How Experimental Law Variations have cut the Six Nations down to size

[Thomond78]

Thommo, I think the equator on your globe might be a bit wonky. Can you tell me the third NH based side in the RWC semis?

Argentina. Almost every one of their players, and certainly every professional player in their team, was based in the NH.

They loathe FKAGG too, btw.

I repeat, gentlemen; people were asked to vote on this one back in May. Not just the 6N. Everyone. The PIs, N. America, even you. And despite massive lobbying, they couldn't get the votes for it to be trialled world-wide, based on what people had seen of it being trialled - and you can be assured that it was pushed hard with every piece of advocacy available.

That was the vote of world rugby. If you don't like it, fine. Try and persuade us otherwise. But if world rugby votes against something, that's democracy. Live with it.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Thommo, I think the equator on your globe might be a bit wonky. Can you tell me the third NH based side in the RWC semis?

Argentina. Almost every one of their players, and certainly every professional player in their team, was based in the NH.
They loathe FKAGG too, btw.
I repeat, gentlemen; people were asked to vote on this one back in May. Not just the 6N. Everyone. The PIs, N. America, even you. And despite massive lobbying, they couldn't get the votes for it to be trialled world-wide, based on what people had seen of it being trialled - and you can be assured that it was pushed hard with every piece of advocacy available.
That was the vote of world rugby. If you don't like it, fine. Try and persuade us otherwise. But if world rugby votes against something, that's democracy. Live with it.

All good points T78, but the acceptance here wasn't as smooth as people think.
Many thought it would be the end of the set piece, scrummaging would be devalued etc.
We now find that that the reverse is true.
Instead of taking a kick at goal a scrum is taken because kicking for touch is not an otion with the FK.
The game is faster, it needs fitter players and there is as much if not more need for scrummaging and techniques.

 

[Lee Grant]

I think people here should listen to T78 on matters like this - but they are not to the main point of the article - or the main point we got out of it.

That was that the 3N teams had an advantage because they had played under the FK sanctions and were thus better suited to reactive rugby, and that had currency under any rugby law system, including those under which the autumn internationals were played, and also under the laws used in the RWC last year, for that matter.

I said that if that were true, and I wasn't convinced that it was, and we continued to use the FK sanctions and the NH didn't, then we would continue with that advantage when we played the NH teams on the EOYTs, or at any other time.

Therefore the IRB had better have a world-wide trial of the free kick sanctions or withdraw the dispensation for SANZAR to use them.

I am convinced that the Oz and NZ unions would want to continue with the FK sanctions but haven't heard a recent opinion from the SARFU, or I have forgotten. But I remember that a poll of the various stakeholders in rugby after the S14, including the SAfricans, were positive toward the ELVs as a whole.

Thus I think SANZAR will make it clear that they want to carry on with the FK sanctions come what may.

 

[Gagger]

Great article, great thread.

Without having read either, my old man and I were by coincidence having this exact same conversation last night.

Look at the EOYT games and look when the avalanche of points are being scored - second half every time. And it's not just vs England Thomo. Wales and Ireland both dicked by the Blucks in the second half. The Boks came back in the second half of their games and even according to Thomo we just scraped through by our fingernails in the second half of each game. (Funny how it's been in every one so far though for the Wallabies... :

I also wonder how much of our scrum dominance over the poms - which kicked in over the last 30 mins - comes down to more scrumming over a longer period of time in the ELVs vs (or probably as well as) technical improvement?

I love your version of 'democracy' as well Thomo: "We've got this big change to rugby that you haven't tried. Who wants to vote it in?"

 

[Thomond78]

Versus Ireland, the ABs got their killer score just before half-time because Tommy Bowe cheated badly.

Their second try came from exploiting the fact that we had a man down being treated - as was the case against Wales.

Their third try came from BBBT boshing a winger.

Now, you may argue for or against this; but the funny thing is, no SH side has broken that pattern against the ABs either. In point of fact, the only side to be nilled against the ABs this year at home has been an SH side. Go figure...

If France had a reasonable kicker, you'd have lost; you'll not deny that you'd normally expect a test kicker to slot 60% of his kicks, not 25%, I trust? Because if that were the case, the avalanche of points would most certainly have been against Australia in the second half.

I might also add that you got royally dicked by the same French scrum that conceded a penalty try at the scrum to Ireland.

And my version of democracy is "We've counted the votes for and against what you proposed and you lost. Are you willing to bide by that ruling?". Which, all things considered, tends to be the same definition as most versions of democracy...

 

[rugbywhisperer]

let me tell you a story.
For T78's benefit, every mid year school break in June/July on the Gold Coast we have 'The Barry Honan Tournament'.
Schools and club juniors (15, 16 and open) come from all over the world for this and it is huge. For anyone who hasn't experienced it I recommend you attend.
In 2007 we played ALL the ELV's and I was part of the pre tournamnet briefing held by Rod McQueen (hail sir Rod) and Paddy O'Brien.
They told of how initially the people of Stellenbosh were reluctant to try the ELV's and in our tournament so were the players. They were 'not happy'.
After the tournamnet we held a ballot and the result was over 90% of players AND spectators applauded the new initiatives wholeheartedly.
Let me say, without trying it you have no comprehension of the improvement in the game of rugby.
There is more 'ball in play' time, better skills are needed (is this why you are reticent - I wonder), greater fitness and usually more running and more tries. Statistics don't lie.
At the end of the day, players ARE and MUST be fitter.
You can supply all the excuses why points were or weren't scored, but in reallity the 3N teams are fitter and far more mobile and a great part of this is due to the influence of the ELV's.
Ignore this at your peril, for I assure you there will be a massive push in the antipodeas for retention of the ELV's as we have been trailling if only at a local level, and if we retain them and you don't embrace then, I see the gap widening between SH and NH teams.

 

[Scotty]

There is no point trying to debate this with Thommo, RW. I have the feeling he made his mind up before he even saw a game. He obviously has made his mind up before he has seen either his national or provincial sides play under those laws.

It is indicative of the fear of the unknown that much of his NH breathen have.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

There is no point trying to debate this with Thommo, RW. I have the feeling he made his mind up before he even saw a game. He obviously has made his mind up before he has seen either his national or provincial sides play under those laws.
It is indicative of the fear of the unknown that much of his NH breathen have.

Yeah, I agree.
I just shake my head in wonder at times, but how long now has the SH (except for one RWC) dominated world rugby.
The AB's have completely dominated everyone for millenia and at least we and SA take heed and adapt to improve our game, but the NH unions seem to live in a time warp where they just don't accept the difference and blindingly plod along.
I said elsewhere, the definition of frustration is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Until they learn to adapt to the wider and fitter game I cannot see and great improvement by NH teams. Oh they may have the intermittent success such at 2003 but it will never be long lasting.
It's an attitude thing and I'm afraid they have a distinctivly wron attitude to playing wining rugby on a consistent basis.
All the more power to the SH.

 

[Thomond78]

Actually, gentlemen, i went out of my way, for the first time in a long time, to try and watch S14 this year. I watched more 3N than I've watched in a long time - albeit with the same matches over and over, it does tend to blur.

I've played under the global ELVs and popped my knee. I've even played in a pre-season exercise under FKAGG.

And after those experiences, having looked at it, I loathe it. The killer statistic for me was in Bled 3 where at the 20 minute mark, there was over a FK a minute for offences that would otherwise have been penalties, yet no yellow cards. Refs at the top level bottle it. gentlemen; even LG agrees with me on this. And if they won't grow a pair, the FKAGG is useless, because 25 offences in 20 minutes really is a cheats' charter.

The maul ELV is a disaster, everyone agrees.

I was in favour of the 22 ELV initially, but the test hasn't worked. Shame, but it was worth trying.

I'm in favour of most of the rest of the global 13, bar the stupid and unnecessary additional offences stopping the receiver jumping and stopping the defensive hooker lifting. There was no need for either, so why add them?

Yet, it's a measure of just how farcical this whole debate has become that if you disagree with JO'N's opinion that the sanctions ELV is the way, the truth, and the light, suddenly you're opposed to every ELV.

I'd remind you that the E in ELV is experimental; test it, and then adopt or reject it according to that test. Thus far, the world of rugby has expressed their view on the sanctions ELV, and it is; nie, dankie.

Oh, and btw, rw - back in far-off 2006 and 2007, the NH teams did rather handily against the SH. One superb AB and a crap England team doesn't make an entire hemisphere. And you can vote against the rest of the rugby world, including the clearly expressed SA view on the topic, and demand that you be left with your FKAGG; but that's not democracy.

That's sulking because the rest of the world has rejected FKAGG.

 

[cyclopath]

Versus Ireland, the ABs got their killer score just before half-time because Tommy Bowe cheated badly.

Their second try came from exploiting the fact that we had a man down being treated - as was the case against Wales.

Their third try came from BBBT boshing a winger.

Now, you may argue for or against this; but the funny thing is, no SH side has broken that pattern against the ABs either. In point of fact, the only side to be nilled against the ABs this year at home has been an SH side. Go figure...

If France had a reasonable kicker, you'd have lost; you'll not deny that you'd normally expect a test kicker to slot 60% of his kicks, not 25%, I trust? Because if that were the case, the avalanche of points would most certainly have been against Australia in the second half.

I might also add that you got royally dicked by the same French scrum that conceded a penalty try at the scrum to Ireland.

And my version of democracy is "We've counted the votes for and against what you proposed and you lost. Are you willing to bide by that ruling?". Which, all things considered, tends to be the same definition as most versions of democracy...

Maybe would have lost, maybe not. Don't forget, if he kicked one, then we restart at halfway, not with a 22 and who knows what happens, maybe we score because they knock it on. Nobody knows.
Is your point about the scrums to hypothesise that Ireland are better than us then, without actually playing on this tour? If that type of rationalisation works, good for you.

 

[Thomond78]

Well, Cyclo, it does tend to help your cause if you restart the game 28m up-field, with the oppo kicking it into you and three points to the good.

I believe that nice Mr. MacQueen made some elegant points on that very subject...

 

[cyclopath]

It's just a bugbear of mine. Missed conversions are points that could have been in the bag. Missed penalties / droppies are different, because the game restarts at a different point. The game may follow a different path, and nobody knows. If one team is getting mullered, maybe, but not when it's close. It's simplistic to say that all these shots would have accrued in the same way if some were being kicked rather than missed. Hang on, we might have missed a kick or two also...Maybe we shoulda won by more?

 

[rugbywhisperer]

That's sulking because the rest of the world has rejected FKAGG.

Oh bugger it, I was going to go on but this is going nowhere.
See you at 2011 RWC and we will see which teams have lifted.

 

[Spook]

Thomo, you can't fool me mate. I watch all of Ireland's games. You have an incredible capacity to misrepresent things. France were winning 26-6 against Ireland after 50 minutes and stopped playing..just likey they did 2 years before that when they were up by 40. That penalty try you refer to was extremely dubious and the starting French front row had been practically substituted at that stage:

http://www.planet-rugby.com/Story/0,18259,3941_3141609,00.html

A penalty try is not punishment for repeated infringement - unless that infringement prevents the probable scoring of a try. A penalty try is not punishment for being naughty unless that naughtiness prevents the probable scoring of a try.

The penalty try awarded against France came after the setting of five five-metre scrums. The third one had been penalised when William Servat went down. Relentlessly the Irish opted for another scrum. There was a reset and then the penalty try.

Ireland heeled the ball and went slightly forward. The scrum then started crabbing sideways and then went down. There was still a way to go to the line and the Irish had no particular forward momentum.

There did not seem justification for awarding a penalty try as there seemed no probability that a try would have been scored. The penalty try looked the wrong decision.

As for Oz and France, well Oz played a 4th choice prop in his second ever start of pro rugby. France might not have scored a single try if Burgess didn't mess up the pass. Oz also missed a couple of penalties/conversions.

The Oz/Italian game featured a number of second stringers against Italy who did pretty well IMO. I've seen Italy robbed in Lansdowne against full strength Irish sides featuring the so called "Golden generation".

Add to all this that OZ have been missing the likes of Horwill, Barnes, Tuquiri, Vickerman, Tahu, Elsom, and Sheperd from the squad and the Wallabies have done ok. Nowhere near the finished product but going ok.

Australia have won several wins against the head when playing Ireland in recent years. Please explain.

As for the Ireland/NZ match. Well NZ should have scored about 50 points in that game but kept dropping the ball - they absolutely dominated Ireland in all facets of play but fortunately the ABs were incredibly sloppy by their standards. Don't pretend otherwise.

Australia beat NZ this year and SA twice - including a win against SA in SA. If Ireland had achieved these wins, it'd rank as the best year ever in Irish International rugby.

All we hear from you about Oz is completely negative. Nothing positive. Ever. I support Ireland against teams other than Oz so I don't enjoy putting Ireland down but your incessant BS gives me no other choice. Please try and be balanced.

As for the free kick sanctions. How can all countries "absolutely hate them" when they've never trialled them or even seen them? What NH competitions have they featured in?

 

[Lindommer]

...the definition of frustration is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

:nta: I though what you're describing was the definition of stupidity.

 

[fatprop]

Actually, gentlemen, i went out of my way, for the first time in a long time, to try and watch S14 this year. I watched more 3N than I've watched in a long time - albeit with the same matches over and over, it does tend to blur.

I've played under the global ELVs and popped my knee. I've even played in a pre-season exercise under FKAGG.

And after those experiences, having looked at it, I loathe it. The killer statistic for me was in Bled 3 where at the 20 minute mark, there was over a FK a minute for offences that would otherwise have been penalties, yet no yellow cards. Refs at the top level bottle it. gentlemen; even LG agrees with me on this. And if they won't grow a pair, the FKAGG is useless, because 25 offences in 20 minutes really is a cheats' charter.

The maul ELV is a disaster, everyone agrees.

I was in favour of the 22 ELV initially, but the test hasn't worked. Shame, but it was worth trying.

I'm in favour of most of the rest of the global 13, bar the stupid and unnecessary additional offences stopping the receiver jumping and stopping the defensive hooker lifting. There was no need for either, so why add them?

Yet, it's a measure of just how farcical this whole debate has become that if you disagree with JO'N's opinion that the sanctions ELV is the way, the truth, and the light, suddenly you're opposed to every ELV.

I'd remind you that the E in ELV is experimental; test it, and then adopt or reject it according to that test. Thus far, the world of rugby has expressed their view on the sanctions ELV, and it is; nie, dankie.

Oh, and btw, rw - back in far-off 2006 and 2007, the NH teams did rather handily against the SH. One superb AB and a crap England team doesn't make an entire hemisphere. And you can vote against the rest of the rugby world, including the clearly expressed SA view on the topic, and demand that you be left with your FKAGG; but that's not democracy.

That's sulking because the rest of the world has rejected FKAGG.

Lots of "ifs" there, but the main ELVs are already gone. The SH refs in the S14 did us all no favours by not managing the free kicks better and they will be dust in the near future. (although I understand the S14 & Tri Nations are using them again next season).

The reality is that SH rugby is in a better position for playing under them.

They have made SH players clearly fitter and the Tri-Nations teams are beginning to play ad lib rugby more naturally, which is much harder to defend against.

 

[Blue]

Gentlemen, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

If James Hook had a brain, Wales would have beaten the Bokke. Scotland damn near did, and they're gash. If France had a kicker who could have landed one in two kicks, they'd have beaten you. You were haunted to beat Italy.

Yet again, you're thinking England = NH. Well, it doesn't. England are in free-fall, again. But that's the main feature. We're recovering from the Coodercide. This time last year, let's remember, two you had three NH-based teams in the RWC semis. Things come and go.

But on FKAGG, don't fool yourselves. It's unpopular everywhere. The 6N don't like it; not just the blazers, btw, but the general playing public who ordered the RFU and WRU to vote against it. The French playing public don't want it. The Argentinians loathe it. SA have turned against it. And world rugby got a chance to vote on it back in May last, and decided they didn't like it. Nothing they've seen this year is going to turn them back towards it.

You might love it, gentlemen; but this is a case where no matter how loudly you proclaim that everyone else is out of step but you, the democratic vote of world rugby on FKAGG so far is; no thanks.

SA initially bleated but accepted it and moved on. Hardly turned against it.

Yeah Wales and Scotland could have, would have, should have, but as has almost always always been the case, didn't.

 

[Scotty]

I though what you're describing was the definition of stupidity.

Actually, I think it is the definition of insanity.

 

[Lee Grant]

Agree totally with what T78 indicates: that the FK sanctions are ineffective if the cards aren't used quickly and often, and whatever the name of a player is.

As I've said many a time, and other Aussies should agree, the refs in the S14 ruined any chance that the FK sanctions would be approved by the rest of the world. The fears that players would be cynical if they were not penalised came true and they were not punished as prescribed under the Foul Play laws - i.e. full arm penalties followed by cards, if needs be. Or rather, they weren't punished enough.

We Aussies were particularly miffed that the S14 referees failed, because we saw more games than any other country, including those in the semi pro ARC tournament, that had the FK regime and they were refereed correctly after a settling in period. Players responded well too.

But none of this addresses the question of what to do if the 3N teams had an advantage over NH teams because they had played under the FK sanctions in our season.

Maybe they didn't, but if they did, what happens next?

 

[PaarlBok]

Look I take a neutral look on this ELVs. As lee has pointed out it took our lot some time to get to terms to them.

I love them in our schoolboy and Varsity rugby. It made our bottom structure lot to start playing in stead of power play.

The biggest negative on them is not the importance of the scrum as such but they took away one of our and NH lot strongest weapons and thats the driving maul.

Thats only rule wise by implementing wise it will help a lot of we can play to one set and off course the refs. They are the biggest culprates and we had 3 NH refs. No wonder the NH lot hate the ELVs because that 3 refs had no vokken idea. When both teams dont know what to do its a bad sign.

Keep the ELVs , make them for all competions the shame and educate the refs. Then we will move forward quickly and over a year we will be use to them like the crouch, touch, engage scrum one.