Eddie will have a theory about 87.5% of rugby matters 93.6% of the time but I have my own thoughts:
? People in the NH should wait until the end of the northern winter before making categorical comments about the ELVs. Even then, some of them will be proved wrong subsequently.
? People in the NH outside of France will be howling against the ELVs at least until the end of the year, then will get more used to them. More will like them as the season progresses. More still will like them a year later.
? The omission of the free klck regime with its more frequent recognition of infringements that are overlooked in standard law because now ?it?s only a free kick?, will lessen the number of ?tap and goes? compared to their occurrence in the S14 and 3N. This will produce a slower version of ELV matches, which has been confirmed by a one game sample (Toulon v. CA). Thus it will not disadvantage immobile dinosaur players so much.
? Many plausible objections to the ELVs will fail.
? Opinions that if standard law was refereed correctly there would be no need for change have been commonplace for the last 2 decades and prevail today, and even more so since the ?threat? of the ELVs has been manifest.
Since the referees have failed in their implementation of standard law, some experimental law variations which purport to force players to play the game in the manner intended would seem to be appropriate. If the referees fail in their implementation of ELVs, opinions that the IRB shouldn?t have bothered to introduce them will be proved correct.
? Teams that attempt to succeed playing Sevens rugby, or attacking rugby to a fault, as the All Blacks did in Sydney, will fail and their fans will moan about the ELVs the most. Teams that get a structured game together within an ELV framework will succeed, as the All Blacks did in Auckland a week after their Sydney failure.
? There will be a bit of ping pong kicking at the start of each half, because of the constraints on gaining ground when kicking out on the full, but this will diminish as players tire and running endeavours get a bigger premium. However the average number of kicks per game will be a lot fewer than the number of 90+ in the abominable 2007 RWC final.
? Teams with long range punting fullbacks and wingers will kick the ball more than other teams; those that have good broken field runners at the back will run the pill more than they ever have. The salaries of outside backs who can do both will increase. The salaries of those who can regularly land their kicks just outside an opponent?s 22, will increase most.
? Teams that chase kicks best and can realign fastest as the ball changes hands will succeed more than teams that don?t.
? Coaches who think that they will succeed if they use props who are mobile but not good scrummagers will be disappointed. The scrum 5M offside line ELV makes producing good scrum ball, or denying it to the other team, more important than under standard law. The salaries of mobile, good scrummaging props will increase, especially those that play on the TH side.
? Lineouts will be fewer than under standard law and coaches will use mobile non-giraffe second rowers more often, especially below the test match level.
? The elegant theories that ?no numbers? in the lineouts will be harmful will be forgotten soon and the death of this law for the sake of having a law will be unmourned.
? Comments above that a faster game of footie is not necessarily a better game are correct. If it were, all rugby union fans would be watching rugby league, all league fans would be watching Aussie Rules and nobody in the world would be watching the NFL, which is all set piece.
However, after watching a collection of the ELVs in Oz games over two winters I report that the rugby I have watched in that time has been more enjoyable to myself and the overwhelming majority of people I have spoken to including general sports fans who have no particular affinity for rugby union.
The above comments are of a marginal nature but would not be so if the free kick regime was introduced.
