When SANZAR introduced a number of Experimental Law Variations for the 2008 season, supporters were led to believe they would make rugby faster and more exciting to watch.
“We’re introducing the new laws to Super 14 to super-charge Super rugby,” ARU deputy CEO Matt Carroll gushed at the time.
“The SANZAR nations have always been at the forefront of the game and yet again SANZAR is to lead the world.”
Among the changes implemented was that backlines had to stand five metres back from the scrum and that quick throw-ins to lineouts were allowed to go backwards. All offences except offside and foul play were to be punished by a free kick rather than a penalty.
The main aim of the changes was to keep the ball in play longer with fewer stoppages and more running rugby, thereby creating a faster and more exciting style of play.
After two seasons of the anticipated adrenalin-charged rugby, has the promise been fulfilled?
It would be reasonable to expect that fast, exciting games would result in higher points scored and a greater number of tries. Let’s look at the evidence from the last ten seasons of Super rugby.
Firstly we have average points scored and average number of tries (in brackets) for teams which finished in the Top Four:
2000 31.9 (3.5)
2001 28.5 (2.9)
2002 34.3 (4.0)
2003 32.6 (4.2)
2004 29.8 (3.6)
2005 31.0 (3.8)
2006 28.0 (3.2)
2007 28.5 (3.3)
2008 23.2 (3.0)
2009 24.8 (3.0)
Looking at average points scored, we have the apparently perverse result that the application of the ELVs has resulted in significantly lower scorelines for the top teams.
The data on average number of tries is even more instructive. The high-water mark was reached in 2003 with an average of 4.2 tries being scored per team, after which it declined appreciably. 2006 is generally recognised as the year when defensive patterns became dominant. But there has been a further decline in the two ELV seasons.
The top teams are scoring fewer tries under the experimental laws.
The situation is quite different for the Bottom Four teams:
2000 22.6 (2.2)
2001 24.6 (2.5)
2002 20.8 (2.3)
2003 23.7 (2.6)
2004 24.7 (3.0)
2005 18.9 (2.2)
2006 18.2 (1.9)
2007 17.4 (1.6)
2008 18.8 (2.3)
2009 19.6 (2.5)
Since 2004 there has been a definite decline in both points and tries scored, but the introduction of the ELVs has apparently yielded an increased ability for lesser teams to score tries.
A possible reason for this could be the experimental rules taking a lot of structure out of the game; thereby introducing a greater element of chance.
But for many aficionados the great attraction of rugby is its complexity relative to other codes and the expectation that teams that master its structural requirements are rewarded.
Let’s look at the percentage of their games in which both the Top Four and Bottom Four teams earned a four try bonus (Top Four first):
2000 45.5 15.9
2001 36.4 27.3
2002 52.3 15.9
2003 61.4 29.5
2004 45.5 36.4
2005 45.5 15.9
2006 40.4 11.5
2007 40.4 7.7
2008 36.5 11.5
2009 34.6 26.9
Again it appears that Top Four teams have a lower propensity to earn a try-scoring bonus under the experimental laws. Although the pattern is less clear, it would seem that Bottom Four teams may be benefiting from the ELVs in terms of earning these bonuses.
A tentative conclusion is that rather than leading to more exciting rugby as measured by number of points and tries scored, the experimental laws have reduced the scoring margins between good and bad teams.
For those who prefer to watch close games this could be seen as increasing excitement. For the rest of us this is not necessarily a desirable outcome.
Re-printed with the permission of Bruce Ross
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="3342 https://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/?p=3342">8 Comments
Consider over that period of time how many high class players went overseas, and how the loss of those players would hurt a franchise looking to play a high try scoring game.
I don’t really think that point scoring stats are a true indicator of the ELV’s ‘effectiveness’ given that the environment they were tested in was so destabilised.
Any other ‘experiment’ with this number of shifting variables and lack of control measures would never be considered valid.
Lachlan, you argue that the loss of high class players overseas “would hurt a franchise looking to play a high try scoring game.” This would only logically follow if those who went overseas were predominantly attacking rather than defensive players.
I am in agreement with your second sentence which is why I was so careful not to attempt to draw any strong or definite conclusions. Note my use of such phrases as “the introduction of the ELVs has apparently yielded”; “it appears that Top Four teams have a lower propensity”; “it would seem that Bottom Four teams”; and “a tentative conclusion is that”. I don’t know how much more scrupulous you would expect me to be.
Bruce Ross’s last blog post..Scatter-gun or clustering―where is the logical location for Australian rugby’s fifth Super franchise?
There is one rule that they have missed in this whole ELV process.
The best way they could speed up the game, is to speed up the break down. I know there has been several calls for it to date, but I can’t agree enough.
Bring back rucking.
Outlaw it to the head, and when not anywhere near the ball, but self regulation is the best way.
Agreed with the rucking aspect of the game, it would sort out Richie the Cheat pretty quickly.
Great post Bruce.
had to check it wasn’t Juan who wrote this post – seriously what are your day jobs?
great post
My main concern with introducing the ELVS into the super 14 in the first place was that there was never the boring factor to start with!
If they introduced it in the international season or the 07 world cup it would have been different. There wouldn’t have been a 5 penalty goal to 3 world cup final…
but people would still blame them…
The problem with changing rules decisions is noone thinks that retrospecivly it would be better. People just think the grass would have been greener if this hadn’t or had been changed.
And i’m not saying i’m immune to it, i just did it to start with.
However there’s no denying that the ELVS did speed up the game and got rid of all penalty only tactics.
As for excitement, its usually only exciting when theres a close contest (between any two teams) or the team you follow wins by any margin (unless its the tahs).
There’s a fair bit of variation from year to year even without dicking around with the rules. I think it’s fair to say that the limited ELV trial hasn’t produced an overwhelmingly positive effect.
You’ve drawn attention to a key point, Who, in talking about the “variation from year to year even without dicking around with the rules.”
For those of us with an analytical interest in our game it is fascinating to watch how coaches endeavour to come up with counter strategies to nullify what was successful the previous year. In that way the game evolves so that the balance between attack and defence gradually but inevitably shifts.
I believe that this constant “dicking around” with the Laws stems from treating the game as a product which must be marketed to new consumers.
Change should come from strategy and counter strategy, not from committees whose brief is to “super-charge” the sport.
Rugby should be run by blokes in scruffy old track suits not marketing men in Ermenegildo Zegna suits.
Bruce Ross’s last blog post..Scatter-gun or clustering―where is the logical location for Australian rugby’s fifth Super franchise?