Best Article on the ELVs this year

[Spook]

Peter Bills, the only northern hemisphere reporter to cover both Super 14 matches and the Tri-Nations this year :-[

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/elvs-the-great-divide-943329.html

 

[Lee Grant]

Good article Spook. Thanks for posting it.

He covers every base and each side of things. There is almost too much to talk about - but I liked Graham Henry's comments.

The elephant in the room that he didn't comment on though (at least I can't remember and the article is too long to pick through again) - is the effect in the NH on matters not ELV - especially the referees being directed to have players stay on feet. The weeks are going by in the NH comps and the refs aren't blinking - they are enforcing the directive, something which SH refs didn't do 7 years ago when they got the same directive for the Super14.

These protocols are blurring the effects of the ELVs and should have been invoked before the ELVs were even thought about. I doubted that refs could ever enforce what they are now enforcing and welcomed the ELVs as something to counter the failure of referees over decades.

But I digress.

 

[Thomond78]

Correct, Lee. That's having the biggest effect. You can see that the worst at it are, in fact, the English refs, as they're not consistently vicious on it all the match through, but start letting it slide, remember what they're supposed to be doing, and suddenly snap it back on hard. Which is inconsistent and annoying.

We still have to get rid of the maul one. As it is, teams try to maul to make space for their backs, but it doesn't get any forward movement, so teams still fan out and clog the midfield. Bad idea. The more I see of the no-numbers lineout, the more I'm convinced that it doesn't work when you're allowed collapse the maul, but that if you combined that with mauling, you have a real winner.

 

[naza]

Specific areas mentioned were the breakdown, ways of defending the maul, the numbers at the line-out, the scrum engagement and the lack of space for attacking plays.

ELVS are a spectacular, epic failure in every one of those departments. Is this even a debate anymore ?

 

[Pfitzy]

Only inside the twisted corridors of your cranial space naz.

One thing in the article: I wish people would stop banging on about rugby being "unique" for "all body shapes and sizes". It quite clearly isn't the only game to do that, and therefore isn't unique. Sure, most premier league soccer players are a tick under 6' and slender compared to most of the population, but that doesn't mean fat bastards can't play on weekends. Aussie Rules is the same - in fact at the professional level there is more scope for little blokes playing the game then there are guys over 6' 6"... as long as they're fit. Check out that chunky bastard playing for Hawthorn in the GF. But I Leegrant...

The bloke what wrote that article is dead right about the refs, and if you gave me the whistle tomorrow I'd be handing out cards like they were Hugh Hefner's birthday party invitations. Partly because I would only arrive at the ruck shortly before it ended but the key bit for me (which a certain Irish poster will go blue in the face about shortly ) is:

Edwards believes that the changes will not threaten the foundations of the game. He said: "The big worry was for the rolling maul. When done properly, it has its own beauty and is to be admired. Its demise seems greatly exaggerated and I don't see it going away just because it can be pulled down. Teams will adapt, find new ways of protecting the maul and be more selective in its use."

The hysteria has been wildly misplaced because teams can still use a rolling maul. Sure, they're going to have to be a lot smarter in how they do so, ensuring perhaps two or three pods of loosely-bound players able to spin off in different directions so as to maintain continuity. But it can be done.

BINGO!!! Now, before I go on, let me just say that in one's humble opinion, the situation the ELVs have arrived at vis-a-vis the rolling maul is mainly due to refs who fail to police it properly. So, just like players going off their feet needs better policing, so does the maul under ANY Law structure you'd like to have. And once again, I'll make my point that I will trade most bits of the ELVs (I'd like to keep the free kick thing and passing back into 22) to go back to the situation where you can't pull mauls down BUT they tell that "restart after 5 seconds" rule to fuck right off. Refs fuck that part up more than any other - use it or lose it fags!

THAT my friends, and associated board plebs, is all about rewarding positive rugby.

End of.

 

[Cutter]

STATS AND FACTS

* 96 per cent of teams that started a rolling maul under the old laws still had possession when it ended.

* 80 per cent of those mauls ended up on the ground even though pulling them down was illegal under the old laws

* 45-60 per cent of the game is involved in the breakdown

* 33 - The number of Experimental Law Variations devised by the Laws Project Group

* 84 per cent - The percentage revealed by a poll of southern hemisphere players taken around the end of the Super 14 and as the Tri-Nations got under way, showing the players who preferred the game under the new laws

* 102 - The number of points scored in just two Tri-Nations matches this season between New Zealand and Australia

I thought this whole section worth reproducing and the bolded parts particularly interesting. 96% of the time you take the ball into a maul you get it back. Where is the contest for possession? 80% of mauls end up on the ground - where are the injuries? A maul does have a place in rugby, particularly to pull defenders out of the defensive line, but the statistics support the proposition that (despite Thomo's protests and clever ploys to stop them) they were close to indefensible.

If, which seems increasingly likely, most of the ELVs are abandoned, it will be a real pity they werent given the opportunity to be played broadly in the NH. Whilst most people seem to be blaming the IRB for its shoddy and haphazard roll out of them, it is not too late to change now if there is the will. It is that which is lacking.

 

[Pfitzy]

Whilst most people seem to be blaming the IRB for its shoddy and haphazard roll out of them, it is not too late to change now if there is the will. It is that which is lacking.

:nta: But the IRB does everything in a shoddy and haphazard manner!

 

[the gambler]

STATS AND FACTS

* 96 per cent of teams that started a rolling maul under the old laws still had possession when it ended.

* 80 per cent of those mauls ended up on the ground even though pulling them down was illegal under the old laws

* 45-60 per cent of the game is involved in the breakdown

* 33 - The number of Experimental Law Variations devised by the Laws Project Group

* 84 per cent - The percentage revealed by a poll of southern hemisphere players taken around the end of the Super 14 and as the Tri-Nations got under way, showing the players who preferred the game under the new laws

* 102 - The number of points scored in just two Tri-Nations matches this season between New Zealand and Australia

I thought this whole section worth reproducing and the bolded parts particularly interesting. 96% of the time you take the ball into a maul you get it back. Where is the contest for possession? 80% of mauls end up on the ground - where are the injuries? A maul does have a place in rugby, particularly to pull defenders out of the defensive line, but the statistics support the proposition that (despite Thomo's protests and clever ploys to stop them) they were close to indefensible.

If, which seems increasingly likely, most of the ELVs are abandoned, it will be a real pity they werent given the opportunity to be played broadly in the NH. Whilst most people seem to be blaming the IRB for its shoddy and haphazard roll out of them, it is not too late to change now if there is the will. It is that which is lacking.

Clearly these stats dont involve games where Turban or Thomo, the two masters of pinching opposition maul ball, were playing.

 

[Thomond78]

Which opportunity has, as a result of the ELV, disappeared.

It's also about how you collapse it - head leading in, under the ELV, or sagging down as it was. It also ignores that teams that collapsed it got punished and lost games for doing something dangerous. Whereas now you can do something dangerous, stop the attack having a chance to attack with men over and stop a try-scoring method without being punished at all. Which is not positive rugby.

You might note that the full quotation from Edwards reads;

The big worry was for the rolling maul which, when done properly, has its own beauty and is to be admired. It's highly technical, needs enormous discipline and sucks in defenders, opening up areas of play to attack-minded sides. Its demise seems to have been greatly exaggerated and I don't see it going away just because it can now be pulled down - although only by gripping players between the shoulders and the waist. Teams will adapt, find new ways of protecting the maul and probably be more selective in its use. But it won't vanish like the unworkable suggestion that players involved in the maul be prevented from lowering their heads and shoulders below hip level.

Why the bit in bold was left out, when it gels exactly with what Pat Lam has said on the subject is an interesting question

 

[Cutter]

Which opportunity has, as a result of the ELV, disappeared.

What are you talking about Willis?

 

[Thomond78]

Sneaking your hands through and ripping it. Now it just goes straight to the back, with no effort to get it in the middle for the drive. No chance to rip it out of the middle as a result. And I used be very, very good at it and love doing it. All gone, now. :'(

 

[fatprop]

Driving mauls are legalised obstruction, bring back rolling mauls.


Rolling mauls are devastating when done effectively, but it still gives the defenders an opportunity to compete for the ball, as it is transferred close to contact.

 

[Pfitzy]

Another question: how often do you see the attacking side penalised for collapsing a maul? How often do you see someone penalised for attacking the legs in a maul?

Sneaking your hands through and ripping it. Now it just goes straight to the back, with no effort to get it in the middle for the drive. No chance to rip it out of the middle as a result. And I used be very, very good at it and love doing it. All gone, now. :'(

Bollocks. Off a lineout especially, the opportunity to rip the ball in the opposition's maul is nearly nonexistent. What you describe - straight to the back - is the cornerstone of every maul ever produced by a team that had even half an idea what they were doing. Jeez even at lowly 5th Division amateur hour in Sydney our reserve grade can form mauls like that.

 

[Thomond78]

Another question: how often do you see the attacking side penalised for collapsing a maul? How often do you see someone penalised for attacking the legs in a maul?

Right, just as an indication of how badly things have been managed in the ELVs - that last is still a penalty, Nick. In fact, it's even worse now, because refs don't even look to see are people going for the legs, and ignore it, because the collapsing has allowed a way to "hide" the outcome of chopping the legs whereas before you couldn't.

As to players being done for going for the legs, the answer up here is, you used see it quite frequently, and players used be binned for it. Which was a good thing.

As for an attacking side collapsing the maul, a couple of observations, the first of which is, why would you? If you're going forward, you want it up so you keep going forward. If you're going backward, you don't want to collapse, because you lose the ball, you want it up so you can get the ball out. If it's static, ditto. There's no reason to collapse your own maul. Secondly, if the maul was "undefendable", as people kept telling us, why would you collapse this undefendable super-weapon?

Sneaking your hands through and ripping it. Now it just goes straight to the back, with no effort to get it in the middle for the drive. No chance to rip it out of the middle as a result. And I used be very, very good at it and love doing it. All gone, now. :'(

Bollocks. Off a lineout especially, the opportunity to rip the ball in the opposition's maul is nearly nonexistent. What you describe - straight to the back - is the cornerstone of every maul ever produced by a team that had even half an idea what they were doing. Jeez even at lowly 5th Division amateur hour in Sydney our reserve grade can form mauls like that.

Different. What happens now is that you have to get separation at the back. You don't have the guy at the back tucked in and driving. You also aim to have the guys in front of that with separation, instead of tucked in and driving. Net result is there's even less competition. Whereas, with the old situation, where guys had to get tight for the drive, you could actually get your hands in around the initial pillars on the jumper, get your hands on the ball and basically pull yourself legally through into the maul - which, hands on was quite legal - and stop them getting it, as well as occasionally getting it yourself.

 

[Scotty]

One thing in the article: I wish people would stop banging on about rugby being "unique" for "all body shapes and sizes". It quite clearly isn't the only game to do that, and therefore isn't unique. Sure, most premier league soccer players are a tick under 6' and slender compared to most of the population, but that doesn't mean fat bastards can't play on weekends. Aussie Rules is the same - in fact at the professional level there is more scope for little blokes playing the game then there are guys over 6' 6"... as long as they're fit. Check out that chunky bastard playing for Hawthorn in the GF. But I Leegrant...

Disagree with you there, Nick. It is about the body shapes and sizes that can play at the professional level - giving most the opportunity to 'make it'. In Aussie rules - the 'fat guy' you mentioned is probably the only one in the entire comp, although I must say that there is a range of heights, just not BMIs.

Cricket is a sport that has had a similar range of sizes to rugby - but the fat bloke is seen less and less these days.

 

[Pfitzy]

Disagree with you there, Nick. It is about the body shapes and sizes that can play at the professional level - giving most the opportunity to 'make it'. In Aussie rules - the 'fat guy' you mentioned is probably the only one in the entire comp, although I must say that there is a range of heights, just not BMIs.

My points was: rugby is not "unique" for body shapes and sizes. Aussie rules also covers this well. There are a lot more "small" men playing in the AFL than there is in world rugby as a percentage of players.

 

[TOCC]

there is no way rugby and AFL can be compared as having similar body sizes, AFL is all about endurance where as rugby requires a bit of endurance and a bit of explosive power.

 

[Pfitzy]

I never said they were similar body sizes - I'm simply putting to bed this ridiculous notion that rugby is the only game for every shape.

 

[Sully]

sorry but there are no 130 kg 185 cm guys playing AFL

 

[Moses]

Here's a recent article I wrote on the ELV's for Gagger's blog..

---

There's been many law changes to the game of Rugby Union since Bill ran with the soccer ball in 1823. These changes have passed with mixed reactions, but nothing like the farce that is the current ELV debacle.

I've now come to realise that it's not so much "The ELV's" that is causing the conflict, rather it's the IRB's new approach to implementing law changes. Their packaging or 13 law variations into one collective bucket and calling them the ELV's, then allowing each member union to pick and choose which of the 13 to implement is utter insanity.

What's more, they seem to have ignored all feedback from the trials conducted to date. The ELV about pulling down the maul is an absolute shocker. Right from the earliest trials the players, coaches and press have been against this. Based on the negative feedback from the ARC it was ommitted from 2008 Super 14. Of course it's still illegal to collapse a maul, but pulling a maul down is fine!

It's incomprehensible that the IRB decided to implement this ELV globally. I've never once read anyone who was positive about the pulling down the maul law, yet many articles argue that it can be dangerous. Personally I love nothing more than a good maul, there's just something about a bunch of forwards combining to become an unstoppaple force that's more powerful than the sum of it's parts. It's unique to union and should be encouraged.

A vastly better approach would be, as custodians of the laws of union, to dictate the laws of the game. 13 changes in one hit would need a bloody good reason to go ahead, rather they should bringing in small changes each year.

For example, last year the IRB could have introduced "no passing back into the 22" and "Quick throws don't have to go straight". Sure they might trial it in a junior comp somewhere, but when they decide to go with it, make a law change which is uniform across all tournaments and levels.

When they next meet with their member unions, the respective merits of these two laws could be discussed without clouding the issue with the collective impact of choose your own adventure ELVs.

Their half-arsed approach to law changes is evident in that they haven't actually introduced these laws yet, it's still an experimental global trial! With every competition running a different set of law variations, how can any board make an objective vote on the merits of the 'ELVs' come March 09?