[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 31 March 08 17:16 GMT
|
With apologies to regulars, who may look away now, I am going to repeat my solution re penalties.
Changing the relative points values is the wrong way to approach the problem. Restart play after a successful penalty kick at goal with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty.
Teams giving away a penalty under pressure do not relieve that pressure. They effectively buy the right to re-organise their defence by giving away 3 points.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 31 March 08 17:12 GMT
|
didds - trialling ELVs is a new concept. In the past, changes either became law immediately, or were labelled as ELVs for everybody to use. The scrum wheel turnover law is still technically an ELV, although nobody now treats it as such.
Some of the new ideas were trialled in the Cambridge Laws laboratory. The current set started life in Stellenbosch, moved via Scotland England and Australia to the S14. At each stage those concerned have reported back. So far I am only aware of one change being made - re corner posts.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 31 March 08 14:23 GMT
|
WRT : 4 & 4 I suspect that PKs are generally easier to "milk" than tries at the top end, and so the game would become "boring". Allegedly.
So that idea is a non-starter.
I am not saying the idea is per se incorrect though ;-)
didds
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 31 March 08 14:21 GMT
|
whether the elv's "work" or not is not really my concern to be honest.
What IS my coincern is how quickly the EXPERIMENTAL law VARIATIONS (my capitals) have become "Next year's new laws" with - I have to suggest - in effect very little trialling - at ALL levels of the game (or if they have been trialled at al levels of the game the full "results" are not clearly available). Changes rarely in my expereince go backwards (ruck uioli being the only one that springs to mind).
I try not to be a dinosaur; I just have a sneaking feeling that the ELVs were always intended to be introduced but just dressed up as ELVs to make the changes appear more palatable to those that would doubt them.
didds
This message edited on Mon, 31 March 08 by didds
|
|
|
stewie
|
Mon, 31 March 08 14:20 GMT
|
OMM,
perhaps 4 & 4 would be a better way of removing the unintended consequence?
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Mon, 31 March 08 12:09 GMT
|
Talking of ‘old rules’, I played my rugby in the days of the 3-point try. The more you upvalue the try (to 4 then 5) the more incentive there is to concede a penalty to prevent one – an example of unintended consequences.
I wonder if the try was devalued to, say, 4 points (and, perhaps, the conversion to 1) we might see more tries and fewer penalties.
|
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 31 March 08 07:45 GMT
|
ian/Highside
Being here in Japan, the only rugby I get on tv is S14, 6N and Japan Top League. Japan Top League is wild at times, and depending on how much sushi they had at lunch, we can get some real humdingers. The day I returned from England, the league semi final was 41-33. These games are played under the "old" rules in weather pretty much the same as in UK, and they are often very exciting.
Power aside, the Japanese high school teams probably play some of the most exciting rugby in the planet - under the "old" rules.
I saw all the 6N games (under the "old rules), and they were ho-hum at best. England were poor because it seemed to me that they had no reason to go for tries. As long as the oppo could be relied upon to concede a penalty within 3 or 4 kilometres, JW would kick the goal.
The ELV introduction in the S14 has removed a lot of the stoppages that have spoiled a lot of games in recent years.
I DO love a good forward battle, and the strength of the forwards is the key to good results, and I have coached enormous, overweight (for Japanese) kids, who have slimmed down from 126 kilos to 110, which meant that the fat on their thighs did not slap each time they ran. These guys never ran 60 metres down the wing to score, but by teaching them the best running courses, they did improve their overall contributions to the game. By giving them weight training programmes, they changed the (layers of) fat on the =ir bodies to muscle, and could to the power things for us. So, I am not an athletics coach with a mild interest in rugby.
In teams I coach and watch, I want the game to constantly excite me. I want to see how (my) forwards cope with sudden free kick situations when we have not made a special plan (I don't want to see a slew of kicking like the 2007 RWC), I want them to be skillful enough to play the ball out of a maul so we don't give it away. And I think the ELV's go some way to doing that.
I also think that if the Reading 5th's see what the pros are doing on tv, and in the stadium, they will try to emulate that. I do understand the physics, I have worked with it for 9 years here in Japan, and I think there is room for adjustments.
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Sun, 30 March 08 22:53 GMT
|
steve johnson
"Your comment about the largest most powerful men seems to suggest that the front 5's in South Africa and NZ are not that"
The ELVs have only just come in, so these players are probably still the size and shape they need to be for the 'proper' rules.
Look, weighlifters can't marathon. That is a fact.
You will get gifted individuals that are surprisingly fast or mobile for their size but for any prop in the world, from Reading's 5th XV to the Springboks, they are striking a compromise between outright power and endurance/mobility.
If you make it so they need a bit more endurance and mobility then they cannot carry quite as much muscle around. For the 5th team players, there will just be a whole swathe of fat boys who are not quite moble enough to want to play any more. For the internationals, many will adapt their training and chage shape but some of the types of guys who make it big in todays game will not be there in this Union Lite that is being pedalled.
You can fiddle with the laws of the game but you can't change the laws of physics.
|
|
|
ian davies
|
Sun, 30 March 08 20:06 GMT
|
Guys,I am sure that we all feel passionate about saving the game under its current laws.
Richard Glynne Jones has asked us under Community Forum
http://www.community-rugby.com/communityrugby/
index.cfm?fuseaction=Home.Story&StoryId=19108
for our views on how we believe the new ELV's will affect the Community Rugby game. Please register and make your contribution so that as Community Referees we give Richard the feedback he needs.
|
|
|
acmethunderer
|
Sun, 30 March 08 19:24 GMT
|
Ian, I agree with everything you have written. In my opinion, if these ELVs are brought in it will have serious detrimental effect on the game as it is played now. They may as well just go the whole hog and adopt League laws.
|
-------------------------
AT |
|
|
ian davies
|
Sat, 29 March 08 11:24 GMT
|
Steve in Japan,
I have been involved in rugby for past 40 years and last 7 have on the whole thoroughly enjoyed refereeing from L11 to L6 (London Div2). In the majority of matches I am able to manage the tackle area and the games flow. The end result is high scoring matches with both players and spectators enjoying the game.
I spend many Sunday afternoon's refereeing U19 rugby and often see the ball run from players 22 and little "stick it up your jumper".
Guinness Premiership attendance have risen 82% from 787,728 in 97/98 to 1,432,565. Rugby in NH is played across 8-9 months and often in attrocious conditions e.g. Bath vs Gloucester. However the fans and media reported what a fantastic match. It is reported that many GP clubs will require stadium's of 30 - 40,000. If I were a CEO of a GP I would be following the outcome of these ELV's very closely because the NH supporters of rugby might not like the proposed changes.
The IRB Playing Charter - Principles of the game state " The wide variation of skills and physical requirements needed for the game mean there is an opportunity for individuals of every shape, and size and ability to participate AT ALL LEVELS.
Principles of the Game under Contest and Continuity states " the contest for possession of the ball is one of rugby's key features. These contests occur throughout the game and in a number of different forms
* in contact
* in general play
* when play is re-started at scrums, line-outs and kick offs.
It concludes by stating "that all these areas of play must be fairly contested".
IMHO if some of these ELV's are adopted IRB will need to re-write the Principles of the Game.
I have only been able to find a couple of quotes from players on new ELV's but Brian Habana and Fourie Du Preez both disliked playing game with ELV's. Habana said it was to unstructured and like playing 7's with 15 players!
I have to deal with Change Management everyday at work and in life. I have learnt not to fight it but just try to have influence the final outcome.
Finally, Steve did you see the Bath vs Wasps or Saracens vs Ospreys matches? Now that is what I call proper rugby and entertainment.
This message edited on Sat, 29 March 08 by ian davies
|
|
|
zackly
|
Wed, 26 March 08 17:31 GMT
|
Stev-inJapan.
I assume you're talking about Showbiz games in the SH. What about standards of play etc in Community games in the Southern Hemi ?
This message edited on Fri, 28 March 08 by zackly
|
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 26 March 08 01:16 GMT
|
Highside UK
I am not saying the SH has got it right in all areas, but they have got a lot of it right. Your comment about the largest most powerful men seems to suggest that the front 5's in South Africa and NZ are not that. Look at the weights, they are huge, but they move around the paddock in athletic ways that many NH players simply cannot do. Watch the support play of Greg Sommerville (Crusaders) - these guys do get around. Ollie Leroux (spelling?) - who was not noted for his running in SA looks positively Linford Christie in Leinster colours!
BUT, I do agree the SH feeds into the scrum are a disgrace.
It might come across that I don't appreciate the NH game - I do, but there are a lot of things the SH players can do around the field that are far superior. Mulit-skilled rather than uni-skilled.
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
oldun
|
Thu, 20 March 08 21:30 GMT
|
Didds
-- Amen.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 20 March 08 13:04 GMT
|
>Apparently most elite teams don't
>contest for the ball, they concentrate
>on driving over. [at scrums]
Maybe they don't contest nbecause they know there's no point ie its a squint feed and no chance of a hook against the head?
Chicken and egg?
didds
This message edited on Thu, 20 March 08 by didds
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Thu, 20 March 08 08:55 GMT
|
" but we have to appreciate the progress made by the SH teams and organizations that have made the game more dynamic and fun for all to watch (and play). "
If I hear this one more time my head will explode.
Basketball is "more dynamic" than rubgy in that the ball never stops. League is "more dynamic" too. But it does NOT follow that this automatically makes them more fun to watch or (most importantly) to play.
How about this:
We have to appreciate the determination of the Northern Hemisphere teams and organisations (and some South Africans) to keep a place in rugby for the largest and most powerful men.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Thu, 20 March 08 06:58 GMT
|
>I do agree that the feed in scrums is bad, but is that not a refereeing decision?
At elite levels I'm told it's pretty much irrelevant much of the time. Apparently most elite teams don't contest for the ball, they concentrate on driving over.
>I personally don't think that the game will go "down the league route"
But these changes *are* "down the league route".
>but we have to appreciate the progress made by the SH teams and organizations that have made the game more dynamic and fun for all to watch (and play).
Except that I don't agree they have done that. I don't see the lack of line outs as an improvement, I don't see cheats getting away with so much in the breakdown that teams don't appear to compete there any more.
What's wrong with the laws the way they are?
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 20 March 08 02:56 GMT
|
Ian
Some of the ELV's have been in place in some "local rules" events in school and junior tournaments in Australia for several years now, for just the reasons you state, more running, etc. There was one rule where to discourage kicking for touch under any circumstances, the line out was taken at the point of kick, if it was in goal, then the attacking team had a 5 metre line out. But the 5 metre back from scrum rule was definitely good.
I do agree that the feed in scrums is bad, but is that not a refereeing decision? I personally don't think that the game will go "down the league route", but we have to appreciate the progress made by the SH teams and organizations that have made the game more dynamic and fun for all to watch (and play).
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
ian davies
|
Tue, 18 March 08 15:02 GMT
|
Steve in Japan,
We were watching Waratahs vs Hurricanes. I like the scrum 5 metre law which clearly creates space but laughed at the crocked feed by scrum-half (literally in second row)! It was noticeable that there were far fewer lineouts.
I can see where the ELV will have an impact but I predict the game going down the slippery slope towards a hybrid of rugby league.
We will end up with a pack consisting mainly of backrow forwards and little call for the strong scrummaging forwards e.g. England front row versus Australia Sheridan, Vickery etc.
I really enjoy watching the current contrasting styles between SH & NH played in contrasting weather conditions. The current laws enable the likes of Shane Williams and Bryan Habana to exhibit their wonderful skills but I also enjoy seeing the skills of the tight 5 and one scrum driving the opposition off their own ball e.g. Wales vs France.
I am however not a supporter of the continuous ruck and maul game and can understand why Super 14 appeals to many rugby fans.
After 2 week free Sky offer I decided not to take out Sky Sport subscription but to buy 2 tickets to Heineken Cup Final.
I hope that it is not the last under the current laws and I understand why the Australians want the ELV's implemented by 1st Sept 2008.
This message edited on Tue, 18 March 08 by ian davies
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Mon, 17 March 08 09:34 GMT
|
>I watched all the 6N, and watch most of the S14, and hand on heart, for speed, athleticism and sheer ball skills, the 6N is definitely in 2nd place.
If their playing style is superior, that should show in every international competition.
It shouldn't be necessary to change the laws to give them an extra edge, should it?
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
steve johnson
- sehjohnson@hotmail.com
|
Mon, 17 March 08 07:38 GMT
|
Sorry, I know this is a referee's forum, but I wonder which Super 14 game you watched. The recent Crusaders - Western Force game should be mandatory viewing for all ambitious NH youngsters, such was the skill, commitment and overall rugby spirit. I watched all the 6N, and watch most of the S14, and hand on heart, for speed, athleticism and sheer ball skills, the 6N is definitely in 2nd place.
|
-------------------------
SteveJinJapan |
|
|
MichaelPole
|
Sun, 16 March 08 23:01 GMT
|
<I always thought a ruck involved two sets of players>
There is an IRB ruling on this one:
RULING 3: 2007
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
1 October 2007
The GRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 16.6 Successful end to a ruck
1. A ruck is formed and the ball is playable for Team A. All players in Team B now leave the ruck and step back. Is there still a ruck or has the ruck ended?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question
raised:
- A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball enters in goal ie. on or over the goal line.
- A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable.
- As there has been a ruck formed initially, AND the criteria for a successful or unsuccessful ruck have not been exhibited, then the ruck has not ended.
This message edited on Sun, 16 March 08 by MichaelPole
|
|
|
ballsie
|
Sun, 16 March 08 22:31 GMT
|
Ian I think you are biting chomp chomp, but I always thought a ruck involved two sets of players. I hear what you are saying but the fact remains I dont think any one is questioning what the ref sees its more like it is what he calls what he sees.
regards
|
-------------------------
Ballsie |
|
|
ian davies
|
Sat, 15 March 08 21:42 GMT
|
Bill,
Bang goes the game if we move to the new ELV but in the current game when a referee deems that two players are contesting over the ball on the ground then that is a ruck.
At the end of the day the referee will call what he sees in front of him. Players ask me (Level 6) how long do we have? I tell them until the ruck is formed.
We are up in the stands/ sat in our armchairs but the referee has the best position and is the soul judge of fact!!!
My 14 year old called me to watch our first Super 14 match and he said come and watch this strange game. I said son that is Rugby League!!
This message edited on Sat, 15 March 08 by ian davies
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sat, 15 March 08 20:50 GMT
|
Because refs have colluded in the end of the ruck. The slide in all parts of the game towards showbiz rucks is unstoppable.
Frankly I'm disgusted. Its not Wales' fault for the love of all that is holy.
Who decided pro rugby could play to different unwritten laws?
Bang goes the game.
This message edited on Sat, 15 March 08 by ealing bill
|
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
