onwards and sidewards (???) - Italy

[PaarlBok]

Re: onwards and upwards - Italy

There was never a plan to trial all 30-odd ELVs together. As far as I know, not even the SH has trialled all of them together - certainly not in the S14 or 3N - and the only place that has is the Maties Koshuis league.

Varsity Cup, Vodacom Cup & CC plus they try some extras like the white cards and extended TMO rights. We test them all.

 

[Spook]

Europe agreed to trial the free kick sanctions in an "elite" competition. Blatant lie.

 

[Ash]

And yet, scarily enough, I have to agree that the ARC reffed the ELVs they inherited the best, and they mainly had unrecognised refs.

The ARC made the free kicks work well by quick warnings and carding for cycnical and repeated offences, resulting in a faster game with less infringements. They stricly enforced the 10m from a tap, with an immediate card for cynical stuff about 5m back. The hands in the ruck rule caused a lot of confusion at first, but quickly settled down as refs ruled harshly on any player leaning on another body and made teams actually fight for the ball - with rucking and counter rucking.

The one rule that the ARC showed didn't work too well was the maul rule.

The way the ELVs have been reffed in the real professional comps when the ARC example was so good, really makes one wonder about the SANZAR / IRB ref bodies.

 

[Pfitzy]

And yet Ash, the Rebels showed that the maul could be effective if used correctly - you have to pick your time and place of course. What was more key to it was, once you'd shown you could make it work, it became just as effective a weapon if you DIDN'T use it.

There wasn't a need to just form a maul at every bloody lineout because you didn't have a backline worth pissing on should they catch afire. I'm looking at you, England.

 

[Spook]

And yet Ash, the Rebels showed that the maul could be effective if used correctly

Shh, Thomo might hear you.

 

[Pfitzy]

I hope so

See in the old days of mauling (before this idiot 5 second rule) teams still had to be smart about mauling or they'd lose the ball. With the ELV, very little has changed except to cease penalising the defending team when the attacking team loses their footing

 

[Gagger]

Europe agreed to trial the free kick sanctions in an "elite" competition. Blatant lie.

Exactamundo Spook.

Everyone knows the sanction law is the key ELV that would change the shape of the game, which is why it's been sidestepped up here and why O'Neil's been chasing it.

The 22 law - plenty of blaming it for more kicking, but the kick fest had started way before it's introduction. No longer kicking for touch was a regular feature of the game that came to a head in the RWC last year. "Kick it back at them, cos if they're stupid enough to run it you can milk a full arm penalty out of them in their half".....hence the sanctions ELV..

The maul law. It's not dead and considering 80% of them used to end up on the ground anyway, it's not like collapses have gone through the roof.

 

[Lindommer]

Just watched a replay of the game. At about 29:30 the Oz fullback ran back and forced the ball, loitering about the goal line, in goal. AFTER PUTTING HIS LEFT FOOT IN GOAL. The ref awarded Italy the put-in at the following 5m scrum, after which they scored a try. No Australian player objected.

WHY THE FUCK DON'T INTERNATIONAL OFFICIALS KNOW THEIR LAWS. :angryfire: :angryfire: :angryfire:

 

[Thomond78]

Europe agreed to trial the free kick sanctions in an "elite" competition. Blatant lie.

Exactamundo Spook.

Everyone knows the sanction law is the key ELV that would change the shape of the game, which is why it's been sidestepped up here and why O'Neil's been chasing it.

The 22 law - plenty of blaming it for more kicking, but the kick fest had started way before it's introduction. No longer kicking for touch was a regular feature of the game that came to a head in the RWC last year. "Kick it back at them, cos if they're stupid enough to run it you can milk a full arm penalty out of them in their half".....hence the sanctions ELV..

The maul law. It's not dead and considering 80% of them used to end up on the ground anyway, it's not like collapses have gone through the roof.

They're completely different. They don't tie in players, and they don't get the defense moving back. And having been in a few, I will tell you frankly, they are fucking different, and they do come down differently. They are now scary - and I'm not bullshitting you, the way they come down is now like a bad scrum, and that's fucking lethal.

The 22-22 kicking has got worse. That's not just me, by the way; it's what Deans and Pat Lam think, playing with the sanctions ELV. You also can't claim that the sanctions ELV is as a result of last year's RWC, because that's simply not the case; it was being trialled before it.

BTW, I don't know if anyone saw the France-Argentina game last week, but it was dreadful, simply dreadful. Argentina's method of just hoofing it and chasing was all they did - and it was even easier for them, because it was harder for France to clear their lines and make it stop. Nor could they maul it to suck in Argentinian defenders. Worse than any game last year, and this with a French team who've shown they'll run from anywhere. Awful, awful, awful game.

 

[Major Spliff Biggins]

I watched the Argentina v France game in it's entirety and I don't think it was any worse than those served up at the World Cup between the two.

The Argies used that exact tactic in the opener and it proved successful- well before the ELVs.

Having said that- it has got worse; but is that due to the sanctions or would the trend have immerged irrespective?

 

[Thomond78]

I do think, looking at what I've seen here, that it's got worse.

It would also appear that I'm wrong about Deans, for which my apologies.

From the Irish Times/Guardian; not sure I agree about the breakdown bit, as it's happening even in the SH before and without the crackdown, but it's interesting to read people's opinions on it:

Crackdown at breakdown brings about kicking game

PAUL REES
EXPERIMENTAL LAWS: IF THE experimental law variations which are being trialled globally this season were intended to kick-start running rugby, the effect in Europe has been the reverse.

Matches have become clotted with aerial ping-pong, not so much because of any of the 13 ELVs but because of the International Rugby Board's parallel refereeing crackdown at the breakdown which has made it hazardous for attacking teams to attempt to recycle possession.

The IRB's directive to referees to stop attacking players illegally sealing off the breakdown and preventing opponents from playing the ball, or going to ground after a tackle to secure release, was a reaction to multi-phase play that became monotonous.

The IRB wanted the breakdown to become a fair contest for possession but the upshot has been for teams to stop running the ball in their territory, for fear of conceding a penalty within range. Instead the ball is booted into the other half and an aerial return expected. "Rugby has become like tennis," said Geraint John, the head of Canada's high-performance unit. "I have talked to coaches from the top nations and they all say they dare not attack more than 45 metres out because of the way the breakdown is being controlled. I watched Wales last Saturday and there was a huge amount of kicking out of hand even though both sides had potentially lethal counter-attacks.

"The only side I have seen bucking the trend . . . is Bath. I can understand what the IRB had in mind with the directive but I think it has gone too far. Teams should not be afraid of running the ball from deep and it is hard to evaluate the impact being made by the law variations. The breakdown directive has meant that officials are missing other offences, especially offside in midfield."

Wales face Canada in Cardiff tomorrow night. The home side's outhalf James Hook is one of the silkiest runners in the modern game, a player whose first instinct is to attack. He found himself on the bench against South Africa last week, behind the more controlling Stephen Jones. "I have been working hard on my kicking game and it is an increasingly important area," said Hook. "I can understand games can be frustrating for crowds when they see constant aerial ping-pong but I think things will settle down."

The main proponents of the new laws come from the Southern Hemisphere. Robbie Deans, the New Zealander who coaches Australia, believes the European unions were wrong not to trial the ELV which punishes most indiscretions with a free-kick rather than a full penalty. "It would have taken away the fear of conceding three points at the breakdown," he said. "There is less kicking now than there was in last year's World Cup and I would say it is more constructive kicking."

Australia's captain, Stirling Mortlock, believes the surfeit of kicking will be temporary. "There is always toing and froing in times of change until teams understand the new ethos," he said.

Canada's coach, the former New Zealand full-back Kieran Crowley, laments what he feels is a sameness which is working to the detriment of the individual. "How many times do you see a wing trying to run around his opponent rather than crash through him?" he asked. "The variations worked better in the Tri-Nations than they are in Europe but there is more kicking out of hand: we were well beaten by Ireland last weekend and our big weakness was dealing with their kicks."

Wales wing Mark Jones, who returns from injury tomorrow night, said he was spending more time on receiving kicks and returning them than ever before. "With attacking teams getting pulled at the breakdown, you have to have a strong kicking game," he said. "Keep getting caught in your own territory and you can find yourself nine points down before you know it. Get it down the field and chase hard. It is frustrating for players like me who like to run and counter-attack but you have to pick the right moment."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2008/1113/1226408582506.html

 

[Gagger]

They're completely different. They don't tie in players, and they don't get the defense moving back. And having been in a few, I will tell you frankly, they are fucking different, and they do come down differently. They are now scary - and I'm not bullshitting you, the way they come down is now like a bad scrum, and that's fucking lethal.

I sense this is only gonna froth you up even further, but I'm really struggling to see how they are so different.

I know what a collapsing maul and scrum feels like, been in plenty of them. Of all those mauls in the 'good old days' plenty were deliberately collapsed, and others weren't. In all that time, I never heard guys talking about the difference in impact of either. In fact, with your head down in it, it's often hard to know whether some gumby second rower tripped over his own legs, or someone else tripped him up.

I'm big on safety in the game, but I think this angle on 'maul protection' is overhyped. Froth away.

The 22-22 kicking has got worse. That's not just me, by the way; it's what Deans and Pat Lam think, playing with the sanctions ELV. You also can't claim that the sanctions ELV is as a result of last year's RWC, because that's simply not the case; it was being trialled before it.

I wasn't claiming that. As discussed in this article posted by Spook (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/elvs-the-great-divide-943329.html) it was a result of the 2003 cup, where Woodward, O'Sullivan, Robinson and McGeechan spotted how the game was going to shit under the existing penalty law that I was describing in my last post.

BTW, I don't know if anyone saw the France-Argentina game last week, but it was dreadful, simply dreadful. Argentina's method of just hoofing it and chasing was all they did - and it was even easier for them, because it was harder for France to clear their lines and make it stop. Nor could they maul it to suck in Argentinian defenders. Worse than any game last year, and this with a French team who've shown they'll run from anywhere. Awful, awful, awful game.

Didn't see it, but I'm assuming it wasn't under the ELV sanctions law. Because as the Irish article you posted states:

The IRB wanted the breakdown to become a fair contest for possession but the upshot has been for teams to stop running the ball in their territory, for fear of conceding a penalty within range. Instead the ball is booted into the other half and an aerial return expected. "Rugby has become like tennis," said Geraint John, the head of Canada's high-performance unit. "I have talked to coaches from the top nations and they all say they dare not attack more than 45 metres out because of the way the breakdown is being controlled.

That's exactly my point. You can fuck around with all the other laws you want, but until you fix the sanctions, rugby is stuck in this hole.

 

[Thomond78]

It's unintended consequences, Gagger.

Because you can't maul effectively off a lineout anymore, certainly not to pull in defenders, the lineout is much less of an attacking platform.

However, with the numbers, you could attack the opposition lineout on their throw, podding up against everyone, and expect to take a higher than average return off their ball.

So, your own ball is less use, but attacking their ball is worth more.

And with the 22 ELV, you can no longer get it back into the 22, clear your lines into touch in their half, and attack their lineout to get the ball and attack off the turnover.

Net result is, you don't want them to kick it to touch in your half of the pitch. Hence, the last thing you want to do is let it go out, where before you'd force them into kicking the angle, and, between half-way and your ten, build a platform and let your guys go. Counter-attacking is out, as being too high risk from turnovers.

So, all the time, you're trying to get the ball out in their half, which you do by pressurising their kick and forcing them back so that your own ball goes out just shy of the 22. But they know this. So you get aerial ping-pong.

And it's not just on the sanctions one as it definitely has been happening in the 3N and S14 games using the sanctions one.

 

[Cutter]

Good post Gagger, and that is exactly the point. The ELVs were designed to be used together and the key ones are inter-related. When you cut the sanction ELV, it means the kicking in the 22 ELV is disproportionately influential.

We saw some pretty good rugby in the S14 without the pulling down the maul law and with the sanctions. Having said that, the Welsh didnt seem to mind chancing their arm in attack last weekend.

However, with the numbers, you could attack the opposition lineout on their throw, podding up against everyone, and expect to take a higher than average return off their ball.

So, your own ball is less use, but attacking their ball is worth more.

And with the 22 ELV, you can no longer get it back into the 22, clear your lines into touch in their half, and attack their lineout to get the ball and attack off the turnover.

Net result is, you don't want them to kick it to touch in your half of the pitch. Hence, the last thing you want to do is let it go out, where before you'd force them into kicking the angle, and, between half-way and your ten, build a platform and let your guys go. Counter-attacking is out, as being too high risk from turnovers.

So, all the time, you're trying to get the ball out in their half, which you do by pressurising their kick and forcing them back so that your own ball goes out just shy of the 22. But they know this. So you get aerial ping-pong.

And it's not just on the sanctions one as it definitely has been happening in the 3N and S14 games using the sanctions one.

Thomo this is wrong. You can still kick it out (albeit not on the full) forcing the opposition lineout. If what you say about "podding up" is true, its also more likely that you will force the turnover.

If the opposition lineout is not blocking the maul and is only concerned about contesting, it would be pretty easy to get in behind them with a short sharp drive or two thereby giving the backs more space. You're rantings on the ELVs are regarded (by me at least and I suspect others) as the NH equivalent of JON.

 

[Scotty]

They're completely different. They don't tie in players, and they don't get the defense moving back. And having been in a few, I will tell you frankly, they are fucking different, and they do come down differently. They are now scary - and I'm not bullshitting you, the way they come down is now like a bad scrum, and that's fucking lethal.

So we should ban scrums due to their dangerous nature?

 

[Lee Grant]

And yet, scarily enough, I have to agree that the ARC reffed the ELVs they inherited the best, and they mainly had unrecognised refs.

The way the ELVs have been reffed in the real professional comps when the ARC example was so good, really makes one wonder about the SANZAR / IRB ref bodies.

Amen - even the amateur club refs in 2007 were better than the S14 refs in 2008 as I've bored everybody about a few times. After a month or so they found their feet and were carding players with a smile on their faces for cynical play wherever it happened on the park and whenever.

People who thought this wasn't a good idea and that 30 men should be on the park as much as possible, for it was always so, soon had to deal with the reality that players actually responded to this treatment and stopped killing the ball.

The ARC was a bit more conservative with cards but the S14 was a shambles. I expected the refs to improve after the first month but they didn't and thereby they killed off the free kick sanctions being trialled in the NH. I didn't blame NH people for criticising the ELVs after the S14, when they hadn't seen them trialled in Oz club or ARC rugby in 2007.

The inexplicable thing for me is that there were a few professional refs in the ARC and club rugby that were S14 refs a few months later. These fellows followed what the other S14 refs were doing and were as bad as they were.

I have to take my hat off to NH referees in the way they are observing, by and large, the IRB protocols, which are not ELVs but only requirements to enforce current law. In particular they are being fierce on players staying on feet and not killing the ball thereby or otherwise.

I didn't think this was possible after SH refs butchered their opportunity to do the same thing about 7 years ago when the IRB had a similar crackdown.

In hindsight: it's a pity that the NH referees didn't get the first shot at doing it then.


Edit and PS - I guess I bored everybody again.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Just watched a replay of the game. At about 29:30 the Oz fullback ran back and forced the ball, loitering about the goal line, in goal. AFTER PUTTING HIS LEFT FOOT IN GOAL. The ref awarded Italy the put-in at the following 5m scrum, after which they scored a try. No Australian player objected.

WHY THE FUCK DON'T INTERNATIONAL OFFICIALS KNOW THEIR LAWS. :angryfire: :angryfire: :angryfire:

because the Australian play was deemed to have taken the ball into the in-goal. Did he pick the ball up or catch it - I can't remember

 

[Lindommer]

Doesn't matter. If AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s foot is in goal and he picks up a moving ball not in goal and places it, it's a 22 drop out. The replay was on Fox Sports 2 which kindly showed the incident in slow motion.

If anyone's got this game recorded, please check out the incident at about 29:30 and report.

 

[Pfitzy]

Actually Lindommer I believe this is one of the weird situations where we discuss the "plane" of one of the field markings. Similar to plane of touch I suppose - if I was standing outside the touch line and picked up the ball before it rolled over the line, I am deemed to have taken it into touch (remember J Huxley did this last year?).

In this case the ball had not crossed to the ingoal - ball had not gone in-goal of its own accord or the actions of the opposition. Therefore AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) took it back.

This is why the Rugby Laws need a full cleanout and not just the odd tweak

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Actually Lindommer I believe this is one of the weird situations where we discuss the "plane" of one of the field markings. Similar to plane of touch I suppose - if I was standing outside the touch line and picked up the ball before it rolled over the line, I am deemed to have taken it into touch (remember J Huxley did this last year?).
In this case the ball had not crossed to the ingoal - ball had not gone in-goal of its own accord or the actions of the opposition. Therefore AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) took it back.
This is why the Rugby Laws need a full cleanout and not just the odd tweak

Quite correct - that is why I asked the question before.
If a player in touch or in goal catches the ball, then he is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch or in goal.
If however the player pick up the ball while in touch or in goal, he is deemed to have taken the ball into touch or into the in goal area.
The ref made the correct decision.
Tough I know - but that's rugby.

Similar situatiion earlier in the year where the AB's kicked deep and the Australia player standing in touch near his own goal line picked it up - line out to the AB's 5m out.