New rules are being set up to fail

[AndyS]

THE chances of the IRB introducing the experimental law variations at the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand appear increasingly unlikely.

To be sure, the IRB has stated the game needs changes to spark attacking rugby after the defence-orientated 2007 World Cup in France, which was won by South Africa.

The so-called Stellenbosch laws, or at least most of them, are currently being trialled in the Super 14 series.

The laws are also expected to be trialled in the Tri Nations series in August-September before the IRB council votes in November on whether to trial the laws on a worldwide basis for a year.

The main obstacle to the introduction of the new laws is the perception in the northern hemisphere that the rules are part of a southern hemisphere conspiracy to change the game to suit the running rugby of Australia and New Zealand.

The IRB council has already delayed making a decision on a global trial of the laws with the vote originaly scheduled to take place this May.

Of course, at that stage the laws would not have been trialled in professional rugby in Europe.

The IRB has convened a special meeting of the Six Nations in March with an aim of introducing the rules to European rugby later this year.

But with the European season starting in September, the laws will have only been on trial for two months in Europe before the IRB votes on the global trial in November.

The recommendation to the IRB from the laws committee will be written in June or July before the new rules are even played in professional European competitions.

The Europeans will take a lot of convincing to change the game because for the most part they are happy with the way it is now.

While southern hemisphere observers may find aspects of European rugby dull and boring, the game is going gangbusters in the north with record crowds, sponsorship and television audiences. Why change?

It does not take a great deal of imagination to think that the IRB council will delay the vote again.

And this is where it gets tricky. A new law has to be in play for two years before it can be used in a World Cup.

If the IRB council delays the vote again, it will be cutting it fine to include the new laws in the 2011 tournament.

Even if the timeline is favourable, there will be a great debate about which, if any, of the new laws are approved.

The power-brokers in the northern hemisphere will surely have noticed that the news laws have advantaged teams such as the Crusaders and the Blues which want to play attacking rugby rather than a negative, defence-orientated game.

The northern unions may also find an unlikely ally in South Africa, who did very well under the old laws, winning the World Cup and the Super 14 series last year.

It was worth noting that Frans Ludeke, coach of the defending Super 14 champion Bulls, blamed the new laws for his team's seven tries to one thrashing at the hands of the Crusaders in Pretoria last Saturday.

If South Africa adopts this attitude, there is no guarantee the Tri Nations will be played under the new laws.

Perhaps, even more damning was Bulls and Springboks winger Bryan Habana's claim that the new rules were turning rugby into rugby league.

It was the IRB's determination that rugby remain distinct from rugby league which led to key changes in the interpretation of the laws after the 1999 World Cup, which was won by Rod Macqueen's Wallabies.

To prevent the Wallabies' multi-phase game resembling unlimited tackle rugby league, the IRB instructed referees to strongly police the tackle contest, which swung the advantage in favour of the defensive team.

Attacking teams such as the Crusaders and All Blacks have overcome this negativity with the concept of offensive-defence, but the 2003 (England) and 2007 (South Africa) World Cups were won by teams playing conservative, percentage rugby.

The new laws have swung the advantage back in favour of the attacking team, but that may not necessarily be to everyone's liking, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

And that is why we are unlikely to see the new laws in play in New Zealand in 2011.

The Australian
February 28, 2008

[MI5_Dog]

An interesting article and I, mostly, agree. I don't think the new ELV's have a hope in hell of being accepted before the 20011 RWC. I don't think many of the laws will make it in as official at all.

As stated the European countries are going well as it is and won't see the point in changing and the SA clubs that are getting flogged this year will find any excuse for being crap.

[AndyS]

Although it will be interesting to see. If they don't approve them they might as well forget all about them, as the laws two years out are almost certainly going to be played at all levels. No-one is going to go to the RWC having been playing to some different set of laws.

[pieter blackie]

Watson: Premature to slam ELVs

29/02/2008 09:26

Johannesburg - Statistics comparing the playing phases in the first two rounds of last year's Super 14 and this year's under the Experimental Law variations (ELVs) are not conclusive and it is premature at this stage to draw conclusions on the ELVs being trialed in the Super 14.

That is the view of the South African Rugby Union's manager of referees, Andre Watson. He says the ELVs need to run its course to provide a balanced picture.

"We believe that it is too early to respond negatively or positively on whether the ELVs are good or bad for the game," said Watson "Some quarters hail the ELVs as very good and positive whilst others are slamming it as too close to rugby league and that forwards are being taken out of the game. In order to make an assessment of the impact of the ELVs, one needs to look closer at the statistics."

Watson has analysed statistics regarding the ELVs and has produced some figures comparing Rounds 1 and 2 of the 2007 Super 14 with Rounds 1 and 2 of the 2008 Super 14.

Despite the increase of penalties (a total of 405 in 14 matches in 2008 compared to 287 in 2007, mostly because of the free-kicks for a number of transgressions), the ball has been in play 11% more of the time. In 2008 it has been 35 minutes 03 seconds compared to last year's 31 minutes 52 seconds.

Scrums have increased by a negligible 1.1% to 25.1 per match while lineouts have decreased by 21.2% or 6.2 lineouts per match, Watson added: "When one looks at the cold stats, it actually shows that the forwards are as much in the game in scrums, more at ruck/maul, and a little less in line-outs than before.

"Let's allow this to be trialed comprehensively before accepting or condemning," he concluded.

Watson has been meeting with media representatives in various centres over the past weeks to discuss aspects relating to the ELVs. This forms part of the National Referee Recruitment drive that has been launched

24.com

[antiussentiment]

11% more ball in play... that's quite significant.

this is probably as a resalt of fewer linouts. though you see a lot more "tap and go" too. there has been disscussion about slowing the ball down, but there is also a significant amount of quick ball too. the force-lions game was pretty good testiment to this. patches of slow killing the ball and also plenty of strings of 5-6 very fast phases. so i do not think you can generalise. it seems the ball carrier has much to do with how quickly the ball is recycled (still) and i think this is a good thing.. most times cross or gittou were tackled the ball came back to stanard very quickly.. probably how the game should be???

[GIGS20]

There'a a stack more ball being kicked infield now, I don't think that's a bad thing, it's just true!

[frontrow]

This kicking infield caper detracts from the running game, which i honestly believe is the way rugby should be played, not forcie backs till someone errs which i have noticed has increased since the ELVs came in...Watch AFL for kicks, rugby for hard men (and women) who play with the ball in hand...

(ps...I don't have anything in for the new rules, just observations only, lets see how they appear after the season)

I will admit i haven't watched any rugby in 2 weeks so it may have improved from round 1 but in that first round i saw way too much ball being kicked to and fro for my liking...

[GIGS20]

It's nowhere near as bad as the 'Saders-Brumbies game was, if that's what you're referring to FR. More a case of long kick chases and midfield bombs. Definitely a lot more attacking!

I did see the Lions being the first team to bounce the ball out as a strategy, You still give the ball away, but you get the breather and can challenge at the lineout!