? Also according to Wikipedia: 'Following England Rugby's success with capturing the 2003 Rugby World Cup, popularity of rugby union in England practically doubled according to research that was conducted as part of MORI’s SportsTracker'. I don't need to site evidence rugby unions general increase in popularity is common knowledge. Sure NZ might not be able to field a team at the next WC given the rate they're leaving and flocking over here!

I don't dispute that the numbers are growing, since the numbers at WC87 was 100s thousands at last one it was billions according to statistics. I also say again I did not say that people don't like the product, people will always go watch a match BUT my concern is that if rugby does not change soon it's going to become very commercialised. I watched some games which I paid for and was happy to go to them but was left dissapointed because of the poor rugby played. Why should I have to pay and not get a return for investment. Yes, I can stop paying but I don't want to and it's up to rugby to change it to make it more entertaining.

premierstone

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

I'm dead serious. You took examples from NZ vs Fra (exception which was close for play offs) and Eng who typical always play a 10 man rugby. Arg played very expansive rugby even in the end against SA. Have you seen China, Portugal, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, etc. they all played expansive rugby and if you don't agree then visit www.rugbydump.com, youtube or buy a WC rugby dvd..

ummm it really worked a treat for all of them

ozt9vdujny3srf

To answer the thread title.

twinytwo wrote: »

What have they done for the game?.. they Does anyone else think these new ELV's are a joke?

No, I don't think they are intended as a joke.

ThomasH

premierstone wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

ummm it really worked a treat for all of them

I was not referring to them being WC contenders but simply state the fact that the overall game play during WC07 was not low risk with many teams playing expansive rugby.

Since you insist - Have you seen some SA, AUS, Ire, Sco, NZ, Fra, matches where they played expansive rugby and if you don't agree then visit www.rugbydump.com, youtube or buy a WC rugby dvd..

Tim Robbins

corny wrote: »

BTW there was nothing wrong with club rugby or the 6N before WC2007. The game grew steadily in popularity for one reason. People were very happy with the product, so don't assume to tell us what people want. The evidence speaks for itself.

There were a number of problems with the game:
1. It was very difficult for most people to understand
2. Refs could decide games by subjectively pinging for penalities that other refs wouldn't.
3. The ruck had turned into a non - contest.
4. The maul had turned into a non - contest and was very boring when teams were doing it and not much else.
...

corny

premierstone wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

ummm it really worked a treat for all of them

Ha Ha. Especially China who weren't even there.:o

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

premierstone wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

Ha Ha. Especially China who weren't even there.:o

....sorry China....welcome Japan

corny

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

I'm dead serious. You took examples from NZ vs Fra (exception which was close for play offs) and Eng who typical always play a 10 man rugby. Arg played very expansive rugby even in the end against SA. Have you seen China, Portugal, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, etc. they all played expansive rugby and if you don't agree then visit www.rugbydump.com, youtube or buy a WC rugby dvd.



NZ is an exception but last few years SA & AUS with the same players were beaten by NH teams. This year none of the SH teams even went into third gear and still managed to win all bar one. Wales, Ireland and Scotland put in thundering displays for at least 60 mins and then got tired. NZ played for 30-40 min in all their matches and never looked tired. The same goes for SA and AUS. that's all down to fitness and quick pace of the game thanks to ELVs. Maybe Josh Lewsey I don't know. Eng has the biggest club pool in the world and since 2003 could not become a powerfull force in the world because of their traditional forward oriented game.


Again, the game has already changed tremedously with the NH teams suffering to keep up with the fast pace game played by SH teams which again one will take the WC11 unless they change. I also don't like the maul being pulled down but as I've said before teams have to become more clever at doing it right to get over these obstacles.




I don't dispute that the numbers are growing, since the numbers at WC87 was 100s thousands at last one it was billions according to statistics. I also say again I did not say that people don't like the product, people will always go watch a match BUT my concern is that if rugby does not change soon it's going to become very commercialised. I watched some games which I paid for and was happy to go to them but was left dissapointed because of the poor rugby played. Why should I have to pay and not get a return for investment. Yes, I can stop paying but I don't want to and it's up to rugby to change it to make it more entertaining.

This could go on all day but suffice it say i disagree with near enough all of your conclusions.

But i will say this. Ireland didn't concede against NZ past the 54 minute, Wales were blown away by NZ in the first 20 of the second half not the second 20 and SA were on the ropes in the last 20 against Wales. The rest of the games were near enough settled over the entire 80 with no fitness advantage evident. I don't know where you're getting you're fitness theory from but i get the distinct impression you actually didn't watch the AI. The results in the AI had absolutely nothing to do with ELV's.

One more thing i don't rremember the Springboks bringing over a full strength side in the last 5 years (I remember Ireland beating a shadow Springbok team 2 or 3 years ago.) but if they had they'd have won as many NH grandslams as NZ in my view (ok the French might have stopped them).

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

This could go on all day but suffice it say i disagree with near enough all of your conclusions.

But i will say this. Ireland didn't concede against NZ past the 54 minute, Wales were blown away by NZ in the first 20 of the second half not the second 20 and SA were on the ropes in the last 20 against Wales. The rest of the games were near enough settled over the entire 80 with no fitness advantage evident. I don't know where you're getting you're fitness theory from but i get the distinct impression you actually didn't watch the AI. The results in the AI had absolutely nothing to do with ELV's.

One more thing i don't rremember the Springboks bringing over a full strength side in the last 5 years (I remember Ireland beating a shadow Springbok team 2 or 3 years ago.) but if they had they'd have won as many NH grandslams as NZ in my view (ok the French might have stopped them).

You are dillusional dude. Game was over after 30 min for Ireland and NZ then just played casually until the end. Wales were blown away first 20 and even though tried to get back NZ was again just running around until it was over.


You are saying it yourself

SA were on the ropes in the last 20 against Wales

Then why could Wales not get through SA defence, score and win the game. Because SA fitness helped them defensively to hang in there.

The rest of the games were near enough settled over the entire 80with no fitness advantage evident.

NZ won every match after 30 mins and then just cruz around until the end while opposition tried to play for 80 but could only do 60. SA defended for full 80 min even though they were poor their fitness levels helped them to defend. If you are tired you not going to bother to defend.

Before the ELVs SA has never ever been able to play for full 80 mins. Since the ELVs they are able to play for the full 80 min good or bad and can still win.

I don't know where you're getting you're fitness theory from but i get the distinct impression you actually didn't watch the AI. The results in the AI had absolutely nothing to do with ELV's.

So that's your comeback? Up until now you have failed to show me how the ELVS have not helped other than saying I don't know what I'm talking about and I haven't seen the matches while I have shown you the win/loss ratio over past few years, 80 min games instead of 60 min and the tries/defence between NH and SH.

One more thing i don't rremember the Springboks bringing over a full strength side in the last 5 years (I remember Ireland beating a shadow Springbok team 2 or 3 years ago.) but if they had they'd have won as many NH grandslams as NZ in my view (ok the French might have stopped them).

Only time SA did not bring a full strenght team was in 2006 when we got our arses handed to us by Ireland. All other times it was full strenght bar 1-2 good players and the reasons for the losses was poor selections, unfitness, poor structures, etc. Last year we lost with a full strenght bok team against an average Eng team that had lost 6 in a row.

This year Ire, Wal, Eng and Sco have most of the players who played in last year's 6N, WC and AI so your excuse for poor NH teams are not valid. Eng has the biggest club pool in the world and since 2003 you want to tell me they could not produce a good team??

corny

ThomasH wrote: »

corny wrote: »

ThomasH wrote: »

You are dillusional dude. Game was over after 30 min for Ireland and NZ then just played casually until the end. Wales were blown away first 20 and even though tried to get back NZ was again just running around until it was over.


You are saying it yourself


Then why could Wales not get through SA defence, score and win the game. Because SA fitness helped them defensively to hang in there.




NZ won every match after 30 mins and then just cruz around until the end while opposition tried to play for 80 but could only do 60. SA defended for full 80 min even though they were poor their fitness levels helped them to defend. If you are tired you not going to bother to defend.

Before the ELVs SA has never ever been able to play for full 80 mins. Since the ELVs they are able to play for the full 80 min good or bad and can still win.


So that's your comeback? Up until now you have failed to show me how the ELVS have not helped other than saying I don't know what I'm talking about and I haven't seen the matches while I have shown you the win/loss ratio over past few years, 80 min games instead of 60 min and the tries/defence between NH and SH.



Only time SA did not bring a full strenght team was in 2006 when we got our arses handed to us by Ireland. All other times it was full strenght bar 1-2 good players and the reasons for the losses was poor selections, unfitness, poor structures, etc. Last year we lost with a full strenght bok team against an average Eng team that had lost 6 in a row.

This year Ire, Wal, Eng and Sco have most of the players who played in last year's 6N, WC and AI so your excuse for poor NH teams are not valid. Eng has the biggest club pool in the world and since 2003 you want to tell me they could not produce a good team??

I'm delusional am I? Anything i put in front of you you bypass or change it into something else. You're incapable of maintaining a consistant argumemt.

For example. You said "Wales, Ireland and Scotland put in thundering displays for at least 60 mins and then got tired." Then being the key word in your sentence. I then showed you 3 examples of NH sides finishing games with NO evidence of fatigue (proving your assertion incorrect. Then you change and say "Game was over after 30 min for Ireland etc.....". With all due respect thats a childs argument.

Not interested in that buddy sorry.:rolleyes:

ThomasH

corny wrote: »

I'm delusional am I? Anything i put in front of you you bypass or change it into something else. You're incapable of maintaining a consistant argumemt.

Yes. Consistent argument as in agreeing with what you're saying even though we have different opinions? :rolleyes: Again, what prove other than "you don't know what you're talking about" or "there was no fatigueness" do you have?

For example. You said "Wales, Ireland and Scotland put in thundering displays for at least 60 mins and then got tired."

Correct. Meaning they played for 60 mins and not the full 80 mins.

Then being the key word in your sentence. I then showed you 3 examples of NH sides finishing games with NO evidence of fatigue

Says who? This is your opinion that there was no fatigue.

(proving your assertion incorrect.

That proves nothing, it's only your opinion that "proves" :rolleyes: whatever.....

Then you change and say "Game was over after 30 min for Ireland etc....."

Correct. Meaning Ireland put in a thundering display for 60 minutes - 30 min first half and 30 min second half. BUT after first 30 min NZ was already far ahead and was never going to lose this game so for Ireland is was over after 30 min. NZ then just cruz around and did not have to sweat to win this game, they only had to defend. That's the difference between a team that is super fit and a team that is just fit who put in 60 mins of display but not good enough to win it. ELVs makes you superfit.

With all due respect thats a childs argument

According to you again. So far I've taken every quote off yours and add my own explanation which is based on the ELVs and AI outcomes. You on the other hand have not given my any solid backing for your answers except for "you haven't watched the matches"

Not interested in that buddy sorry.:rolleyes:

Fine. I'd prefer to have a conversation/argument/opinion with some who can add value with backing.

corny

ThomasH wrote: »

Correct. Meaning Ireland put in a thundering display for 60 minutes - 30 min first half and 30 min second half. BUT after first 30 min NZ was already far ahead and was never going to lose this game so for Ireland is was over after 30 min. NZ then just cruz around and did not have to sweat to win this game, they only had to defend. That's the difference between a team that is super fit and a team that is just fit who put in 60 mins of display but not good enough to win it. ELVs makes you superfit.

I'm sorry but that has to be the biggest load of b***** ever. You mean to tell me when you said Ireland put in a thundering display for 60 mins THEN wilted you were talking about 30 mins a half. Do you think i'm an idiot?

And "NZ was already far ahead".!!!!! Were they? It was 3-0 after 30 mins ffs. So far ahead????????? It was 3-3 5 mins later. NZ scored all their points (bar the penalty try) in the first 14 minutes of the second half (DURING Irelands so called 'thunderous display'! What are you talking about fitness for. Ireland conceded when you say they were giving it a lash not when they were supposed to be wilting. The evidence of the game doesn't suit your argument. The real truth, taking opinion out of it, is so simple i'm astonished it doesn't smack you in the face. In terms of talent and ability NZ are simply a better team than we are. Nothing to do with fitness or ELV's.

"ELVs makes you superfit." You're just repeating slogans without realising what your saying. Anyway I think you're thinking of the SH version of ELV's not the agreed global version. This thread is about the global version being trialed here.

Crash

Right, if either of you post in reply to each other in this thread, and I see an insulting phrase like

Corny wrote:

I'm sorry but that has to be the biggest load of b***** ever.

ThomasH wrote:

You are dillusional dude.

you'll be having a weeks holidays.

corny

Going Forward wrote: »

Right, if either of you post in reply to each other in this thread, and I see an insulting phrase like




you'll be having a weeks holidays.

In fairness i prefaced my comment with i'm sorry. That entitles me to say what i like!:)