Beware. At first, the wolf howled out in the woods. It was disturbing, but in
the distance. Now, suddenly, the wolf is at the door. It is always a bad
time when rugby is menaced by a host of new laws, because whenever the game
tries to force the pace of law changes it grievously wounds itself. And
there is even more danger whenever new laws are espoused by the southern
hemisphere countries to chase what is seen down there as “entertainment”.
The Experimental Law Variations (ELVs), containing a batch of howlers, were
drummed up by a body called the Laws Project Group (LPG), set up by the
International Rugby Board (IRB), and they are totally unrepresentative of
major sections of the sport. The ELVs have been trialled, in a variety of
amateur and semi-professional events, many irrelevant to their use to the
pro game at large; and most, though not all, are operating in the Super 14
with mixed results, not that the IRB admit that.
As recently as March 27, the IRB issued a leisurely timetable of assessment,
more trials and eventually, voting on which of the ELVs, if any, to adopt.
But suddenly, some on the IRB are trying to shove them down the throat of
rugby in Europe, in totality; so that including the outlandish, the untried
and the merely controversial, they would be brought in at all levels of the
game in Europe on August 1 2008, initially for a trial period of one whole
season. Appallingly, they will then be the status quo.
The full IRB council will vote on this imposition on May 1. Alarmingly, the
most radical experiment, allowing handling in the ruck, has never been
trialled in a serious professional competition. Other measures, which
dramatically reduce the number of penalty offences in favour of free kicks,
are seen here as a cheat’s charter. People throughout British and Irish
rugby see it as a hijack, putting in jeopardy the growing power and
commercial success of the professional game here.
Why the sudden panic? Because the IRB realised that with the current time
frame, given the completion of trials and reporting back and voting, the
ELVs could only become law too close to the next World Cup, risking ruining
the game on the eve of its showpiece.
The implication is obvious — the World Cup of 2011 will be protected, but
season 2008-09 in Europe can, if the ELVs prove disastrous, be a sacrificial
lamb, and with it the 2009 Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Guinness Premiership,
Magners League and Lions tour. And mini rugby.
The squeeze is on. The IRB is working with heavy handedness. At a recent
meeting in which European officials were briefed, Syd Millar, the former IRB
chairman and a man who once railed against forcing law changes, was brought
back from retirement to address the delegates. “It seemed to us,” said one
senior union official, “that Syd was there to bully us. But what was he
going to do? Hit us?”
Paddy O’Brien, a member of the LPG and the IRB’s referee manager, denies the
widespread belief held here that too many careers are on the line, after too
many years of LPG efforts, for the whole thing to pass without a raft of
changes being passed. “If the laws don’t work, they will be discarded,”
O’Brien says. Others are not so sure.
The hitherto silent majority in Europe is riled. As we reveal today, a recent
meeting of the 12 coaches in the Guinness Premiership was against the ELVs
in principle and in detail. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) and Welsh and
Irish unions are also standing firm. In contrast to the eager semi-hysteria
of the pro-ELV lobby, notably from Kiwi Super 14 coaches, the three unions
have acted with care and they have been constructive.
For example, the RFU, while uneasy at the idea of a raft of laws appearing at
once, have produced an excellent draft document which, we understand,
accepts some of the ELVs while rejecting others, especially those which
appear to allow a cheat’s charter. “We are concerned,” says Francis Baron,
chief executive of the RFU. Roger Lewis, of the Welsh Rugby Union, says: “We
are of the view that it is not in the interests of the game that these laws
are introduced en masse at the start of next season.”
Owen Doyle, of the Irish Rugby Football Union, has produced a report on the
ELVs and has severe reservations. “We do not believe awarding free kicks for
just about every offence is the way to go. If the tackle area is refereed
properly under the existing laws, the balance between attack and defence is
about right.” Meanwhile Serge Blanco, director of the Top 14 French clubs,
demanded a meeting with his own federation over inaccurate claims that the
French professional game backed the ELVs.
Baron raises another salient point not discussed by any proponent of the ELVs.
They must apply, and be effective and sympathetic, to rugby at every level.
“In our community game, we have thousands of players who would have to adapt
to these in an incredibly short time.” As Baron points out, the pressure on
volunteer referees, coaches, officials, teachers, children and parents would
be ludicrous. There, rugby is not a branch of the entertainment industry. It
is to entertain nobody bar the individuals who play it for fun.
LET US now deal with the three Great Lies of the ELVs. First, there is the
contention that the game is struggling. It is not and the IRB know it. In
most areas it is booming. The second lie, adopted fiercely by Super 14
coaches, is that the ELVs were intended to speed up the game, to increase
the time the ball is in play and the number of tries. It is a lie in itself
that any of these matters necessarily contribute to better rugby but in any
case, they were not created for that purpose. When I was introduced to the
ELV concept by O’Brien more than a year ago, he never mentioned any concept
of entertainment. “That is all a by-product of the original intention,”
O’Brien told me last week. “The intention was to remove refereeing
subjectivity from the game.” O’Brien holds that in too many situations, the
referee, depending on his individual whim, can make a galaxy of different
decisions and affect too many games.
As O’Brien accepts, many people, including Ian McGeechan and Doyle, believe
that the answer is to improve refereeing. He also agreed with my contention
that there will always be subjectivity in refereeing, such as in the
application of the advantage law. There is extra subjectivity in the ELVs,
which reduce the number of full penalty offences but retain the individual
ability of the referee to award full penalties for persistent or deliberate
infringement — a purely subjective call. Yet O’Brien insists that all the
ELVs be trialled and that all have been successful.
And the biggest lie of all? Supporters of the ELVs point out that the
experiments do not diminish rugby’s sacred contest for possession, power and
scrummaging. They have produced rows of statistics which indicate there are
as many scrums under the ELVs as there are in real rugby. Apparently, some
ELV matches have a whopping 11 scrums, instead of a previous 10.
So what? The ELVs will de-power the scrum and the game. Because they speed up
the game artificially, because they put a premium on instant movement,
coaches will soon wish to recruit smaller, running props and locks to take
part in this sickly, running fiesta. Scrums will take place between smaller,
faster and less powerful men, and the scrum will become a means of
restarting the game, a betrayal.
Even John O’Neill, chief executive of the Australian Rugby Union, admits: “I
think you will find the second row changing. There will still be one big
player, someone like a Dan Vickerman. The other lock might be a different
shape.”
You have heard all this before. How absurdly similar are the outpourings of
ELV support at present from those in New Zealand and Australia when they
made the Super 12 a weedy nothing, enslaved to ball-in-play time and smaller
forwards. Australia caught on to their own errors too late, as shown in the
2007 World Cup with their humiliation in Marseilles at the hands of the
England pack. Now they want to go down the same track.
I put it to O’Neill recently that the best way to launch Australia’s brilliant
backs, however, is still to give them quality ball from powerful forwards,
that they have not had for so long. O’Neill, for whom I have huge respect,
rejects the notion that he is trying to make union more like league since he
is in the only nation on earth where league is a serious competitor; he also
says that in Europe, with its tribalism, winning is almost everything but in
Australia, “people tend to go out to watch different sports and want to be
entertained”. I respect that view, John. Matt Giteau and company can
entertain brilliantly, if you give them the ball. Rugby needs better
reffing. It does not need artificiality.
WHILE I distrust many of the individual ELVs, it is the idea that a raft of
new laws can be imposed at one time that is anathema. It ignores rugby
history and bitter experience. I also dismiss the notion that the only good
rugby is fast rugby, since a series of 5m scrums is for many the galvanic
play. The idea that rows of statistics can prove great rugby is cobblers. I
also dislike the IRB’s stridency when they should be even-handed, and not
preposterously risking a whole season.
But none of this is my main anxiety. An unrepresentative bunch of 12 people
reckon they have identified some problems and may have come up with the
solutions. But if the IRB had put together another 12 people to form the
LPG, they would have come up with different problems and different ELVs.
That is the sheer, dangerous, rampaging randomness of the whole thing. They
must be stopped.
Thirty years spent in refereeing and coaching the game at schools level give me major concerns over the changed law at the maul. If the law is introduced at every level,the potential for injury amongst younger players, lacking the skills and physical presence to cope with the collapse is too great.
JohnHunt, Cheltenham, UK
I have seen the laws used in the APC and now the Super 14. The rules don't simplify the game - the subjectivity at the break-down is still rife - so no point in having them.
The one ELV I really like is the 5m at the scrum rule. Rewards teams with a strong scrum and enterprising back-play.
Mark, Mosman, Australia
I belong to a county referee society where we all work very hard to maintain a high standard and ensure the Laws are applied fairly and accurately.
Most comments raised are against the new Laws from my own point of view I don’t think they will benefit rugby or make the game better in anyway,
Tony Hilbourne, Castleford, UK
Having watched S14 this year, I strongly agree that some new laws, particularly at the breakdown, have added nothing to the game.
The law that has had the most positive impact on the game is the 5m rule and any assertion that scrums have been depowered is total rubbish. Just watch any Sharks game.
chris, Sydney,
WHY WHY WHY is the game wasted with forwards ???
Lets go back to Bath Vs Glos. Crap conditions etc...BELTER OF A GAME.(and I'm a Glos fan)
Personally I'd rather see 30 chaps beating the crap out of each other than a couple of speedsters running round each other.
Lets not turn Rugby Union into Rugby League!!! PLEASE< PLEASE
Neil Hodge, Eastbourne,
Jonesey,
My gut feeling is to agree fairly wholeheartedly with your article. However, within the batch of law changes, there will probably be as many postitives as howlers. I would love to see some sort of empirical and anecdotal analysis of the law changes, particularly what each change was trying to achieve and what the actual results in the trials have been.
John, London, England
To Kieran and James
Typical example of a minority of people who no matter how many times their teams are beaten still believe themselves to be somehow so superior and come out with a load of hysterical insulting and some irrelevant little statistic. World cups in the professional area only count now is it Kieran? OK lets dig further and say that every time NZ and England have actually met in the world cup the score is NZ 3 - England 0. Also the worn out stealing Islanders accusation is untrue as they are mainly born in NZ or lived there since a young age
James claims rugby is far superior in the north simply because it has more money. The North may well have more money as it has a greater population and private ownership of some clubs but So what! Who cares! Why do we have to have a silly North v South argument for anyway? I enjoy rugby from all over the world. Oh but its so unfair James you invented sport but everyone else around the world beats you at it.
Gareth Williams, Powys,
I 100% agree with SJ's comments. Rugby is just fine as it is & who says that the spectators are bored? Has anyone actually done a survey of people who actually attend rugby matches & I don't mean just internationals..... The beauty of Union is in the overall context of the game including all aspects of forward play. The problem with the IRB is that they have got a bee in their bonnet over this issue & it is blinding them to what players & supporters out there want, which is for them to leave well alone!!! Any change should be gradual, well thought out & trialled exhaustively before being implemented, which is not the case with the ELV's. Someone stop this madness please!!!
Jeremy
Sri Lanka
Jeremy Peter, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Kieran, Scarborough
Give up with this "you steal all your best players from the Pacific Islands". Pretty much just entirely not true. R. McCaw? D. Carter? C. Hayman?
And that fun game where you buy all the SH players. Gonna ruin your game faster than ours sorry, we have this little thing called player depth
Tim, Christchurch/Harare,
SJ is right and wrong. The ELV's have indeed provided a "cheaters charter" with teams more than prepared to conceed free kick after free kick to slow momentum. As for the comment on the devaluing of the scrum - if anything the new laws on 5m offside lines have emphasised scrums as an attacking phase. Even Australian teams are chosing to use them....... In true newsprint style though, SJ makes the comment that the kiwi S14 coaches make up of the semi-hysteria pro-lobby yet names no one. The ones I have heard speak have been less than flattering in their assessment.
RobP, Auckland,
Just adopt the Rugby League rule book, and then lets challenge football for the TV dosh.
albert, st helens, merseyside
Mark Powell - spare a thought then for the Tri Nations sides who will have to revert back to the existing laws for test matches against NH sides straight after the conclusion of the S14, played under the ELVs.
DT, London,
TIM NZ - Professional era World Cup victories:
England 1 - NZ 0
And all your good players are stolen from the pacific island. Furthermore all you white kiwis are nothing more than european invaders stealing land from the maouris, so perhaps you should get back to losing in the semis eh?
HAHAHHA foolish Kiwis
Kieran, Scarborough, England
Tim from wellington, yes the southern hemisphere have won more world cups, but northern hemisphere union teams are far superior. Every year more and more chaps come north to play rugby, because the money is better, because the teams have more money, because the games are more enjoyable (bigger crowds etc). This years super 14 has been awful, while the guiness premiership has seen some excellant play.
The northern hemisphere should ignore the IRB and go its own way, keeping the rules as they are. The slow heamorrage of the southern hemisphere teams will continue, with the player coming north to play. Eventually the ELV happy IRB will die off and the North can start again. Its our sport anyway, we invented it, shouldn't let a bunch of crims and sheep happy kiwis ruinthe most majestic game in the world. This is exactly what happens when you let a back make a decision.
James, cambridge,
I can't be bothered giving my own two cents on this because there are so many stupid opinions out there. But in response to 'Basil's' theory that NZ is supporting Australia with ELVs because they voted for us to have the 2011 world cup, are you joking? Aus voted for Japan to get the hosting rights, causing a rift in NZ-Aus rugby relations. Your theory just shows how out of touch many rugby fans are, who then put their opinions out there without a moments thought. Btw, they are the IRB's ELVs, not NZ or Aus, so don't pin them on us! Small fact for all you Northern Hemisphere 10 man rugby lovers- Southern Hemisphere world cups=5, Northern Hemisphere world cups=1. Yes, our rugby really is 5X better than yours.
Tim, Wellington, NZ
With all the suggested changes, the most obvious has been missed. Anyone in front of the ball should be offside, end of story. Free contest for the ball and no more blockers, if backs can be penalised for "accidentally" running in front,why should 4 forwards in front of the ball get away with it?
That is the only change in law required.
John Brown, AYR, Scotland
The worrying thing is that the RFU have led the objections to the introduction of ELV's in their entirity. However it is now clear that under pressure, from the IRB at the 1st May meeting, they will cave in. If this happens the ELVs will be in force from the start of the season.
This means coaches, players and referees will have no proper time to prepare themselves for their adoption. The crouch-touch-pause-engage sequence of scrum engagement took 2 months for RFU and IRB to prepare teaching material and distribute to to all organisations. How long is it going to take for this raft of changes - till Christmas ?
Mark Powell, Isleworth,
As an Australian and Super 14 follower I am enjoying what the ELV's are providing. On some of the comments:
Scrum - from the games I am watching and attending the scrum is far from diminished. Strong scrummaging sides are taking advantage of the optional scrum and the addtional space in midfield. I agree Aus scrummaging has been in trouble for 5-6 years but these new laws in no way protect you from that aspect of the game. If you sense that the opposition is weak in this area you can hammer them all day with optional scrums from short arm penalties.
No passing back into the 22 - does lead to some ugly, forcings back style moments but does challenge sides to give up possession or back their counter attacking skills.
Lineout - remains a crucial part of the game. Tall timber will not be runout of the game under the new laws. Not only in the lineout but also bigger, strong scrummaging second rowers remain very valuable.
Brad Morisset, Sydney, Australia
Thre daftest thing about the ELVs is the way they have been introduced on a piecemeal basis, without full support worldwide, which has guaranteed a mess.
But I don't think that Stephen's rather blinkered views on all things emerging from the southern hemisphere should disguise the fact that some new laws have been a great success.
The new 5 metre off-side line at the scrum has given more space in midfield to the attacking side, which has provided more scope for creativity off first phase ball. Secondly the restrictions on kicking for touch from a pass-back into the 22 is a valid move to encourage more imaginative use of the ball by the defending side.
On scrums, from what I've seen of the Super 14 games, there has been no evidence of deterioration in their impact. In fact a lot of teams have opted for scrums instead of free-kicks to maximise the space available.
So let's have a sense of proportion on this, take what has worked and discard what hasn't.
David Smale, Cheshire,
This time SJ you are spot on. The game is fine. The law changes, especially in the name of so-called entertainment, are too much too soon.
NICKO, Singapore,
Whoa, let's get this all into perspective. If you actually read it (how many commenting here have?), it is not all bad. The problem is that the bad parts really are worrying (IMHO).
The good bits include:
kicking from inside the 22, akin to Football's back pass rule? The line out rules seem sensible too as does cutting down drastically on penalties and instead using free kicks.
A lot of the ELV points just re-emphasis current rules
The bad:
Giving unplayable ball at the breakdown (both ruck & mau) to the defending side, via a free kick- This is madness and will encourage teams to find ways of making sure the ball becomes unplayable (this'll get dangerous).
Allowing truck and trailer and also allowing pulling dow nof the maul. Truck and trailer means we will end up with teams trying to block NFL style and march the ball down the pitch.
The scrum is only depowered as the straight put in rule is not re-emphasised and game more likely to start with free kicks the nscrums now.
Russell Wright, Benfleet, England
Being an ardent follower of both the Premiership and Super 14 I have to say I think the ELVs attempt to speed up the game are basically valid. I have sat watching games of rugby so many times with non rugby people being disappointed when an exciting running move ends in a penalty, up steps JW and 3 points and repeat to end given England’s style at present. Surely we have all been more excited when from a penalty the team has opted to kick to touch, take a quick tap or a scrum; something other than another penalty kick. I personally am quite bored of watching teams deciding they can’t win through tries so attempting penalties from 50m+ out. Attacking rugby has to be promoted more than a go for the penalty kick attitude.
I also don’t buy into the devaluing scrums argument either, from the many super 14 games I have watched this season scrums are often taken in favour of a quick tap, other times the game may go from end to end with a series of free kicks much more interesting to watch.
Graham, Bedford,
To Mike Llanelli
If Rugby in the north is so much based around tribalism then why don't we use our tribesman from our club areas instead of importing so many from down South?
Gareth Williams, Powys,
leicester vs ospreys at the weekend was an interesting case in point: leicester decided to scrum 5m from the ospreys line. 7mins later with god knows how many resets and a penalty (for again god knows what) brought the "attack" to nought. nearly 10% of the game wasted with 12 players totally uninvolved. to be honest the more the ball can be kept away from useless forwards the better!
guy morris, bristol,
The 2007 final was the most boring in RWC history. No tries were scored. It was a farce.
How can you defend that?
Phil, London,
Recently Mr Jones wrote he knew nobody in the North who had a problem with the current game.
I would like to quote Jacques Rogge president of the Olympics who represented Belgium in rugby. He was critical about the "quality of play"at the world cup and told the BBC "I am passionate about rugby but I think the game has to evolve to keep its appeal. Defence has taken precedence over attack"
"At the Rugby World Cup play went from one maul, to another maul, to another maul, waiting for a penalty to be blown"
This points to what a lot of people are unhappy about being too many games being won by dodgy penalties. Some teams just play for penalties and do their best to con the ref especially in the scrum. Talk about a "cheats charter".
With more free kicks the ELVs are trying to avoid this, those who persistently give away a free kick can be yellow carded.
I'm not entirely in favour of the new rules but they can be changed so that teams play to score tries and not win penalties
Gareth Williams, Powys,
Rugby is a brilliant game. Wheather you are from the top or bottom of what we call earth. I am not against a rules change per say, but a rules change to promote a specific style of play is not on. Each country brings its own style and flavour to the game, providing a much more interesting match-up. The diversity of the game is what makes it so good. Do not change for change sake, change for the better. North vs South, blah!. Play the game. Rugby is not about the crowd or corporate bodies, its about the players on the field.
Shaun van Zitters, Paarl, South Africa
As a former school and mini rigby coach my concern is twofold. Firstly I understand that not all of the ELVs may be adopted, but if the most controversial ones were I think there would be some major problems and injuries that could easily be avoided. Children, whilst learning the game, don't generally have either the physical control or experience to get themselves out of trouble but always seek to imitate the professionals - allowing the maul to be pulled down is an obvious danger to the novice and to the poorly conditioned. Secondly, whether referees at youth level could apply the new laws effectively and with any consistency I have my doubts - who would want to take up refereeing in our litigious culture these days?
Julian, Leicester,
While I do not agree with all the ELV's I wonder where the game would be if the rules had not been adapted over the years. Would we still want the ball to be kicked into touch on the full from anywhere on the field, backlines being able to stand level with the lineout, marks to be taken anywhere on the field, no lifting in lineouts, to name some of the changes that have taken place. I am an oldtimer of Stephen Jones vintage (perhaps a little older) and have played, coached and watched rugby over a similar time span to him. His biased views still seem to be rooted in the 50's and 60's when the games were dominated by kicking fly halves with the result being an endless number of lineouts and scrums and games often won by penalties. For example in one particular game during the 1963/64 All Black tour of Britain there were 64 lineouts which quoting from a participant in that game "believe it or not there were only 64 which was a very low tally particularly on a windy day" .
Bob McCullough, Wellington, N Z
Like a lot of people I play rugby on the weekends for fun. I am a second row and feel that the laws about pulling the maul down and not allowing hands in the ruck are there for my safety. Regardless of how these laws affect the international game what we seem to be missing is how they will impact on our games at the weekend. I am personally more worried in the short term about people messing about with the ball in the ruck or having 10 big guys landing on me because some law now means that a maul can been pulled down dangerously without the fear of being pinged.
Rugby is a professional game now and if the ELV's come in the clubs and national teams will learn how to deal with them, as it is their job. Yet I feel that more emphasis should be placed on training referees to a consistantly high standard rather than giving them more to learn... after all it is quality refereeing which is the real reason for a match flowing or not.
George, Westbury,
Entertainment is no good if the games all feel the same with little variety. Variety would be seeing the Aussie backs play behind the English or SA scrum. I think the Aussie teams are just not as good as the best NZ and SA teams. At least they know how to scrum. What Aussies want is to win and whether they change the rules or not the Aussies will not win in Union because they are not good enough. If they do not win then spectators have loads of alternatives to watch. Its not the rules but the players. So don t mess up the sport for the rest of us just because the Aussies are not good enough.
Sorry Aussies , you may not want to hear this but Aussie rules is so basic its no wonder that you want to simplify union.
Ben , Melbourne, Australia
To Richard Jones Greece
Boo hoo England can't win the six nations any more
Boo hoo Wales havn't beaten NZ for over 50 years
Who was it who changed the origonal rucking with feet laws?
Gareth Williams, Powys,
Stephen Jones... the Messiah.
Its amazing to read all the comments by his little disciples who believe everything he writes. The IRB introduced the ELVs, not Aus or NZ. Teams with weak scrums are not assisted by the ELVs... fanciful rubbish spouted by a man who wants to blame everything he doesn't like on Aus or NZ. And whats the easiest way for him to do that... tell all his bigotted English readers that its all a conspiracy, tell them that its an attempt to take away the only facet of rugby that they are any good at (even though it isn't).
Is it too much to ask that an award-winning "journalist" would include an opinion from someone who is pro-ELVs without denigrating them. Robbie Deans, a very successful coach under both the old laws and the ELVs, wants them trialled world wide. Mr Deans has forgottem more about the game than Mr Jones will ever know sitting up in the stands... why not give a balanced view?? Hysteria perhaps?
Andrew , London,
In England we have rising gates with many clubs playing to capacity crowds and building new stadia. The game has never been more popular. Perhaps rather then tinker with the laws those in the SH worrying about the appeal of the product should look at why the game is booming in some countries? My own theory, it is due to a viable, competitive club structure.
chris, Cambridge, Cambs
Everyone knows that the ELVs are just distracting from the fact that NZRU and ARU running the game into the ground down under. Bad management off the field and poor marketing and admin is seeing union fans deserting the sport in their droves. The NZRU and ARU are claiming its becacuse of the rules are making the sport boring and that's what driving people away. Considering crowds are increasing everywhere else in the world and decreasing down there, it can't be the laws of the game.
What is needed down under is new management off the field (John O'Neill should've been fired for the APC debacle) to improve the way its run down there. Making union like a poor man's rugby league, won't get fans back in the stands. Its more likely to make them wanna watch 13 code even more.
P.S. Instead of the Aussies trying to stifle the use of the scrum, perhaps they should get a decent scrummage coach.
Victor , London, UK
I read this on Sunday and found the article bizarre.
What sort of research did you do Mr Jones? 90%+ of the feedback I have heard from NZ has been negative about the ELVs...
The only real support is for a couple of laws, such as the 5m gap at scrum time.
I wish everyone would stop being so hysterical about these laws, and sit and review them objectively, and not turn it into a whole north vs south debate. Administrators and journalists are equally culpible.
DT, London,
Time for the Northern Hemisphere to flex their muscles and reject the ELVs .
E.Clegg, Cheshire, England
What other sport changes its rules/laws with the regularity of Rugby Union. Undestandable adjustments were made when the game went professional, but now it seems that every pre-season clubs have to organise a player/referee meeting to discuss the latest changes. It has now become de-rigueur and habitual. There is no need - the game is fine. If we make any more rules to open up the play then we will only end up with more defenders facing more attackers and the only option will be to reduce the number of players.
It's simple. Stop the rot now. I have played and loved passionately the sport of rugby union. If i wanted to play or support rugby league, I would have done. It's a different game for different people, different athletes, different thoughts, different skills. The nanny state is dictating too much already, please don't allow tiny misguided minorities to erase the last truly corinthian sport left. Union is the ultimate team game, for pities sake, leave it alone.
Matt Jary, Lowestoft, England
David from Melbourne.
Grow up mate. The RFU have long been a reactionary and staid organisation that looks after it's own interests to the detriment of the wider game and yes the whole idea for the RWC came from the south but so what. That doesn't make any difference on this point.
The introduction of these new laws with will dramatically change the game and not for the most part the better. Also, they have been tried in Europe, Scotland I believe so of course they can produce a paper on them. And in any case, these changes are proposed to be introduced on August 1st, so I would expect the european unoins to do some research.
SPJ, London,
David from Melbourne. There is no smaller minded bunch or administartors in world sport than the tri nations!!
Rugby in the northern hemisphere is thriving, much more so than dowen south. The reason why our boards don;t want to embrace fully these laws is that we simply don;t need them. We are entirle happy with the way the laws are at the moment. Thone thing that does need improving is refereeing or certainly a greater consistency between referees.
Our rugby in the north is based around a tribalism that is engrained in all our national psyches which we express in these modern times through sport. The confronatation between two teams is entertainment enough.
Two many people in sport at the moment seem to be striving for perfection which will never happen in any team sport. It was refreshing to hear Warren Gatland say this year that you can never have the perfect 80 mins.
SO in short we'll take our NH game as it is thank you very much
Mike, Llanelli,
Mr Jones
I would like to suggest a radical law change that would empower scrummaging: the scrum-half be required to put the ball in straight at the scrum. Oh! someone has just told me that IS the law. Best then to concentrate on applying existing laws before trying new ones.
John Rolfe, High Wycombe, UK
"O’Neill, for whom I have huge respect, rejects the notion that he is trying to make union more like league since he is in the only nation on earth where league is a serious competitor; he also says that in Europe, with its tribalism, winning is almost everything but in Australia, “people tend to go out to watch different sports and want to be entertainedâ€.
John is having you guys on. Aussies back winners. Only. Not winning means less revenue for the Wallabies, the Warratahs (NSW) etc. Yes, folks to go to matches to be entertained. Of course. Trite. But in particular Aussies want their team to win at all costs. Do the Australian cricket team reflect the spirit of cricket? Like hell. They are one of the most successful teams of all time. Sledging. Part of the game. They think that stuff about spirit is for posh Poms.
There is huge diversity between league and union here in NSW whatever the similarities between the play.
Philip Sutherland , Sydney, Australia
Basil - Your 2011 conspiracy is laughable.
Firstly, the vote for the 2011 World Cup was years ago.
Secondly, Australia voted for Japan much to the chagrin of the NZRU.
Thirdly, there are many other countries that have indicated some support for the ELV's. Do you think South Africa would let them be trialled in the Super 14 without their agreement?
I think Stephen is actually perpetuating the biggest lie of all in respect of the ELV's - that they are some Australian led plot to help the Wallabies compete. It's also laughable that he accuses "Kiwi Super 14 coaches" of being hysterical (incidentally only one - Robbie Deans - has really come out in support of the ELV's), yet uses imagery such as "the wolf is at the door' in his first paragraph. Hilarious. No wait (dare I say it?) Hysterical.
Jerry, Wellington,
If there is any hysteria it is from northern hemisphere unions and commentators. How can the RFU/Irish Union produce a paper on the ELVs when they have never used them - what fanciful rubbish.
In the last 20 years the only real developments in the game have come from the Southern hemisphere unions. The only reason we have a world cup is because OZ/NZ and SA threatened a professional break away league – if we left it to the RFU you would be luck to have out bound test.
Whatever you think of Australian Rugby, you forget the English side beat Australia by just 2 points and then got comprehensively beaten by South Africa – furthermore there were 5 southern hemisphere sides which made the quarter finals – northern hemisphere had England France and scotland.
Grow up and look at rugby outside london’s M25
David, Melbourne, Australia
I agree totally. There is no need to change the laws, the game is fine as it is. Australia are not doing very well, so have decided the laws must be changed in their favour. Then they get New Zealands support by voting for their 2011 world cup bid (Dont know if this is true but the kiwi's have been the only other nation supporting the ELV's - makes you want to know why doesnt it?). Even the South Africans have had enough of it. I'm glad its coming to a head soon, and lets hope the new laws are consigned to the bin.
Basil, Sydney, Australia
The game, in the Northern Hemisphere, is fantastic and requires no 'tinkering'. At the moment some games are open and fast paced while others are ground out through forward battles with little input from the backs. So what! It is this fact that attracts us to the game. They are like games of Chess played out on grass.
Let us hope that those in positions of power understand this and that all the fans I have spoken to up and down the country and I'm guessing now, throughout the rest of Europe don't want these experimental law changes.
The games are fine as they are, by and large referees do a good job of interpreting the rules as they stand. You will still get wrong decisions being made at times, but that is sport.
Paul Knighton, Wellingborough, Northants
Ultimatum time!
No group in World Rugby has the right to change the rules to accomodate themselves during a period of lack of strength or skill in a certain area. In other words OZ and NZ should not be allowed to change the rules to accommodate their current weaknesses, neither should OZ be allowed to change the rules world-wide because its makes sense in terms of LOCAL sports sales and marketing.
If this means hemispherical division and no World Cup then so be it. NZ lose. I used to go on about England's attitude that we should all play rugby their stolid, staid way but what OZ and NZ are doing is much worse.
Boo hoo Can't scrummage anymore (OZ) and boo hoo( Can't win World Cup's any more (NZ) so we'll change the rules quick and quiet so we can win again.
I am not saying that rule changes(and certainly tariff changes ) should never be but let it be done by consensus in a well-managed - timing and quantity - fashion.
richard Jones, Athens, Greece
If Southern Hemisphere sides want entertainment?.... let's play the game with two balls on the pitch.... or perhaps three balls at any one time. The result?... far more running, more tries, more entertainment. Just close your eyes and imagine the entertainment.
Utter madness... The ELV's are a huge change for the worse and need to be binned.
Steve, Christchurch, NZ