[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 31 March 08 07:20 GMT
|
pauldg and others;
In 2001, I went to Australia, and during my stay, I watched Barry Honan's international invitation youth rugby tournament, for (mainly) schools from all over the world. That year, there was a youth team from Derby/Lincs., I think there was a Millfield team, and teams from - well all over the world - played.
Barry's special tournament rules included defence 5 metres back from the scrum, no direct kicking into touch - except from a penalty, and one or two others I cannot remember. I have to say the day was filled with exciting rugby played by players of all sizes. There were specialist forwards, and they did what they always do - very well. 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.
What I think the ELV's have done is reduced the amount of "dead time." By that I mean things like the interminable walk to the line out. Free kicks instead of penalties have made players think more about what they are going to do with the ball - I don't think they have it quite figured yet - and the huge reduction in penalties has removed the interminable one minute pause for kicks at goals.
The stonger S14 teams continue to be strong, and the weaker ones still struggle, so the new laws have not changed the equation. Like so many other innovations, we will have to learn how to adjust to the new laws, and learn how to use them. The last upheaval I recall was when the maul law was changed way back when, and remember how the moaners said the game will be ruined - it wasn't. In the same way, these rules will make us re-think the game, and that is never bad.
If it ain't broke don't fix it - the RWC kickathon showed very well that the game needs a bit of a tweak, and this might be it.....
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
pauldg
|
Sun, 30 March 08 22:47 GMT
|
Corner posts, no problem.
And I like the no limit on numbers in the line out - gives me one less thing to worry about counting.
I liked the sound of the no gain if the ball is taken into the 22 but I'm not impressed about the effect it's had on the super 14.
As for the breakdown, that just seems to be a cheat's charter in Super 14 now with players killing the ball and no one even bothering to contest any more, just line up and wait for the free kick - just like league.
And I've no idea how I'm supposed to work out if a back line is 5m back from a moving scrum without the aid of assistant referees - at the match I did yesterday I only had one (unqualified) touch judge though that was one more than I had the previous match.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 06 March 08 00:23 GMT
|
Although it was originally proposed that the corner flags should be moved out in line with the other posts, the current ELV leaves them in place and simply says that they do not count as being in in-goal. You can touch a corner post with impunity.
I think that gives us the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
nuref
|
Wed, 05 March 08 15:09 GMT
|
Caroletj, I would have to disagree. In my experience, flags are almost invariably put out on the day of the match - having them in line with the 22m and central flag would impose no additional burden on anyone.
As to them being beneficial to the ref, they absolutely are not, and cause no end of difficulty. The rationale for moving them is that they and they alone in a well-run club can cause a player to be in touch while his feet remain in play. A touch judge, working in conjunction with the ref, manages to determine whether or not a player carrying the ball is in touch for the better part of 100m. I suggest they would have no difficulty in doing so for the few centimetres where the post used to be, and unlike now, no-one will have to worry about the vertical plane of touch - the only thing that matters is whether a part of the ball carrier's body touched the line or the ground beyond the line.
|
-------------------------
Improving every game |
|
|
caroletj
|
Wed, 05 March 08 13:53 GMT
|
At grassroots level the corner flags provide a very welcome aid to referees who operate without the benefit of touch judges let alone television match officials. Thousands of rugby club volunteer groundsstaff would be required to move the flags a couple of inches and remove this vital assistance for amateur referees. This seems to be placing a burden on the majority (who give their time for free) without there being a benefit for the vast majority of matches.
Where the IRB believe that this change benefits a television audience, and the television match officials, the competiion rules (Super 14, Six Nations etc) should provide the variation. The Laws of the Game should be for the majority and allow for this specific variation for televised competitions with IRB authorisation (with administration of the application delegated to national unions)
|
|
|
p.g.t
|
Tue, 04 March 08 15:45 GMT
|
More in response to the original question I guess....my main concern is around the use of free kicks in place of penalties and how this is going to be managed. As a referee (and spectator), I find that a large proportion of infringements are around the tackle, ruck and maul and the awarding of a penalty helps keep some check on proceedings. Changing to free kicks can only IMHO lead to more infringements as the consequences are less; however, with repeated infringements, presumably at some point a penalty is awarded - but after 3, 4, 5 or more infingements by one side (numbers easily attained even with the current laws)? Do we then continue with penalties for each subsequent infringement? And how do we make sure that each ref is consistent? I can easily invisage that after the first 20/25mins we end up with a game much as it is at the moment - i.e. full penalties replacing the free kicks.
|
-------------------------
Tipsy |
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 04 March 08 15:19 GMT
|
MarCw8#$Rq, you seem to equate UK with N. Hemisphere. The French have traditionally played with elan and verve, and the Irish have had one of the world's most exciting back lines for the last five years - and haven't been afraid to use it. But they also recognised that it would be useless unless the likes of Paul O'Connell could get them decent ball -so they also built a powerful and tall pack capable of delivering that ball. The LoTG did nothing to prevent them playing exciting rugby - they just forgot to do it in the RWC. The Italians cannot yet match international standards of back play, but the ability to play a power game means they can compete at international level.
The message of the RWC is that silky smooth backs play can be overcome by tight power play. The antipodean sides are not set up to match a power game - so are trying to tip the balance in their favour through the ELVs. OK, in a few years the UK sides will compensate and will be able to compete in the new game of almost-rugby-league (assuming anyone is still watching: RL is available in the UK, but Harlequins pull in 3,500 for superleague games, while their Union counterparts attract 10,000+ to the same ground. Try telling the Gloucester Shed that power play is dull). But this really pulls the rug out from under the developing nations, who typically apply power before grace at international level. Under the ELVs, there is only one way to play. At present, there are several, depending on the strengths of your squad. The ELVs will inevitably homogenise the game, and reduce the benefit of power players. Even as a natural 3/4, I view this as retrograde.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 04 March 08 14:18 GMT
|
"Yes why would you want to have the ball in play more often"
Why indeed? Is your attention span so brief that a 1 minute break while the fat boys catch their breath means you are off to watch the basketball? Or is it that you do not consider the ball to be in play when it is in rucks/scrums/mauls?
One of the aims of the ELVs was to clarify the rules to make the referees decisions less of a lottery and remove rules that were complicated but pointless (numbers in the lineout for example). I am all for this.
The Australians seem to have turned the whole argument into making the game faster and keeping the ball moving. I am against this, and this is why...
Sports vary form the 100% endurance to 100%power. Marathon running to Weighlifting would be two extremes.
Sevens is heavily endurance based.
Rugby League is in the middle.
Union 15s is more towards the power end - especialy for the tight 5 in the pack.
If you insist on doing away with the rests and the phases of play that require the really powerful men then the game will change and so will the people who play it. I love the inclusiveness of Union - it doesn't matter what shape you are we can find a place for you. I love the spectacle this generates - little blokes, big blokes, wide and tall all occasionally mis-matched in broken play or locking horns with their opposite strongest/tallest/fastest/trickiest man.
Let the Australians watch League if they want to.
They ask "don't you want Union to be faster with the ball in play for longer?" and when you spin it like that it is hard to see the problem. But the human body being what it is, for a given amount of training, the only way you can get more endurance is to sacrifice some power. However powerful and fit your prop Mr. X is, if you make it so he has to concentrate on endurance more, he cannot afford to carry the weight and so must lose some power (you cannae change the laws of physics). Weightlifters cannot marathon.
So what they are really asking is "Do you want Union to be a game where there is no place for the most powerful men?".
Oh. That's what the Australians are up to is it?
This message edited on Tue, 04 March 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
MarCw8#$Rq
|
Tue, 04 March 08 13:21 GMT
|
Yes why would you want to have the ball in play more often? Why would you want to have more catching passing running and attacking. The S14 shows there is minimal effect on scrums and lineouts and more ball in play so higher skill levels required and fitness. Blow that tuck the ball up the jumper and keep it the way it is.
English rugby showed how exciting it can be in the RWC and isn't that what the games all about....playing the most depressing style of rugby possible. If thats where rugby's at here in the UK and from what I can see it is....what a shame. I know it would be a huge shock to the players and refs if we had to increase the pace of the game but so be it. I've been a player and a coach the last 36 years and for me it is exciting unfortunately the NH is scared of anything involving improvement.
|
|
|
tenbeers
|
Wed, 27 February 08 13:34 GMT
|
Initial impressions.
I glad that the RFU feels the need to take a long, hard look at what they're doing at community level with respect to these ELVes.
Are the laws there to serve the spectators of elite rugby in order to finance elite rugby, or are they there for the benefit of ALL the players of the game?
In 25 years of playing, I've never heard anyone complain on the pitch that the game isn't "fluid" or "entertaining" enough.
Spoecifically, the new laws around the ruck appear to be a 'cheats charter' with the referee having much more influence on the outcome of a match.
Reduced numbers of lineouts, reduced mauling, and increased emphasis on stamina over power will see evolution of a standardised body shape in the pack at anything below elite level.
As OB satates, certain ELVs seem ok, whereas others such as passing into the 22 have had the opposite effect to the one desired.
|
-------------------------
Some brains, Some windup, Some bull**** - I'll leave you to decide |
|
|
dom
|
Wed, 27 February 08 13:08 GMT
|
I'm not convinced they have made the game better. They have certainly made it different.
Some of them - scrum 5m rule/corner flags/pre-gripping are fine.
It's the tackle laws and the free-kicks that are concerning. It doesn't penalise the infringement sufficiently.
Also the no passing back into the 22 and kicking direct for touch is resulting in alot of kicking from hand in an attempt to get the ball to be fielded just outside the 22 and relying on a good chase....firstly we don't want more kicking and secondly that sounds an awful lot like rugby league to me.
This message edited on Wed, 27 February 08 by dom
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 27 February 08 12:23 GMT
|
An incident in the Brumbies v Highlanders game illustrated my concern over the offside line at a tackle.
Vainikolo made a 50m break and was tackled by the last defender. This put all the other defenders offside. The ball came out backwards and sideways, but under the Law 11.8 ELV the defenders were still offside. Two of them overshot the ball but turned to fall on it. Since they had not quite retreated to the tackle offside line they were correctly penalised.
This ELV seems to give far too big an advantage to the attackers in this sort of situation.
It also affects the blitz defence, where the outside defenders rush up faster than the inside defenders. If an inside defender makes a tackle, the others are offside and must retreat. If the ball is offloaded fast from the tackle, it can, initially at least, be passed with impunity.
This clearly reduces the effectiveness of the defence.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 27 February 08 12:02 GMT
|
A straw poll on Planet-Rugby has produced the following results so far for the question "Do you approve?"(the counts are No/Unsure/Yes)
11 5 3 1. Full penalty kick only for foul play and offside
7 9 3 2. Offside line at tackle
13 3 3 3. Ball unplayable - FK, not scrum
10 7 2 4. Putting ball into 22 restricts kicking to touch
0 0 19 5. Quick throw-in can be backwards
0 6 13 6. Receiver 2m from lineout
0 4 15 7. Pre-gripping allowed
0 5 14 8. Scrum offside line 5m back
2 0 17 9. Touching corner post irrelevant
As most people said, these are only initial impressions, but already it is clear that some are very welcome. It is also clear that generic answers to "Do you like the ELVs?" will be unhelpful.
This message edited on Wed, 27 February 08 by ob
|
|
|
milligani
- iandmilligan@btinternet.com
|
Wed, 27 February 08 11:52 GMT
|
Having watched the Super 14s to see what the ELVs affects are I have to say IMHO they are devolving the game and adding little or nothing to it. It seems that the game is more 7s with 15 players on the pitch. Should these ELVs come in at community level there are numerous things to consider, firstly the pace of the game will be much quicker with fewer opportunities for the stop / start the current LoTG afford players. Therefore the main focus would be on fitness levels before you get into the tactics of killing the ball will only get a free kick etc and the implications of this. Obviously this is just a starting comment and I'm sure those on here will offer more detailed responses than mine.
spike
|
-------------------------
Spike |
|
|
garethlewis
|
Wed, 27 February 08 10:13 GMT
|
Please use this forum to comment only on the ELVs currently being trialled in the Southern Hemisphere. We are interested in the implications for the game from a playing, refereeing and coaching perspective and, in particular, how implementation of the ELVs might impact on the Community Game.
Richard Glynne-Jones
RFU Referee Manager
|
|
|
[
FIRST
|
PREVIOUS
]
|
|
|
