MARTIN Johnson, Brian Ashton, Shaun Edwards. These have been the names hogging the headlines on the rugby pages for the past few weeks. Yet, rumbling away beneath the surface is a story that is of infinitely more long-term importance for the sport itself. The professional game is heading towards another global crisis with, once again, the International Rugby Board (IRB) and the English game at the heart of it.

There is a battle for the spirit of the sport between the established ruling elite and the clubs, although it is not being reported as such. The RFU quietly but firmly expressed its concerns towards proposals to implement the contentious Experimental Law Variations (ELV) last week, laws the IRB is desperately trying to browbeat into the northern hemisphere from August 1.

Like Pandora, once they escape from their box, they will be impossible to control. As the laws have so far played an immense part in diminishing the pace, power and overall quality of the Super 14 in which they are being partially trialled, the very thought of an early implementation of even more rule changes in Europe smacks of the ideological madness of power politics.

On April 3, the RFU called a meeting of the 12 Premiership directors of rugby. Other than Brian Smith and Philippe Saint-André, who sent replacements, all directors attended, with Paul Grayson representing newly promoted Northampton. Every club, at various levels of indignation, opposed the implementation and forced the RFU into a more radical position than it was set to espouse. In the process, the clubs have given the deservedly battered reputation of the union an early shot at redemption.

Former referees Ed Morrison, Brian Campsall and Colin High, now employees of the RFU, had already met with Steve Griffiths of the IRB, the man responsible for the ELV project. The RFU had spoken, without the knowledge of the clubs, on their behalf and arrived at the meeting with preconceived ideas on the various law changes.

Rob Andrew sat quietly at the front of the meeting while the head of elite coaching development, Kevin Bowring, presided over a slideshow presentation, “geared towards getting our support”, said one of the directors of rugby.

The general perception of the clubs was that this was more a steering job than a serious meeting between equals. Within minutes of the presentation, the discussion slipped from the control of the host union as the clubs vented serious frustrations. More than one asked if this was anything but a wasted day. It has proved to be far from that.

“The RFU was keen to get an agreement and they wanted us to decide without any sensible amount of time to think the issues through,” one club director said. “We were not prepared to implement the trials, they need serious discussion.”

Another director reckons the RFU did not agree with much of the IRB’s rushed madness but did believe the matter of next season’s experimentations to be a fait accompli. The clubs asked why, wondering why the RFU was not canvassing the other members of the Six Nations. It made the salient point that the game in the northern hemisphere is, possibly for the first time in the professional era, a more attractive proposition than its southern hemisphere equivalent.

While the European game has benefited from an expansive post-World Cup approach, with the traditional intensity of the forward exchanges being matched by ambition behind the scrum, the Super 14 has seen an absolute loss of structure. It is an uglier game to watch. The IRB will tell its critics it is far too early to judge the merits of the variations but against that, how can the IRB then implement an experiment that has yet to succeed into the rest of the rugby-playing world? This is proving to be an uncontrolled experiment with no members of the IRB too worried about the outcome because the decision to add this numerically insane set of laws that fundamentally alter the sport has been made. It is awful science.

Bowring’s presentation concluded with the observation that the game would look more like rugby league than ever before. Yet somehow the RFU were still prepared to countenance changes, despite the implicit betrayal of their own charter which emphasises that the sport must continue to be one accessible to players of all shapes and sizes.

Anyone with opened eyes knows that the initial trialling period in the Super 14 is producing the complete opposite. There are still numerous scrums but the statistics lie. Most of them occur in the final 20 minutes when both sets of players are out on their feet. The scrums possess all the potency of a collision between Wakefield Trinity and Hull. It is not rugby union as we know it. The game is a frenetic series of free kicks for an hour, devoid of shape and a funereal plod towards the final whistle for the final quarter. We are heading towards a game stripped of variety, a world of 6ft 2in identikit players, otherwise known as rugby league.

That is the long-term position. The short-term one would be anarchy with so many new rules that nobody, from the referees to players to spectators, would have a chance to fully understand them. Esteemed rugby men like Ian McGeechan, Dean Ryan and Dean Richards made the point with vehement force.

The directors stressed that the club game is working on its own gradual transformation for the improvement of the game from within. The English clubs are addressing the tackle area with the intent on keeping players on their feet. Such gradual transformation lacks the ideological grandeur of the IRB but it makes a great deal more sense.

“At the moment the RFU supports the clubs. Rob and Kevin certainly agreed with us more than the IRB but the big question is, when the s*** hits the fan, will they oppose it?” said one former international present. The heartening news is that Francis Baron is making all the right noises. If the RFU and clubs combine they will become a difficult target for Syd Millar. It is one thing using the old technique and describing Twickenham as a reactionary fortress, but quite another to accuse freethinking clubs of similar conservatism. In the past, the IRB has ordered the RFU to “get its clubs in order”. Well, now they are in order, very good order; it is the IRB that is the problem.