Shaun Edwards blames the ELVs

[the gambler]

Firstly before I start I probably need to appologise as this is going to be a bit of a rambling post. On the Tube on the way to work this morning I read this article by Shaun Edwards and felt compelled to make a few comments on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/sep/19/premiership.londonwasps

All through the debate over the ELVs detractors have said that there was no need for new laws, you simply had to police the ones that were already there.

However now that they are doing that with a strict edict to penalise players going off their feet, they are now whinging about too many penalties and saying it is a stop start game and too much like rugby league. They blame the ELVs even though it is not the ELVs but rather what they actually called for to happen that is creating the situation. That really shits me because there is this attitude in world rugby that if something is wrong it must be the other side of the worlds fault. Both sides are guilty of that attitude.

A number of pundits/punters/coaches/players blame the increase in kicking on the ELVs, in particular the no pass back into the 22, which I have said a number of times now I strongly disagree with. Improved defences, improved kicking games and the success of Argentina, South Africa and to a lesser extent England at the world cup are all greater reasons for more kicks in play than the 22 law.

But now, the main reason for the increased kicks is the new focus on keeping players on their feet. Not introducing the free kicks while introducing a strong edict against going off your feet which leads to more penalties means the European rugby community is likely to witness a pretty average season of penalty focussed rugby.

For me the free kick law was the most important ELV of the lot. By "reducing" the penalty for illegal play it allowed the ref to be far quicker to act on any slightly illegal play. Detractors said that it allowed players to deliberately infringe, that cynical play wasnt punished and that less positive rugby would be played as a result. However the lawmakers thought of this and encouraged the refs to penalise/card any cynical play or repeat offenders. Thus we seemed to get to a point where refs could act quickly and decisively, without fear of every single decision they made leading to 3 points for the non offending team. (cue Lee to say that Australia's amateur refs adapted to the ELVs far better than the IRB professionals).

(Edit - This worked for me because in any ruck someone is breaking the law. However, many of these infringements are accidental and minor and surely dont deserve to be penalised. A player may be attempting to clear out and slips and ends up off his feet. However often the other team is not competing and to award a penalty against the player and give 3 points to the defending side is too harsh a penalty. Sometimes a free kick is a far more appropiate "penalty", especially as the ref still has the power to award a penalty if thats what he deems appropiate)

However now they have removed the free kick sanction but still told refs they must erradicate players going off their feet. This obviously leads to thousands of penalties a match, and out of fear of giving away 3 points no team will even dream of running the ball from their own half. Hence the kickathons that we are seeing. Yet people continue to blame the ELVs for this.

Rod Mcqueen was clearly onto something when he said all the laws need to be trialed together and not bits and bobs here and there. They were designed to compliment each other and not to be introduced in such a helter skelter way. Perhaps if the European countries focused on what the laws aimed to do, rather than be whipped into a frenzy over who was supporting the laws we may have got somewhere. Similarly had ONeill and others played a low key role and let the new laws speak for themselves we would not have seen such objection and we may have seen all the laws trialled together.

However as it is all sides have played a role in creating a complete shambles of something that could have really developed the game.

 

[naza]

Re: More Pommy Whinging

The ELVs are a disaster. Bring back the maul. Allow rucking. Take Macqueen and the rest of the SIW brigade out the back and shoot 'em.

 

[Cutter]

Re: More Pommy Whinging

Excellent post gambler.

 

[the gambler]

Re: More Pommy Whinging

The ELVs are a disaster. Bring back the maul. Allow rucking. Take Macqueen and the rest of the SIW brigade out the back and shoot 'em.

Rucking will never be bought back, we all know that and we are just going to have to accept it.

The maul law will probably be changed back, but that is one of the few ELVs that can be changed without affecting all the other laws. That doesnt mean the other ELV's are bad though.

 

[Lee Grant]

For me the free kick law was the most important ELV of the lot. By "reducing" the penalty for illegal play it allowed the ref to be far quicker to act on any slightly illegal play. Detractors said that it allowed players to deliberately infringe, that cynical play wasnt punished and that less positive rugby would be played as a result. However the lawmakers thought of this and encouraged the refs to penalise/card any cynical play or repeat offenders. Thus we seemed to get to a point where refs could act quickly and decisively, without fear of every single decision they made leading to 3 points for the non offending team.

(cue Lee to say that Australia's amateur refs adapted to the ELVs far better than the IRB professionals).

Geez - I was about ready to get on the hobby horse.

Good post gambler though I think the pass back over the 22 ELV and it's constraint on gaining ground from a kick out on the full has contributed a bit to the ping pong - not as much as as they say in the NH but more than what you say.

I'd like to see some stats on the number of kicks per game this year in the Top14, GP and ML to date as a comparison to last year to see what the increase is.

I'll warrant that the average won't be higher the 90+ kicks they had in the 2007 RWC final though.

I've got to say that the Euro refs are doing a better job at getting players to stay on their feet than the SH refs did in the S14 about 7 years ago when the IRB had their last blitz. I want to see the NH refs do this for a whole season though before I say the free kick sanctions aren't needed.

There are more infringements to worry about than going off feet and killing the ball, but it is the worst part of professional rugby.

 

[Lindommer]

This initial period after the introduction of the ELVs has made for some rugby we don't like as coaches and players adapt to them, and the seemingly endless passages of "forcies" is one of them. Give them time to work this one out. I'd reckon the length of kick and ability to chase it will become much more important. Jack Gibson's sound advice, "don't kick any further than you can chase" comes to mind here.

For those of us who watched the ARC from the beginning, remember how mauls evolved from week 1 to, say, week 4? After the first few episodes of pulling down mauls stopped the team in possession dead in their tracks savvy coaches quickly worked out protecting the pill in a longer and narrower maul was the go. So if the maul was pulled down the pill didn't go down with it. To me this was fascinating: watching smart coaches and players react to new problems with innovative plays.

 

[Scarfman]

The rules played in the ARC were fantastic. The refs got onto it: yellows, get back 10, don't throw ball away, etc. Yes, the local amateur refs coped better than the iRB stooges.

And while we're at it, I reckon the ARC was the best rugby comp I've ever seen.

 

[Pfitzy]

It certainly had strong points Scarfy (and I've got tapes of some games if anyone wants them). Balanced too, though by round 4 the teams that adapted stood out and gained momentum e.g. Rays, Rebels whose coaches were obviously on the ball from the start.

I think Edwards is simply making the point that Wasps haven't adjusted well. But any points about endless kicking need only refer to last year's abortion of a RWC.

The issue with understanding the ELVs is that people think you have to change the way you play rugby. But you don't - you can still ruck the ball up in the 1 channel from your own 22 if you like, but you have to be on the ball with your support play, just like the old days.

 

[Sully]

Yeah the Refs in the ARC were a lot more pro active than the bunnies we had running around in the S14 and Tri-nations (somebody come up with a nickname please). But why is it so different surely they got the same training and attitude adjustment lessons. what happened between the ARC and the S14? Thanks for the insight Gambler. How the hysteria coming from the English press going. Is the sky still falling on the chicken littles

 

[Scotty]

Can't believe Thommo hasn't posted something like 'well John O'Neill should stop bleating on and the NH might be more likely to take up the laws'. I'm sure it will happen soon.

The referring was definately better in the ARC, but the whole feel of the comp was more positive and didn't have much to do with the individual refs. For the free kick sanctions to be effective the refs need to issue yellow cards for repeat infringements, and issue them early - unfortunately in big games they are normally scared to do this, in case they have made a mistake.

I guess yellow carding needs to happen more consistently, and earlier in games for teams to learn their lesson, and limit the amount of intentional infringements they try to get away with. I know it would become a shit fight, but is there a case for possible suspensions for players infringing multiple times in one game, similar to foul play? In practice it would probably be too difficult.

 

[Pfitzy]

We need to stop seeing the yellow card as something used for foul play, and start remembering that the whole point of it in 1999 was to stop professional fouls. Just because the sanction has changed from penalty to free kick doesn't change the nature of professional fouls.

While I'm on my soapbox, I'd like to see red cards handed out for their intended purpose - elbows, knees, punching, dirty bastardry in general. Exception is a stand-up swinging match where both blokes are to blame. And enough carding only the third-man-in - two other pricks started it, book them as well.

 

[PhucNgo]

Can anyone enlighten me on what Edwards is on about when he talks of the "raft of new regulations" in relation to the lineout? I thought they'd effectively been de-regulated.

I think also that now that we've been thru the S14 and TN its probably time for a new spite thread on the ELV's. In particular, although I don't make reference to any authoritative stats, it seems to me that the incidence of aerial ping-pong has significantly increased. So in the spirit of the ELV's being all about continuity and clarity at the contest what say we do away with the lineout and instead have the Asst Ref restart with a throw in ala AFL. We maintain the importance of the "talls" but don't have to go through the time loss of a full lineout. :fishing

 

[Thomond78]

Can anyone enlighten me on what Edwards is on about when he talks of the "raft of new regulations" in relation to the lineout? I thought they'd effectively been de-regulated.

I think also that now that we've been thru the S14 and TN its probably time for a new spite thread on the ELV's. In particular, although I don't make reference to any authoritative stats, it seems to me that the incidence of aerial ping-pong has significantly increased. So in the spirit of the ELV's being all about continuity and clarity at the contest what say we do away with the lineout and instead have the Asst Ref restart with a throw in ala AFL. We maintain the importance of the "talls" but don't have to go through the time loss of a full lineout. :fishing

Dear me, do we have a Victorian aboard already...? :nta:

 

[PaarlBok]

Vokket but the ELVs is hot property. Cant believe a year ago when Thomo and Lee had the PM from Belius Potgieter to where it is at the moment. At the start I wasnt a ELV man at all but after going now through a season I sort of maybe go more towards them. Watching from U7s to top myself think they worked pretty well in the schoolboy level. Top level I think was a huge mistake to replace the short arms to long arms at the breakdowns and that sort of made the game slow as it use to be. Still angry about the driving maul from the lineouts but other then that I am comfortable with them. Think if we can go back where it all started we always knew teams like the Bulls will struggle to get used ti them in the S14 and the Bokke surely in the 3 Nations. Thats also the reason I still think opposed to the other Saffers that Snor way is the best way forward. At schoolboy level I think it make a fantastic differense to our youngsters. You'll see when they start coming through to the top level.

Anyway here is some stats from Rugby365

ELVs: The numbers go down for SA

Going by 2008's Currie Cup stats, playing under the recently introduced Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) has actually reduced the number of overall points scored, if only marginally.

If this year's tries and points scored in the three major competitions in which South Africa compete are compared to those of last year, the advantages of the ELVs are only marginal - and the question must be asked whether the upheaval they caused was worth the trouble.

In fact, if the extra time played in the matches because of the purported greater continuity under the ELVs is added into the equation, it may well be found that the number of tries and points scored per minute played have gone down in all instances!

True, statistics are not necessarily exact, and there are the discrepancies brought about last year when the Springboks played their last two Tri-Nations Tests in Australasia with what was a virtual
B-side.

In the Super 14, New Zealand's All Blacks were also withdrawn for the first half of the 2007
competition. And this year's Currie Cup still has two rounds to go with the top sides playing the bottom teams - something that can affect the final analysis of the ELVs.

It is interesting, however, to note that the points scored in the 2007 and 2008 Super 14 competitions differed by only one - 4000 in 2008 and 4001 the previous year.

Comparisons in the three major international competitions in which South African sides took part in 2007 and 2008 are as follows:

Super 14:

Points in 91 matches in 2007: 4001 points, ave 43,97 points per match
Points in 91 matches in 2008: 4000 points, ave 43,96 points per match
Tries in 91 matches in 2007: 426 tries, ave 4,68 tries per match.
Tries in 91 matches in 2008: 483 tries, ave 5,31 tries per match

Conclusion: 0,61 tries more per match under ELVs

Tri-Nations:

Points in 6 matches in 2007: 242 points, ave 40,33 points per match
Points in 9 matches in 2008: 386 points, ave 42,89 points per match
Tries in 6 matches: 19 tries, ave 3,17 tries per match
Tries in 9 matches: 43 tries, ave 4,78 tries per match

Conclusion: 1,61 more tries per match under ELVs & 2,22 points more per match under ELVs

Currie Cup:

Points in 56 matches in 2007: 3086, ave 55,11 points per match
Points in 48 matches in 2008: 2518, ave 52,46 points per match
Tries in 56 matches in 2007: 387 tries, ave 6,91 tries per match
Tries in 48 matches in 2008: 310 tries, ave 6,46 tries per match

Conclusion: 0,46 tries less per match under ELVs & 2,65 points less per match under ELVs

and all of a sudden Eddie has change his mind (look like he is like the Capes weather these days)

Now Jones is a 'fan' of the ELVs

The ink had hardly dried on recent media reports of Saracens boss Eddie Jones launching a withering attack on the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) and now the Australian has declared himself a 'fan' of these laws.

The World Cup-winning Springbok assistant coach, Jones, recently said saying he fears the ELVs are leading rugby down the path of Twenty20 cricket.

However, on Sunday Jones was delighted with the way his English side, Saracens, adapted to the new ELVs as they crushed Newcastle Falcons 44-14 to collect their first Guinness Premiership victory of the season.

Flyhalf Glen Jackson kicked 17 points with left wing Kameli Ratuvou, Kevin Sorrell, Hugh Vyvyan, Rod Penney and Gordon Ross, who also converted the last one, running in second-half tries.

Saracens had lost both their opening matches, against Harlequins and Sale, by three points and their Australian Director of Rugby was pleased with the manner of the performance which enabled them to collect a bonus point.

Jones said: "It's a very tight competition but we took our opportunities and got a few points.

"We had some control today [Sunday] and, with the way the game's being played at the moment and the interpretation of the laws, you need that control. You've then got to be good enough to take advantage of your opportunities and we did that.

"We want to be a side that can play at the highest level and to do that you have to be robust in a certain number of areas.

"One's the set piece and the other is defence and in both of those areas for 70 minutes we can give ourselves a pass mark."

Jones continued playing All Blacks lock Chris Jack in his new role as a flank but said: "To me he is just playing his natural game and that's how he played as a lock. He's a good skilful player, he's not a grinding lock so playing number six, in these conditions I think he'll do it pretty well. He's a nice thoughtful player."

Jones was though slightly disappointed his side let Newcastle come back with two tries long after the outcome was beyond doubt.

He added: "There's a lot of timidness at the moment so the good thing about us today was that we played with a lot of conviction, knew what we wanted to do and went and did it.

"There is a great deal of worry about is it the wrong way to play the game but I think after five or six or seven weeks we'll see a sorting out and then everyone will understand the laws we are going to play under and how they are going to interpret it."

Newcastle certainly fell foul of referee Dean Richards as they struggled to come to terms with the experimental rules introduced this season.

Falcons head coach Steve Bates, who saw skipper Phil Dowson and flank Ed Williamson receive yellow cards within a minute of each other, said: "I was disappointed with the set piece in the first half and the second half was a mess.

"We had two men sin-binned and that meant we were always going to be under pressure."

 

[Thomond78]

Would have to say that sounds a bit more like Eddie's a fan of Sarries not cocking up than of the ELVs... :nta: