O'Neill confident north is softening

[KenyaQuin]

O'Neill confident north is softening
11th April 2008, 10:42 WST O'Neill confident north is softening : thewest.com.au

Australian rugby supremo John O'Neill believes northern hemisphere opposition to rugby's experimental laws is softening despite criticism in the English press claiming they threaten the game's identity.

Rugby's controversial experimental law variations (ELVs) - being partially trialed in the Super 14 competition - are back on the agenda at the International Rugby Board's May 1 meeting.

The IRB could rubber stamp a worldwide trial of the rules, which are designed to make the game a more free-flowing spectacle and decrease stoppages, from August 1 to take in the northern hemisphere's domestic and European competitions.

"The feedback from (the Six Nations conference last month) was pretty positive," ARU chief executive O'Neill said.

"A number of the Six Nations went in with negative views but by the end of it there were more countries positive than there were negative.

"Certainly France, Italy and Scotland are very much in favour of the ELVs and I understand that England and Wales have shifted a good bit and that Ireland remain somewhat opposed."

But that feedback hasn't stopped the British press blasting the new rules, claiming Australia is spearheading a plot to destroy the game's fabric.

"(They are) something that might suit the Australians, who have allowed their once all-powerful forward game to wither," Chris Hewett wrote in The Independent overnight. Article in its entirety posted below.

"If the (English) RFU is sufficiently persuasive, next season's premiership and European rugby will retain its many virtues. If it is not, Super 14 will soon be coming to a rugby ground near you. In which case,we can all give up and go shopping."

In The Times, David Hands wrote: "The law changes are being pushed by Australia, whose profits are down and who remain in a hotly-contested market with league and Australian Rules football." Article in its entirety posted below.

Hands also quoted an unnamed English official as saying: "Why should a mature sport, in a healthy state, introduce this wholesale experimentation?"

O'Neill is a vocal supporter of the ELVs but vehemently denied an Australia-led conspiracy.

"There seems to be unwarranted concern being expressed by some quarters within the northern hemisphere that this is some southern hemisphere plot which it absolutely isn't," he told AAP.

"I'm at pains to point out this is not a north versus a south issue and there's a lot of propaganda around saying that Australia's driving this because we've got a weak scrum.

"But in fact the statistics in all the trials show that scrummaging is more important than ever under the ELVs.

"The game's a better spectacle but the fundamentals of the game haven't changed."

O'Neill said he is confident of a result on May 1.

"Even if you go for a trial from the first of August. they are still experimental and after a year's trial the ones that haven't worked you can take out," he said.

"It's much easier to take them out rather than to add them in.

"Basically if some decisions aren't taken soon we will run into the next World Cup and there's a convention or a rule which says you can't change the laws of the game 12 months out from a World Cup."

AAP

[KenyaQuin]

England lead crusade to stop law upheaval

Full-blooded scrummaging could soon be a thing of the past if proposed new laws are agreed

By Chris Hewett
Thursday, 10 April 2008 England lead crusade to stop law upheaval - Rugby Union, Rugby - The Independent


Just in case the Rugby Football Union did not have enough on its plate at this late stage of the campaign – the imbroglio surrounding Martin Johnson and Brian Ashton; the complexities of the new accord between Twickenham and the Premiership clubs, which will be activated in July; the small matter of a two-Test trip to New Zealand in June – it is now involved in a serious battle for the sport's heart and soul. And this time, the union is very definitely on the side of the angels.


Radical new laws – "Experimental Law Variations" in the language of the International Rugby Board, the body responsible for promoting them – are currently being tested in the southern hemisphere's Super 14 competition. Not all of them: even the Super 14 types, who have long dabbled with a form of rugby routinely condemned in northern climes as "candyfloss", refused to touch the more extreme ideas dreamed up by the board's Laws Project Group, chaired by Bill Nolan of Scotland.

But the whole set of ELVs, great and small – from awarding free-kicks rather than penalties for virtually every offence under the sun and allowing players to handle the ball in the ruck and collapse mauls with impunity, to rebranding the touchjudge as an "assistant referee" – have been fast-tracked on to the agenda for the next IRB gathering on 1 May, and the RFU fears they will be imposed on the European game, initially on a trial basis but ultimately for good, from the start of next season. "Once they're in, they'll never be allowed back out," said one very senior Twickenhamite on Tuesday night.

Bluntly put, the RFU is passionately against the general thrust of the ELVs, which it believes will drive the maul from the game, undermine the importance of the scrum by forcing teams to select identikit forwards with no specialist set-piece skills and reduce the sport to the spitting image of rugby league, seasoned with a dash of seven-a-side – something that might suit the Australians, who have allowed their once all-powerful forward game to wither, but not England, who reached successive World Cup finals through the efforts of an outstanding pack.

The union is busily garnering support ahead of the May meeting, in the knowledge that ELV enthusiasts will need a two-thirds majority if the changes are to be foisted on the Premiership, the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations – not to mention the grass-roots game, where many thousands of players enjoy the sport they are already playing and show no desire for new-fangled ideas that threaten the very essence of the sport. Wales and Ireland are thought to be with England.

France, however, are being their usual mysterious selves on the rugby politics front, and there has been no clear declaration of intent from the Italians. The RFU remain a couple of votes short of blocking the ELVs, hence the frenzied discussions now taking place with other unions.

Ed Morrison, the popular Bristolian who refereed the 1995 World Cup final in Johannesburg and is now the RFU's elite referee manager, is deeply concerned about the potential effect of the ELVs. "I'm in love with the game we have,"he said. "It's important not to close the eyes to ways of improving something, even if it is already very special, but I start from the principle of maintaining the unique facets that make rugby union the sport we hold so dear."

The public relations scrap is now underway. Some of the biggest names in southern hemisphere coaching – Bob Dwyer, who guided the Wallabies to their 1991 World Cup success; Robbie Deans, the New Zealander who has succeeded John Connolly at the head of the Australian national team; John Kirwan, the former All Black wing now in charge in Japan – this week declared themselves fully in favour of the "new rugby".

On this side of the equator, no lesser a figure than Ian McGeechan of Wasps, a Lions head coach three times over with power to add, has taken the opposite view, arguing that if the current laws are refereed accurately and consistently, they are the best in the game's history.

And so the stage is set. If the RFU is sufficiently persuasive, next season's Premiership and European rugby will retain its many virtues. If it is not, Super 14 will soon be coming to a rugby ground near you. In which case, we can all give up and go shopping.

[KenyaQuin]

Rule changes could alter union spectacle
David Hands April 10, 2008 Rule changes could alter union spectacle - Times Online


The momentum is gathering for a change to rugby union's laws which could also change significant characteristics of the sport. The International Rugby Board will seek at their next meeting, on May 1, to introduce their experimental law variations (ELV) across the board next season, initially on a trial basis but there are fears in the north that, once the ELV are installed, they will not be easily removed.

There is no blanket rejection from within the Six Nations of experiments which have been conceived by a panel of, mostly, highly experienced former coaches and have been tested at various levels of the game, in both hemispheres. But two basic questions remain: the first is philosophical, in that the existing game, if properly refereed, is already an entertaining product which in the northern hemisphere draws new adherents every season.

The second is pinned to one specific ELV: that which changes the sanctions available to the referee and introduces far more free kicks as opposed to penalties. There are fears that not only does this create more stoppages (which the ELV are designed to reduce) but that it also takes union a step closer to rugby league's play-the-ball and could change the shape, literally, of those who play.

Behind these two premises lies a third: that the law changes are being pushed by Australia, whose profits are down and who remain in a hotly-contested market with league and Australian rules football, because the competitive structure of the Sanzar unions has not worked out. Super rugby, whether involving 10, 12 or 14 teams, has not given them the variety they want and nor has the Tri-nations, particularly since it has gone up to three meetings per season with the same team.

It is a matter of geography that the game develops in different ways, to suit climate, population, national characteristics. But, as one leading northern-hemisphere administrator said: "It may be a flawed game but it is a successful one, so why put that at risk? Why should a mature sport, in a healthy state, introduce this wholesale experimentation?"

Some of the changes are cosmetic but the fundamental ones involve numbers at the lineout, the ability to pull down a maul legally, a five-metre space behind the scrum and the variety of offences, many at the breakdown, which will now attract a free kick. The idea is to create more time for the ball to be in play but the IRB's own statistics, from the most recent RBS Six Nations Championship, indicate that is happening anyway.

Bernard Lapasset, the president of the French federation who became chairman of the IRB board this year, is a supporter of the ELV: "It's important we become more creative on the field, that we take more risks," he said. "To me, it's not a success if you have World Cup semi-finals and finals in which no tries, or only one try, is scored."

It is, though, dangerous to take the knockout phase of a sport's premier international competition as the model. Only this week Francis Baron, the Rugby Football Union's chief executive, suggested that if there was one issue that had united the game in England from top to bottom, it was concern over the introduction of new laws. His union will establish a micro-web site to see whether there is a demand from the community game for change but Guinness Premiership directors of rugby and coaches have already given them, broadly speaking, the thumbs down.

England, Wales and Ireland have reached similar conclusions on the ELV: Scotland, who in Bill Nolan provide the chairman of the experimental laws project, are perceived as being in favour while France have wavered though, given Lapasset's position, are more likely to embrace change. Italy have tended to vote in matters political alongside France but have been supportive of the three home unions in certain areas of the ELV.

"We think a number of the changes could benefit the game," Ed Morrison, the 1995 World Cup final referee who now manages England's elite officials, said. "But we believe there are dangers inherent in the emphasis on free kicks. The position in terms of sanctions at the moment is pretty good. To ask a referee to decide between what is a free-kick offence and what is a penalty offence for something that is essentially identical does concern me.

"The game could lose its shape and structure. Some of us like its various facets, the scrum, the lineout, the maul, we want to encourage them. Rugby players are reasonably sensible and they know that if they don't roll away after a tackle, they'll be penalised. I don't believe the game needs a radical overhaul - I'm still drooling over last weekend's Heineken Cup quarter-finals."

There were two free kicks awarded in those four games, as opposed to 78 in the six Super 14 games played on the same weekend, a competition which has chosen not to embrace every ELV. The RFU will continue to study South Africa's Vodacom Cup, which has taken all the changes on board, so that their representatives on May 1 have as much information as possible but Morrison added: "We have to consider not only the top end of the game but community and recreational rugby - these changes are not only for professional players but go all the way down."

[Scotty]

Reminds me of a Guinness poster I saw once that read "I've never tried Guinness because I don't like it".

[frontrow]

The main reason i played rugby was because it caters to all body types, big or small...I applaud the engine room of rugby, and i really am concerned with these developments, and after taking a look at what we have to offer with the ELV's we are seeing the really big fellas such as rodney blake and south african man mountains, absolutely stuffed by halftime, and not lasting the distance more often than not...The more streamlined props are becoming more dominant, although winning scrums still seems important, over time this will wane as coaches choose athleticism over strength and skill, and the 850kg plus packs are a thing of the past with sub800kg packs racing all over the place...All the halves need to do to counteract the less skilled and lighter packs is feed the ball faster with a bit of "biased" spin on the ball so the ball shoots to the back of the scrum quickly, thereby negating the powerful thrust from thier bigger and more technically accurate opponents...THE END IS NEAR for the big man, and if so, i feel i may become less passionate about the game they play in heaven...
I like the ELV's in part, but would rather not have them if the end result is the death of the bigman with rucking and mauls become a thing of the past...
If i had a say i would go back to the old laws of rugby, i loved the game then without the new rules...

[BLR]

Spot on frontrow

[gustafsl]

Yeah I agree with England. The World Cup final with the world record number of kicks was just so much more exciting than watching teams actually try and score tries.

The two major changes in the new rules are 1) no passing into your 22 and kicking out on the full. So this has meant that more teams run the ball back or kick it back in play. 2) free kicks instead of penalties. So this has resulted in play continuing on rather than 3 or 4 minutes wasted while a team has a shot at goal.

The major thing against the new rules is that props will be "lost" because there aren't as many stoppages as before.

If that is the only worry then I propose a new rule to go with the new rules. Free rotation of props. That's right. Teams can name their three props before the game and can rotate them in and out as many times as they want. We've already seen the introduction of one prop going off at 40 mins and then another prop getting "injured" in the 65th minute. Happens just about every week now. So why not just allow them to change as often as they want.

[BLR]

Yeah I agree with England. The World Cup final with the world record number of kicks was just so much more exciting than watching teams actually try and score tries.

I don't think, even with law changes, it will stop England playing rubbish rugby....you've simply got to try and find a way to negate that and get some good flowing play...rucking is all we need, the rest can stay the same....

[beige]

I wouldn't worry too much about the traditional big props props because you can have a scrum from a free kick anyway. If a team wants, more free kicks equals more scrums - and if their opposition has selected props because of athletic ability rather than scrummaging ability then look out!

[zimeric]

"We think a number of the changes could benefit the game," Ed Morrison, the 1995 World Cup final referee who now manages England's elite officials, said. "But we believe there are dangers inherent in the emphasis on free kicks. The position in terms of sanctions at the moment is pretty good. To ask a referee to decide between what is a free-kick offence and what is a penalty offence for something that is essentially identical does concern me."

Ed made a good point here. In the game against the stormers i was sure the ref had tennis elbow or was a closet nazi with all the full arm penalties he was dishing out for infringements that seemed worthy of a free kick.

saying that im all for the rule changes even if it does away with the big unfit man mountains sorry but thats just my opinion and my justification is purely from the viewpoint of a backline player i guess. Defences will be stronger and attacks faster making for a more exciting spectacle without losing the core concept of a "contest" for the ball.

[GIGS20]

I wouldn't worry too much about the traditional big props props because you can have a scrum from a free kick anyway. If a team wants, more free kicks equals more scrums - and if their opposition has selected props because of athletic ability rather than scrummaging ability then look out!

and to respectfully rebut Frontrow's comments, we see sub 800 kilo packs runnign around above 850 kilo packs in the S14 because that's always been a trend with some teams. they tried to run the big packs around under the old laws and they'll try it under the new laws. If a team wants to make the scrum a dominant feature of the game (and let's face it that's the only real reason to pick a heavy pack) they can do it, and bet your bottom dollar that England will give that a shot if they play an ELV game, Keep the ball in the ruck and contest every breakdown, and scrum off every free kick. Wouldn't you think that would just about kill a light pack if done properly?

nothing personal FR I just think we haven't seen the full range of responses to the ELVs yet!

[AndyS]

I'm not quite sure where you are heading with that FR - if the main argument against the ELVs is that Rodney Blake will get out of breath, should we be slowing the game down to make it even more inclusive? Should we ban lifting to encourage even taller, more lanky props? And what about this tendency towards big wingers - how do we get back to having 5'7" skinny kids running the tramlines?

The game is always going to evolve in various directions in response to the laws. At the moment that evolution has pushed negative rugby to the fore, mostly because laws designed for amateurs are being applied to a game played professionally. Personally I see many of the changes as redressing the balance between attack and defense in a game played by very fit professional athletes. At the same time I don't think it will materially affect the amateur game, other than to require better aerobic fitness of upper grade forwards. If that is a problem, then it is reflective of a deeper problem with respect to the gap between club and rep rugby.

Mind you, it is likely to be irrelevant anyway - I don't see an agreed set of law changes being ratified before the 2 year moratorium, and if they don't make it then they will be dead. With his reputation for protecting and promoting Australian interests (which is his job, after all), having JO'N cheerleading for the ELVs may be the shortest path to the bin for them.

[frontrow]

Yeah I agree with England. The World Cup final with the world record number of kicks was just so much more exciting than watching teams actually try and score tries.

The two major changes in the new rules are 1) no passing into your 22 and kicking out on the full. So this has meant that more teams run the ball back or kick it back in play. 2) free kicks instead of penalties. So this has resulted in play continuing on rather than 3 or 4 minutes wasted while a team has a shot at goal.

The major thing against the new rules is that props will be "lost" because there aren't as many stoppages as before.

If that is the only worry then I propose a new rule to go with the new rules. Free rotation of props. That's right. Teams can name their three props before the game and can rotate them in and out as many times as they want. We've already seen the introduction of one prop going off at 40 mins and then another prop getting "injured" in the 65th minute. Happens just about every week now. So why not just allow them to change as often as they want.

Valid point re world cup final (and our defeat at thier hands in a dour affair), but credit to thier big men cannot be underestimated, as the opposite applies to our Australian big men( they were crap)...We were totally outclassed not totally by thier aggresive tactics, but because we lost it at the breakdowns and couldn't use our lethal backline. The problem was basically that we chose to disregard the nurturing of our up and coming prop talent and concentrated on keeping our exciting backline and backrowers, and therefore deserved to have our arses handed to us...
As for the kicking game, i have noticed a lot more kicking since the new ELV's have been introduced (as an opportunity to force a mistake from the receiving team), and this type of game bores the shit out of me, ala the world cup final... So no real solution there, however i am glad we have less penalty kicks as this wastes time...
I like your solution to the big man fatigue, feasible option there though...

I wouldn't worry too much about the traditional big props props because you can have a scrum from a free kick anyway. If a team wants, more free kicks equals more scrums - and if their opposition has selected props because of athletic ability rather than scrummaging ability then look out!

I refer to the point i made regarding the halfback feeding the scrum with a biased feed resulting in the ball shooting to the rear of the scrum immediately for the no.8 or halfback to collect...Might not be so prevelant in the near future, but then rugby league scrums used to be a competitive phase, and look at them now...

[AndyS]

The thing that annoys me is that the IRB has the ability to achieve most of the objectives of the ELVs without recourse to anyone - just tell the refs to police the existing laws. If offside defenses, crooked scrum feeds, ball killing and obstructive cleanouts (for a start) were penalised rigorously, it would be a much quicker game with a damn sight more competition for the ball.