[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 29 April 08 12:12 GMT
|
EricTheRed:
You will have to look elsewhere for explanations. They are merely seeking your opinion - not seeking to influence it.
I however, am quite happy to try to influence it. Downgrading any offence from a free kick to a penalty means that the incidence of that offence is likely to increase. Which offence are you happy to see more of?
"...the second most stupid rule in rugby i.e. that a "double movement.".. "
There is no Law in Union against a "double movement". I believe this is in the League laws (not sure) but it is not mentioned in our laws. The Law to which you are referring to is that a tackled player must release the ball. This is the bane of the game and downgrading it to a free kick is a dim idea.
I'm intrigued as to what you think the number 1 most stupid rule is. I wonder if that's a real one either?
" If the current law is not being enforced properly you don't need to change the law you need to sort out the referees"
Hear, hear!! I'm with you on that one.
"crouch, pause, engage"
Blimey - you are a bit behinid the times.. Its "crouch, TOUCH, pause engage" at the moment. At least they have to start close enough to touch before they charge :-)
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Tue, 29 April 08 12:02 GMT
|
>I've just completed the online survey about the ELVs. Whilst it outlines each rule change it doesn't give any explanation as to WHY the proposed change would be a good thing. Being a veteran front row player I need a lot of these things explaining to me!
Ask away. We'll do what we can..
>At least these changes seem to reinforce what I have been saying for years in that most of the infringements that are currently penalised with penalties should be free kicks.
Why do you think this? Do you really think deliberately killing the ball at a breakdown should be a FK, not a penalty?
Seems like a cheat's charter to me but you obviously disagree, what's your view?
>Does this mean that they are proposing to do away with the second most stupid rule in rugby i.e. that a "double movement" - something that is no worse than a knock-on - is a penalty offence? At least that would be a good thing.
There is no "double movement" Law in Rugby Union - it's a penalty in League though.
(What is a penalty in Union is "not releasing the ball". If a player is grounded, do you really think he should be allowed to crawl to the goal line and score?)
>However, allowing players to pull down the maul is insane.
There doesn't appear to be a lot of support for that one outside Australia..
>..What does annoy me greatly is the number of instances where they say that the change is in fact an existing law that needs to be enforced more strictly. If the current law is not being enforced properly you don't need to change the law you need to sort out the referees.
Perhaps. But in the community game there's a limit to what you will let us do. I know if I penalised every offence in the breakdown I'd be surrounded by players letting me know "you don't know the Law" and "this is the way we're coached" and, of course "this is what they do on TV"..
>A prime example of this is the "crouch, pause, engage" rubbish in the scrums. The referees didn't enforce the existing rule banning charging so they introduce a new rule for them to fail to enforce properly. End result - we still have charging!
The RFU had very strong views about this one - remember there were unions who wanted to go completely uncontested on "safety grounds". Personally, I'm prepared to live with this "compromise", aren't you?
>Let's get the game as it is sorted out before we start trying to change it!
I utterly, utterly agree!
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
EricTheRed
|
Tue, 29 April 08 11:49 GMT
|
I've just completed the online survey about the ELVs. Whilst it outlines each rule change it doesn't give any explanation as to WHY the proposed change would be a good thing. Being a veteran front row player I need a lot of these things explaining to me!
At least these changes seem to reinforce what I have been saying for years in that most of the infringements that are currently penalised with penalties should be free kicks. Does this mean that they are proposing to do away with the second most stupid rule in rugby i.e. that a "double movement" - something that is no worse than a knock-on - is a penalty offence? At least that would be a good thing.
However, allowing players to pull down the maul is insane.
Apart from that I have to admit that I'm not sure about the rest of the proposed changes. What does annoy me greatly is the number of instances where they say that the change is in fact an existing law that needs to be enforced more strictly. If the current law is not being enforced properly you don't need to change the law you need to sort out the referees.
A prime example of this is the "crouch, pause, engage" rubbish in the scrums. The referees didn't enforce the existing rule banning charging so they introduce a new rule for them to fail to enforce properly. End result - we still have charging!
Let's get the game as it is sorted out before we start trying to change it!
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Sun, 27 April 08 22:19 GMT
|
"..there needs to be an amateur code of rules and a professional code"
Union needs this like a fish needs a bicycle.
That is an abhorrent idea. It's bad enough having Showbiz rugby refereed differently to everything else. We don't want a completely different set of laws!
What we need is quite the reverse, for the referees to be given a "talking to" so that the game can be more uniform top-to-bottom - not less.
The problem is that the Laws as currently framed do not actually define the game that is currently played at any level really. We rely too much on the referees to bend the laws to make them work at all. Once the ref is bending and ignoring laws to - say - let the scrum half reach in to the ruck for a ball (which is illegal in the letter of the Laws) you are on a slippery slope that ends with them allowing squint put-ins to scrums and allowing players to dive onto tackled players.
One of the original objectives of the ELV project was address this. But its all got lost.
|
|
|
hicksy
- rhicks@rutc.ac.uk
|
Sun, 27 April 08 21:47 GMT
|
On a serious note I believ for the professional game these ELV's amy do the job of haveing more 'action time'. So therefore making it more attractive to sponsors not already in the game.
But it does highlight the issue more than ever that there needs to be an amateur code of rules and a professional code. The Professional side of the game is becoming more and more estranged from the grassroots.
Can you honestly see the running rugby being played at level 7 or below in mid-winter - the rolling maul is the only way of keeping warm!
A consequence of ONE player pulling the maul down is that the defending side has more payers out than the attacking side - this obviously means that the next ELV (2009) will mean that the only way to achieve space at breakdowns is for the defending side to retreat 5m as they are proposing at scrums - back to rugby league again - sorry!
|
-------------------------
Hicksy |
|
|
morgan1994
- rhicks@rutc.ac.uk
|
Sun, 27 April 08 21:47 GMT
|
On a serious note I believ for the professional game these ELV's amy do the job of haveing more 'action time'. So therefore making it more attractive to sponsors not already in the game.
But it does highlight the issue more than ever that there needs to be an amateur code of rules and a professional code. The Professional side of the game is becoming more and more estranged from the grassroots.
Can you honestly see the running rugby being played at level 7 or below in mid-winter - the rolling maul is the only way of keeping warm!
A consequence of ONE player pulling the maul down is that the defending side has more payers out than the attacking side - this obviously means that the next ELV (2009) will mean that the only way to achieve space at breakdowns is for the defending side to retreat 5m as they are proposing at scrums - back to rugby league again - sorry!
|
-------------------------
Hicksy |
|
|
hicksy
- rhicks@rutc.ac.uk
|
Sun, 27 April 08 21:32 GMT
|
There is another ELV being launched in September, free kicks can now be taken by rolling the ball back with your foot between your own legs to a team-mate behind.
Rule 34. Variant 22. Subclause 34
Should be a favourite for some!
|
-------------------------
Hicksy |
|
|
morgan1994
- rhicks@rutc.ac.uk
|
Sun, 27 April 08 21:32 GMT
|
There is another ELV being launched in September, free kicks can now be taken by rolling the ball back with your foot between your own legs to a team-mate behind.
Rule 34. Variant 22. Subclause 34
Should be a favourite for some!
|
-------------------------
Hicksy |
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 27 April 08 19:37 GMT
|
HighsideUK - your memory is correct. There have also been penalties for what would be excellent defensive tackles under current law.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Sun, 27 April 08 18:17 GMT
|
S14 are playing the offside at the tackle ELV.
I think I read a few weeks ago a penalty try was given because someone was tackled after they had taken a pass from someone who was stopped by the full-back. It caused quite a stir at the time.
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 26 April 08 15:32 GMT
|
I have now run my straw poll on three rugby sites, with the following results (columns are No/Don't know/Yes)
-N -D -Y
32 10 13 1. Full penalty kick only for foul play and offside
41 09 05 2. Offside line at tackle
37 09 08 3. Ball unplayable - FK, not scrum
21 04 30 4. Putting ball into 22 restricts kicking to touch
04 03 48 5. Quick throw-in can be backwards
12 09 32 6. Receiver 2m from lineout
04 06 43 7. Pre-gripping allowed
02 11 42 8. Scrum offside line 5m back
09 07 38 9. Touching corner post irrelevant
I don't know how this fits with the RFU survey so far, but it looks as if opinions are hardening, with only the restriction on kicking from the 22 being in the balance.
This message edited on Sat, 26 April 08 by ob
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Sat, 26 April 08 15:04 GMT
|
highside - WRT blitz defences... spot on. (no pun intended!)
has this particular ELV been tested anywhere yet do we know?
didds
|
|
|
Icm5Fa#s
|
Sat, 26 April 08 09:41 GMT
|
see my blog, I have an essay on ELV
http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/
http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/2008/04/21/checkers-vs-chess-rugby-league-vs-rugby-union/
http://betterrugbyrules.blogtown.co.nz/2008/04/21/elvs-experiment-law-variation/
Thanks
ian from NZ
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 15 April 08 22:31 GMT
|
ob:
"Not true, I'm afraid. They also amended Law 11.8..."
Well that's no good is it?
Still I suppose that at least the defending winger can jump on the attacker as soon as they get to the offside line where the tackle is.
But yes - it has messed it all up hasn't it?
It's even practically outlawing some of the more extreme blitz defences isn't it?
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 15 April 08 21:50 GMT
|
[fragile website!]
This message edited on Tue, 15 April 08 by ob
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 15 April 08 21:49 GMT
|
highsideUK - "Once the ball is clear of the tackle then the offside line has gone and the tackle can be made."
Not true, I'm afraid. They also amended Law 11.8 to include the tackle, so you are not onside until you have reached the offside line, or an opponent has run 5 metres or kicked. Passing does not put you onside, nor does any action by a team-mate.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 15 April 08 16:20 GMT
|
ob:
"the idea was to simplify the tackle/ruck transition"
Yes. I see what you mean. I should have thought of that.
But working out when two players have started contesting the ball is not really very hard or subjective is it?
But wait a minute. Consider this: Line break by full back, defending full back is last line of defence. defending FB makes tackle and attacking winger is charging up in support. Defending winger is running next to attacking winger.
Now, the concensus seems to be that the defending winger is now offside and if he tackles the attacking winger it is a penalty.
BUT. The defending winger is running flat out to get on-side until the ball clears the tackle. You are not off side as long as you are making every effort to retire.
Once the ball is clear of the tackle then the offside line has gone and the tackle can be made.
So maybe you can defend line breaks after all, you just need to be back peddaling (or running back at full tilt!) until the ball comes out of the tackle - but you probably would be anyway even under the old rules?
Maybe the refs just need advising?
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 15 April 08 15:59 GMT
|
HighsideUK - Although I have disliked the tackle offside law from the start, I acknowledge that the idea was to simplify the tackle/ruck transition. The thought was that they look the same, so let us give them the same laws.
The significant difference is the speed with which a tackle can form and disappear. The contest is over as soon as the players hit the ground, whereas a ruck is a longer contest, and has different dynamics.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 15 April 08 13:13 GMT
|
ob:
Re offside at the tackle. I agree that it changes the balance, and what is the point? Why did this need changing? Who asked anyone to change it?
The original purpose of the ELV project was to look for some rule changes that made refereeing easier and more objective. This was a very good idea and I'm not surpised that the whole project initially got a lot of enthiusiastic support.
How does introducing (yet) another offside line make refereeing easier and more objective?
A few of the ELVs that are now being suggested do actually seem to fit their original remit.
For instance, allowing hands in the ruck at least means the referee does not have to decide who is cheating the most. I don't like the idea of it myself but at least it does attempt simplify the laws and remove a subjective area.
The idea of nobody deciding the numbers in the lineout also simplifies the referees job. Again, I'm not sure if it is a good idea as what will happen to 2 man lineouts? Who wants to be one of the 2 that catch the ball when 7 are waiting to take it off you? But at least it is trying to simplify the laws.
But the whole drive of the ELVs has now shifted. Suddenly the purpose of the ELVs is to make the game more entertaining to watch. Someone has decided (erroneously) that the game is only really fun when the skinny fellas are running about throwing the ball around.
Suddenly we have 5m off-side lines at the scrum, and free kicks instead of penaties until the referee arbitrarily decides when you are persistent in your infringements. How does this make anything simpler or more objective? It does not.
The whole ELV exercise has been hi-jacked by a few people who think they can make showbiz rugby more attractive and popular to watch. This is a betrayal of the original ELV project. It is a betrayal of the game. Nobody would have agreed to start reviewing the laws with this as the aim.
Kick the idiots off the panel that don't understand that rugby fans like watching the forwards play too. Remind them all that they are supposed to be simplifying the laws of the existing game - not inventing a new one or mimicking another one.
Jeez they'll tell us we must call it Total Offence Super Speedy Exciting Rugby next (or you can just use the initials letter of each word for short) because that is forward looking and progressive(and they think it will make them more money).
Pah!
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 08 April 08 23:03 GMT
|
I understand there is a proposal to use all proposed ELVs worldwide for a year.
My view is that the offside line at a tackle has already proved to be a disaster.
If the last defender makes a tackle, defence becomes almost impossible. That is far too big an imbalance, and I find it totally unacceptable.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Mon, 31 March 08 12:09 GMT
|
I'd echo the "Hear, hear Whistleblower" and I share OB's concerns about the offside at the tackle too.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 31 March 08 11:45 GMT
|
Some aspects of the quick throw-in need urgent clarification: if the ball goes into touch outside the 22, can it be thrown in for a gain in ground
(1) backwards from outside the 22?
(2) by running back far enough in touch to be beyond the 22? (See IRB Ruling 10 of 2004, Question 1, which allowed this before the ELV).
(3) by waiting until the ball has rolled past the 22?
All seem to me to breach the basic concept.
According to figures produced by Andre Watson after 4 rounds of the S14, this year there was an average of 24 lineouts per game, as opposed to 30 over the same period last year. Certainly not indicative of destruction of the lineout, so let's wait and see.
If the lone winger cannot defend the quick-throw-in under the ELV, why not get two players to chase? Elsewhere on the field we do not complain if one side creates a 2 on 1.
One ELV that does seem to be disastrous is the offside line at a tackle. If the last defender tackles a breakaway, all his team mates are offside. Close to the line this makes defence virtually impossible. The essential balance between defence and attack has been destroyed.
We have one case where the ELV has already shown its fatal flaw, and others where people are worried (and it is easy to exaggerate the fear). There need be no rush to judgement.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 31 March 08 11:35 GMT
|
Steve Johnson
"So, the argument that the biggies can't do it doesn't wash. They can - they have to work harder at CV fitness, but it need not be at the expense of strength and power"
This is nonsense. Lets say your Mr. X is doing all the training he has time for and is working as hard as his motivation lets him. His program is as clever as his resources allow it to be. Let's say he can bench-press W kg and run 5km in T mins. He can change his training to radicaly improve W or T but not both.
Similarly. Mr. Y is not picked ahead of Mr. X because he naturally has a better T but a worse W, and the team needs a few guys with big numbers for their Ws. Except that now they changed the rules so that the T is more important. Now Mr Y is in the first team and Mr X is not.
To deny any of this is senseless.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Mon, 31 March 08 11:13 GMT
|
Hear, hear Whistleblower.
I am horrified when remarks like "well, at least the ELVs do away with a lot of lineouts" are made as if there is no question as to whether this anything but a good thing.
As you say, why would we need the lighthouses if proper lineouts are so infrequent?
Some people's perception of the game seems so shallow. They see a load of schoolkids having a whale of a time running the ball from their 22 and deduce that therefore this is what senior rugby should be doing all the time. Look - Sevens IS fun to watch, nobody denies that - but I prefer 15s. And half our players are the wrong shape for Sevens.
Our Under 10s have a hoot playing all sorts of contrived games with special rules that we make up to focus on various skills and keep them from getting stale.
But I'd never be foolish enough to suggest that any of these mutations of our wonderfully inclusive and balanced game should actually replace the real thing!
As for having less referees - I don't think that would be a problem. If 50% of current referees discovered that they could no longer keep up, I've no doubt that 50% of current players would have the same trouble. So we wouldn't need half the referees. Or half the pitches. Or half the clubs.
And if anyone thinks that the 50% is an overestimate chosen for effect (it was) then they should ask themselves what proportion they would be happy to lose. Or are they hoping to make the numbers up with lots more backrow size players? Would that be desirable even if it were likely?
This message edited on Mon, 31 March 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 31 March 08 10:29 GMT
|
In contrast to Steve J in Japan, whose views I respect in particular because of the work he has done over many years with naturally less imposing players, I believe that these ELVS will damage the game by militating against the physically larger player - whether it is the pear-shaped prop or the 6'10" second row. That said, ELVs regarding corner flags and defenders 5m back from scrums are only good.
In my view, as with League, the optimum body shape for most positions will become that of a back-row forward. As I see it, this removes one of rugby's most attractive facets - the fact that anyone of any shape can find a home in a team that suits his ability and skills.
Take the quick throw-in ELV. The ball can be thrown in either straight or backward. So the winger who chases the long kick that just dribbles into touch has a much tougher defensive task than at present. No longer can he stand at the line of touch confident that a quickie will not occur - he has to defend all the space behind the line of touch as well. If he moves off the line of touch, towards the potential recipient at full-back or fly half, the quickie can be taken straight behind him (even if they clarify that the chaser is not then offside by being beyond the line of touch). If he stays where he is, the 10 and 15 have a 2-on-1 with a lot of space to make it work. Why then hang around for a full, contested line-out to form? You'd be mad.
Consequently, specialist line-out jumpers become a waste of time. Much better to have another No.8 able to get around the park quicker, with a lower centre of gravity for the pick and drive. Over several seasons, the really big guys will be dropped from international sides as more back-rowers are drafted in. To deal with that much dynamism in the pack's loose work, #9's of Mike Phillips's size will oust the little tricksy guys at the higher level. The speed of the game and the lack of those little breathers that Steve J mentions (dead time) will militate against the bulkier props such as Wales's Joneses, who will be replaced by players of Neal Back's build, or perhaps Steve Thompson's - he was a very effective back-rower when not hooking.
I think this new game will be very disheartening for the less fit Community player from 1 to 15, and for top-level guys who are not shaped like back-rows. Speaking as a fit 47 year old, I am not at all sure that this sort of pace without the breathing spaces of the natural rhythm of the current game can be officiated by anyone not in the prime of life - i.e of playing age. Throw-ins will be taken quickly and ran, FKs will be taken quickly and ran. The ref has to be at the place where the ball was kicked, at the place where the throw-in was taken quickly, and then has to keep up with the blighters who are running into acres of space. Heart attack city - time to hang up the boots before the negative assessments start hitting the mat!
Many refs take up the whistle at a certain age, rather than take a return journey down the teams. Many go on to ref at a higher level than they were able to play. If they were no longer fit enough to play this fast new game, I imagine they could not effectively ref it either, as even now the ref has to be one of the fittest people on the park. Faced with a choice of playing a lower-level game or reffing one, many might choose to continue playing - except there may well not be a ref to enable him to do so. I predict people being lost to tjhe game in droves.
Overall, I view the ELVs as highly destructive. I am prepared to concede, though, that it would probably be a much more exciting sport to play and watch. Fortunately, I (like many older refs) will then have the luxury of watching it each week, as I certainly won't be reffing it.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
