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

[Pfitzy]

I think it comes down to two viewpoints:

I don't like the idea of it.

I like the look of it.

Having reviewed my thoughts Oirish, I understand perfectly your viewpoint. Even having watched S14 and 3N, if you haven't got an emotional stake in a S14 team you probably don't give a tinker's cuss for the changes because you're not invested in the outcome of the game itself.

Before I go on: let's exclude the maul ELV from further discussion because I agree, its not workable the way it is. I hasten to point out that its not workable with the 5 second rule in the standard book of Laws - this creates a situation in direct violation of several other Laws (mostly those listed under "Obstruction") as well as any idea that the game is about a fair contest for the ball.

Without seeing your own team use cunning and ingenuity to turn the Laws to their favour against long-hated enemies you don't get assimilated like the rest of us I reckon

I concur with your point about the refs bottling it at the top level. if we allowed the Aussie refs who did the MARC to run things it might give you pause on at least a few of the Laws.

I will add that a vote in May defeating the ELVs in the format of the time is absolutely useless in this discussion, as none of the Laws had been played at a decent level by local stakeholders.

 

[PaarlBok]

I think it comes down to two viewpoints:

Having reviewed my thoughts Oirish, I understand perfectly your viewpoint. Even having watched S14 and 3N, if you haven't got an emotional stake in a S14 team you probably don't give a tinker's cuss for the changes because you're not invested in the outcome of the game itself.

Nick he is just a big Stormers & Matie supporter then myself.

 

[Pfitzy]

Well he says he is, but if you put his support of Munster on a scale next to his love of Souties, then I'm sure you'd have quite an imbalance Oom

 

[Sully]

This may surprise a lot of people but most Aussies who are asked don't like the maul ELVs either. But what we also can't understand is the pig headedness of not trialling them.

 

[Cutter]

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.

Thomo should we track your signature regarding the ELVs and when you first started playing with them? You had made up your mind long before this NH season.

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 think the point you are missing is that the ELVs work together and each has consequences which interact with the others. In the absence of having tried them all, you are only theorising as to what would happen.

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.

You know that isnt true. But the sanction ELVs are significant in the scheme of finessing the game. The rest are little more than shuffling cards.

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.

E is for experimental is it? So why dont you experiment with them? The NH dominated (in numbers anyway) world of rugby has rejected the ELVs without trialling some of the important ones.

Thomo you are constantly saying SA have rejected the FKAGG ELVs in favour of the Global ELVs. As far as I was aware it was only because they didnt want to shift between the different sets of laws to face the Lions. Do you disagree? If so, where have they said that?

 

[PaarlBok]

Thomo you are constantly saying SA have rejected the FKAGG ELVs in favour of the Global ELVs. As far as I was aware it was only because they didnt want to shift between the different sets of laws to face the Lions. Do you disagree? If so, where have they said that?

We had the global ones in our CC. Not sure but I think the NPC in NZ also. You right tho, we dont want to shift. We want one set on top level, its confusing. Myself and you understand this changes but it confuse the not so on the ball supporters and they tell you straight rugby is kak because they dont have the same rules anymore.

 

[Scarfman]

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.

Being the first person through the gates of the ARC makes me something of an expert at this. As such, I'll repeat my assertion that the free kick sanctions worked best with the hands-in rule.

Loved the hands-in rule, was like bringing back rucking, except with the hands.

Carry on.

 

[fatprop]

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.

Being the first person through the gates of the ARC makes me something of an expert at this. As such, I'll repeat my assertion that the free kick sanctions worked best with the hands-in rule.

Loved the hands-in rule, was like bringing back rucking, except with the hands.

Carry on.

Hoiles had some interesting comments on them stating that he enjoyed the rules but he thought it may make the game too quick and allowed for too many turnovers - and that may lead to more conservative rugby.

 

[Lindommer]

Yeah, I can't understand why it was jettisoned, either, Scarfie. Competition at the breakdown defines rugby and this is what Macqueen and his mates in the LPG were trying to address. The aggressive use of feet has too many negative side effects to be reinstated. Apart from driving little blokes out of the game as their mothers refused to let them play this "brutal" game, one of the potential results of rucking with the feet would be to bring bloody lawyers into the picture to claim compensation for the odd injury. The intention of this ELV was to keep the competition at the breakdown without the risk of injury. As we saw in the ARC it also had the desired effect of drawing the forwards into the maul with the resultant free space for the backs.

Now we don't have it I miss the ARC. :'( :'( :'(

 

[PhucNgo]

Loved the hands-in rule, was like bringing back rucking, except with the hands.

[/quote]

What! You mean the use of hands in the ruck is illegal? I don't think I've seen a ruck all year without hands. And this I think is the nub of the whole issue. It all comes down (IMHO) to the referees interpretation and prosecution of the laws (rules whatever).

My take on the whole thing (for what its worth) is that we in the SH were absolutely shit-to-bits with the way the game was going; becoming a spectacle marginally more exciting than a robust game of chess. From what we saw the ELV's provided for continuity of play and a diminution in the impact that the arcane rules of the ruck/maul had on it. Even if you were still left wondering WTF? that FK was for it didn't matter because the game was off and running again. The downside of this is that the game can lose its shape under the SEVL's, and I think that loss of shape is the fundamental fear of our bretheren in the NH.

Incidentally that fear seems to be manifesting itself in a rapidly escalating paranoid psychotic frenzy against anything remotely related to the SH. A case in point being the co-commentator of the Wales/AB game last weekend. Where to prove a point we had to sit thru a montage of Jimmy Cowan's crooked scrum feeds accompanied by a manic whinging voice-over suggesting that this (the crooked scrum feed) was yet another spawn of the devil coming from downunder.

Personally, I'm up for anything that gives me a contest with continuity. Under the SEVL's, continuity comes from the removal of the lengthy penalty break, but from what I've seen of the spring/autumn tests, it can also be achieved under the GELV's with the right referee. On this point Wales has impressed me with their willingness to keep the ball-in-hand and achieving momentum by quick clearances from the breakdown in general play. As a result their games have been great to watch. I was also impressed by the Ospreys v Leicester match in the HC. Although this was a low scoring game it was a good contest played continuously, with great skills at the breakdown. On the other hand, as a result of the SELV's or otherwise, the AB's and to a lesser extent the Wallas, have all but mastered the art of slowing down the ball at the breakdown, while seeming to do this within the rules. Although as we saw last week against France, the Wallas aren't too good at the second part.

At this stage I'm ambivalent about SELV's v GELV's, both have the capacity to achieve what I'm looking for. Its the quality of refereeing which is the Elephant for mine.

 

[formeropenside]

Well, we dont really have rucks anymore, we have mobile mauls and stationary mauls where the tackled player must release the ball, if there is a tackler on his feet seeking the ball. Without rucking, there are no rucks.

What craps me too is that sealing off the ball is a penalty offence: thats just good play. You get to the ball and support it by sealing it off from the opposition by binding to the tackled player with your hands and (with feet set) cover the ball with your body or hips and wait for your halfback.

 

[Lee Grant]

I don't think the laws are too worried about the tackled player sealing off as you describe, so long as he releases it in good time. They're more worried about his team mates.

I have to give my annual lecture on what rucking used to be like in olden times when I played. Then rucking didn't mean shoeing opposing players out of the way, though they did a lot of that.

Rucking was when the ball carrier was tackled his team mates stepped over him, bound and drove over him against the defenders team coming in - the tackler was driven over too or shoed out. The ball was on the ground and if the attacking team was strong enough they would proceed up the field like a powerful scrum - something like a maul but with the ball on the ground.

It was developed by Victor Cavanagh Jr for his great Otago teams of the 1940s but the manoeuvre didn't really have a name, though Doc Craven called it a loose scrummage. It was a mainstay of All Black teams for a long time.

But this rucking died about 50 years ago when the tackled ball law was changed and you could pick the ball up after a tackle without touching it with your foot first.

Australian teams weren't great at it, nor were they with the maul in recent years.

Incidentally, don't think the maul we see today has a long tradition in rugby; it doesn't.

I don't mean those so called mauls at the Rugby School when dozens of boys were around the pills and trying to push the other team back and hacking each others shins but the modern maul when a guy at the back has the ball and his team mates are in front of him.

I can't remember the maul as a kid and no doubt it it was tried teams would get pinged for obstruction. We certainly were never coached it. It just came into the game somehow and at the beginning it didn't have a name.

That's why I have a bit of a chuckle when people talking about the present maul ELV destroying a great tradition of the game. There is no tradition; it's a modern practice - though I'd still rather have it in.

I think I have digressed.

 

[PaarlBok]

To be honest guys, I dont care which ruck laws they make, only have to make it practical and the refs to blow accordingly. Think thats the problem at the moment.

Driving maul, now thats the one I miss. That one is a skill and I'll never understand why they took that away.