ELV Debate - a good listen

[Spook]

http://irb.edgeboss.net/wmedia/irb/radio/2009debate_elvs.wax

S Jones saying with regard to the scrum and having dominance there: "That's not the way coaches think". :lmao:

 

[Lee Grant]

Thanks for posting that Spook.

I was typing out a few notes so I thought I may as well post them. Long winded I'm afraid but what LG post isn't?

******************************

ELV debate

In studio
Stephen Jones ? Sunday Times
David Barnes ? Bath prop and Rugby players rep

Rod Macqueen ? IRB Laws Project Group (talking from Oz)

Eddie Jones ? Saracen?s coach (from previous interview)
Paddy O?Brien ? IRB Referees Manager ? (from previous interview)


Eddie Jones

- Law changes have advantaged defensive team,

- ELVs were supposed to encourage more continuity and less defensive contesting, but is other way around.

- Power plays now more prevalent,

- Only sensible ELV is the passing the ball back over the 22 ELV, as it takes away soft option,

- Lineout ELV has aided defenders and makes it very hard to attack from the lineout because extra defenders at the back can get into attacking space.

- 5M at scrum no good as sides are discouraged from using 1st phase ball. The extra space enables defenders to drift better and makes it difficult to attack wide. The same happened in rugby league when they got defenders back 10M compared to 5M previously.

Near to the goal line it has helped attacking teams score tries but generally ball movement has decreased and attackers have to use power plays to overcome the extra space and time afforded to defenders.

- Also the IRB protocols have had referees looking so much at the breakdown that they are forgetting the offside line and attackers can?t get advantage of quick ball.


Rod Macqueen

- Stakeholders had wanted changes to the laws to be investigated but when the ELVs were put in place rugby politics has interfered.

- Some of Eddies comments were wrong. Statistics over the last 3 years contradicted EJs statement that attacking out wide from scrums was less successful now. More tries were being scored from everywhere from 1st phase scrum ball. Why didn?t defending teams get their defending backs back 5M before the ELVs, if being further back was better?

- Entertainment wasn?t in the criteria of the ELVs, they were for encouraging a game for all shapes and sizes in which the ball could be contested.

- See SJ below ? FKs didn?t have to be tap and go. Teams with strong scrums could scrummage and if players wanted a breather they could wait for opponents to get back onside to do any kind of a kick including a tap. They could slow the game down or speed it up. It depended on the strengths or weaknesses of the team.

- Any breakdown problems had nothing to do with the ELVs ? the breakdown ELVs are not being used in the NH.

- See SJ below ? On what basis did SJ think the game was great under the old laws? Going on crowd numbers was fair enough, but based on what the players, administrators and coaches were saying there were issues with them. He was not arguing that all the ELVs are right, but thought that the process should be followed through so that informed decisions could be made on the state of the game.

- See SJ below ? You may argue that the FK sanctions in the SH require more subjectivity but there are about 20 different infringements at the breakdown under standard law that can have a PK. If a policeman had to choose between using a stun gun or a pistol to stop an apparent criminal he would choose a stun gun. So make all but infringements that a ref thinks are cynical a FK. The sanctions down here have cleaned the game up.

- See DB below ? Players objection to maul ELV is interesting but 75% of the old mauls were brought down. The hardest thing for a ref was to work out if it was deliberate of not. Now there is no subjectivity.

- See SJ below ? (About the officials that stopped the FK sanctions being used in the NH) ? It should all be about the players, the game and the spectators, and not about a small group of officials who make decisions on what they think may happen.

- Success comes about a lot of the time because people are prepared to change. Rugby changed when it went professional. Sometimes success can be the enemy of innovation because people see change as risk, but the greatest risk is not being prepared to change.


Stephen Jones

- Sid Millar said years ago that you should never force the pace of law changes; you should let them evolve, and he was dead right. He?s not certain the right people are on the Law Project Group Philosophy of IRB totally muddled and IRPG have to get clarity.

- RMq had to be kidding that entertainment is not a major criteria of the ELVs. It?s all that JON and other Aussies are talking about.

- Stats can prove or disprove anything. You can say that the scrum is still important - there are as many of them etc, but there is no way that the shape of players won?t change if you allow tap and go. We?ll have smaller, faster players and non-props, and the value and the power of scrums will go.

- The irony of the 2007 RWC was that the final was a terrible game ? as WC finals in any football code are ? but the Q/F weekend was the best weekend of rugby that he had seen in 25 years.

- The old laws were better than the ones with the ELVs in them. The game was never so popular and some of that was (oddly) because of the complications and annoyances that had always been in the game. People up north believed the game had never been so good.

- See POB below ? Subjectivity? In the FK sanctions (in the SH) you are asking referees to decide whether an infringement was intentional (PK), or not (FK). This is the ultimate expression of subjectivity.

- See DB below ? Although players may think the scrum ELVs are OK, as are most of the others they are using now, the bigger players will struggle more if the ELV FK sanctions come in. They may have a different opinion of them then.

- If people don?t want to trial (the FK sanctions) you should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are (standing up for all that they think is good in the game). We have a perfect right to defend rugby as we know it and love it.

- Rugby loves the status quo and he was glad some officials stood together to stop the worse aspects (of the ELVs used in the SH), because once things come in, even on an experiment, they become the status quo and rugby loves the status quo.

- The greatest risk is mucking around with a successful sport and people should not be railroaded into changes which they are suspicious of. Some of these things (are so bad), you didn?t need to trial them.

- The only ELV he would keep is taking the corner post out of the game.


Paddy O?Brien

- Referees have found it easy to adjust to the NH ELVs. The offside line of the tackle ELV was not implemented, which was disappointing, but it made it easier for refs.

- Are referees taking their eyes off the ball and not paying enough attention to the non-ELV laws? No, but now they are refereeing both sides better, not just the defending team. This makes it a fairer contest for possession.

- The ELVs try to take some of the subjectivity out of the game. Coaches almost want guaranteed possession of the ball unless they turn it over themselves.


David Barnes (who is doing a survey of players responses)

- Players are not reacting well to the maul ELV. They think, as it was, is an inherent part of the game.

- Players are about 50/50 on ?no numbers? at lineouts

- Teams got fitter in the off season. Some big players found it hard this season but that was offset by the scrum becoming a bit more important under the 5M ELV.

 

[cyclopath]

Who are these "other Aussies" with JON that apparently keep talking all about entertainment? SJ, as usual, using a a weak generalisation as an argument (yes, I realise the irony of this sentence). MacQueen should know what the ELVs were to be about originally, being on the panel that first explored them. MacQueen makes a good point about FKs too - there is no reason they have to be quick taps at all. Sounds like less of a debate, and more like 4 people giving 4 monologues.

 

[Thomond78]

You look at that panel, and you're surprised that that's the case, Cyclo?

At the moment, I want to see the 22 ELV tested when we've shaken down the crack-down on staying on your feet, to see if it's the ELV or the crackdown has led to ping-pong; if it's the ELV, bin it, with a certain regret at a good idea that didn't quite work in practice.

Keep the 5m offside at scrums. I was initially dead against this, as being too kind to backs; instead, we've seen the return of the back-row move, and I realise how much I missed it. This is a definite keeper.

Keep the one on the corner-flags. It annoys wingers by removing their "Actually, there's a lot of skill in just running" argument. And that's enough reason for me.

Bin the maul ELVs. It's cock. It doesn't work, it's counter-productive, and even then, no-one's reffing the bit about only above the waist, so even what the Laws still say is dangerous play is now being ignored. Rod McQueen himself has more or less said he doesn't expect this to be made permanent - I'll dig up the article with Gerry Thornley in a while.

Keep the numbers in the line-out ELV. It's shaking down, and with the maul back, it'll be a cracker.

Ditch the other two ones for the line-out about the receiver and the defending hooker having to stay out. There's no need for them, they stop positive play by having the receiver coming in and jumping, and no-one ever had a problem with that. Why create new offences when you don't need to? Make everyone's life a bit simpler, and just quietly drop these.

The rest - pre-gripping for the lift, allowing lifting, etc. - are just tidying up. Keep them.

Incidentally, before you start howling that I'm anti-ELVs, I'm anti- the maul ones - as is almost everyone else, including most people here - but I still count that as keeping 8 of the 13 global ones.

 

[Pfitzy]

S Jones' point about the power of scrums disappearing is utter bollocks - if other sides in our comp staring putting smaller blokes into scrums, we're going to smash them there all day and either force them to concede every loosehead or call for uncontested scrums and have their arses kicked at a club hearing.

 

[Thomond78]

S Jones' point about the power of scrums disappearing is utter bollocks - if other sides in our comp staring putting smaller blokes into scrums, we're going to smash them there all day and either force them to concede every loosehead or call for uncontested scrums and have their arses kicked at a club hearing.

Don't worry, we've seen that that's balls. What's actually happening is that the refs have started to get a bit better on at least pretending to make Sheeeerrrrriiidddannnn bind rather than have one hand on the floor the whole time. Net result, Sheridan is getting minced on a production-line basis (John Hayes absolutely pounded the fuck out of him in TP), so, by definition on Planet Tache, the scrums must be getting weaker.

After all, it can't be that Australia and Munster are doing better, can it? Shhhherrrrriiidddannn can do no wrong - first chapter of the Tache Book of Mongo Man-Love. :

 

[cyclopath]

No Thomo, not surprised at all.
I agree with your "selection" of ELVs to keep. (I took my pulse after typing that sentence )
I think the breakdown will remain a mess and a mystery whatever laws are applied unless consistent application of said laws becomes the norm, so feel less strongly about those.
In principle FK sanctions I quite like, but teams need to work out when to tap, and when to use the set play here. I think some have just gone a bit headless chook and tap and run without necessarily thinking it through.

 

[Lee Grant]

Listening to Eddie Jones and other northern coaches it seems to me that they think that teams have a natural right to retain their possession unless they make a mistake themselves. They don't.

I have read where some coaches have objected to the no numbers ELV in lineouts because the defenders can put up 3 pods of 3 and that makes retaining their lineout ball more difficult - or that extra players at the back can flood through.

I see the reduction in the retention rate at lineout time as a rugby virtue, because contesting has improved, not a rugby sin - but I know that it's a view that they wouldn't understand. The extra contesting puts a premium on the technical aspects of throwing accurately, taking the ball cleanly and delivering to the scrummie on target. The flooding forward of defenders at the back makes a good long pass more important than ever.

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the aerial ping pong because of the 22M constraint on kicking the ball out on the full, and was even more surprised that EJ (Eddie Jones) liked it, but it has been mentioned by others in the past. Opponents to the ELV have said that if that is what happens in the extra time the ball is in play it is not worth it.

Well, is it better to allow fellows to gain ground from a kick out after a pass back? Then the guys walk up the park and get into their two lines after a while and eventually the ball gets thrown in. But if it isn't straight or there is another infraction there is a further delay.

Is that better?

At least we have seen in the last 12 months, wherever this ELV was used, an appreciation of good kicking, and better running from deep when players are tired. I'd rather see that that guys walking to lineouts and the lineout infringement delays. And I bet that we are talking soon that this ELV has improved the skill of kicking from hand and that the elite practitioners start getting ink.

And let us have a moratorium on the comment that rugby won't be for all shapes and sizes because the ELV game is too fast for the big guys.

The Pom player representative said that scrums were more important now - so, even more than before, if you don't have guys who can scrummage you are not going to win an ELV game. This puts a natural limit on the reduction of size of tight five forwards. Under standard law props of any size were gradually getting more mobile anyway and the faster pace of the ELVs will only accelerate the process.

I can't see the size of a Super14 or HC THPs dropping a lot and there won't be too many LHPs going under 110 kgs and getting success in the scrum, unless he is an uncommon technical scrummager like a younger Tom Smith.

At the lower levels of rugby it will be harder for large amateurs to keep up with the pace of ELV games but they can play in a lower grade - and/or some of the ELVs which speed up the game too much can be omitted for lower grade rugby and other park rugby.

People will argue to the cows come home that there was nothing wrong with the game as it was and point out the cracking games they have seen under standard law.

Well, I've seen quite a few European club games in the 4 different comps this season and I'd argue that it was better than the sample I saw last year. I'd be very interested to see what the players and fans say in the surveys that come out at the end of the season, but I won't pay any particular attention to what coaches or officials say.

 

[Thomond78]

Lee, on the NH standard, I would enter a caveat that I suspect most of those have been Munster. This year, we're playing a much more expansive all-singing-and-dancing style, and have re-built our game from the ground up on that; the hands of all concerned are certainly better now. Add that to Earls, other new guys and the crackdown suiting Wallace and POC, and our kicking being better, and it's not a representative sample.

A lot of the T14 has been dreck, and there are a huge number of games that would be immeasurably improved by the addition of a good maul to suck in fringe defenders.

 

[Spook]

Some good thoughts. I just the North had attempted the free kick sanctions and kept the maul. That's all I ask...

 

[Lee Grant]

Lee, on the NH standard, I would enter a caveat that I suspect most of those have been Munster. This year, we're playing a much more expansive all-singing-and-dancing style, and have re-built our game from the ground up on that; the hands of all concerned are certainly better now. Add that to Earls, other new guys and the crackdown suiting Wallace and POC, and our kicking being better, and it's not a representative sample.

A lot of the T14 has been dreck, and there are a huge number of games that would be immeasurably improved by the addition of a good maul to suck in fringe defenders.

Yep the Munster game has changed immeasurably - and for the better - but they won't be allowed to finish the HC final as they did last year; though that will have more to do with the IRB protocols than the ELVs.

What a pity that the protocols weren't nailed down before the ELVs were introduced.

In my remarks about the rugby this season up north being better than last year I, of course, excepted the depreciation in the value of the maul this year. So universal has been the criticism of the maul ELV that I didn't think it was necessary to mention the exception.

Those of us who deprecated the inclusion of the maul ELV up north, when it hadn't been in the Super14, have been proved right. However I wanted to see it trialled to see our thoughts validated.

I understand the theory behind trialling it. If the IRBPG had a rationale to enhance contesting for possession then the maul with the ball at the back was anathema to that rationale. But depowering the maul raised more problems than it solved.

It will be interesting what the Munster fans and players think about the ELVs they have experienced. I'm thinking that with the maul exception they will like them, and even with the maul depowered will come down on the side of approval.

I'd also warrant, that with the old maul back and the FK sanctions in place, they would approve the ELVs even more than they will now.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I am really having trouble comprehending what the basic problem is that the NH people have WRT the ELV's.
Most if not all their arguments are based on fear and miscomprehension. It appears to this simple mind that they are just simply against change and are not prepared to either look objectively at what the changes have brought to the game instead they seem to want to take comfort and solace in what they know and understand.
SJ seems to be just talking whatever comes into his head and I am really starting to think he really does not have a good in depth knowledge of what actually happens in a scrum and the breakdown.
As far as EJ (Eddie Jones) is concerned, well I think he is now at a point in his life where he has become a very bitter and twisted man and is objecting to or arguing against anything that even smacks of SH or Aussie content.
It's a shame really because objectivity has gone right out the window in this debate and rugby will be the loser if emotion and personality are not removed from the arguement.

 

[Thomond78]

Okay, basic request here; remember, there are the 13 global ELVs, and the ELVs you trialled last year. They're different. The ELVs you'll be playing under this season are, courtesy of SANZAR, different again, and different from the ones you played the EOYTs under. Could we just make sure we make it clear which version we're referring to by"ELVs" at any given stage?

Thanks. As you were...

Lee, on the ELVs, you can take my views as being representative of the general feelings of the Munster fan-base, and players come to that. We regard the maul ELV as an abomination, pure and simple; and let's not mess around, it is.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

As a referee I personally (and on consencus with many others) I prefer all the ELV's we have trialled. Refereeing - contrary to what SJ and others say is vastly easier.
As a spectator, I loved them all again. I felt the games opened up, scrums became more critical as did fitness.
I cannot speak as a player as I am old and decrepit but I would like to think I could have competed in fitness and i certainly would have liked the extra freedom and attacking options which have been opened up.

So to T78, I prefer them all as we trailled them, not just as adopted bythe NH.

 

[Lee Grant]

T78

It's pretty hard to describe which ELVs one is talking about. In Oz we have seen different ELVs in amateur club rugby, ARC semi pro rugby (2007), S14 rugby and the autumn tests.

I guess we have to take the context of the thread. This thread obviously pertains to what is being used up north.

Most Oz fans haven't watched a lot of ELV rugby that don't have the FK sanctions as part of the cocktail and if they watch a Heineken Cup game on TV (there are 2 games per weekend) they still reckon it's a slower game.

People up there are in for a bit of a shock if those sanctions get approved for the NH, and Stephen Jones is getting his retaliation in first. They are going to love them though more conservative options will be taken in the dead of winter. Some of the grounds over there are cow paddocks and there won't be so many tap and goes.

On the maul: I don't know anybody who is in favour of the maul pull down, and if this forum is any yardstick we will probably have the same opinion as your mates, notwithstanding that Oz teams have never been great at mauling and were worse at defending them.

Even we Aussie rugby heathens realise that it's an integral part of our game.

We trialled the maul ELV in the semi pro ARC in 2007 and it was a bit of a non-event, since so much was going on elsewhere - including the allowance to have hands in the ruck.

We didn't have the maul ELV in the 2008 Super14 but it's in for 2009. This ELVs being used in this year's S14 will be the 5th variation that Aussies have played under.

At least I will give points for trialling the different ELVs, warts and all, the egregrious exception is the non-trial of the FK regime up there.

As FDR would have said: "They had nothing to fear but fear itself."

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I think you are right there Lee when you say getting in early.
It just seems to me that SJ has hijacked the whole debate and is now the self appointed anti ELV crusader without even experiencing the event.

 

[Spook]

Okay, basic request here; remember, there are the 13 global ELVs, and the ELVs you trialled last year. They're different. The ELVs you'll be playing under this season are, courtesy of SANZAR, different again, and different from the ones you played the EOYTs under. Could we just make sure we make it clear which version we're referring to by"ELVs" at any given stage?

Yes but they are the first trialled at an elite level and the same as last years S14 and 3Ns. Not that hard is it?

 

[fatprop]

S14 and 3N are playing the same rules as they were being played under last year

 

[Lee Grant]

From memory, this year the ELV differences for the Super14 are:


In for 2009 Super14

- maul can be pulled down (but only after gripping upper body first)

- no numbers in lineout

- receiver at lineout must be 2M back

- opponent to throwing hooker at lineouts must stand in tramtrack and must be 2 metres away from lineout.


Out from 2008 Super14

- offside line at the tackle (though coming in the side of a tackle is still a PK)



Extra ELVs in 2009 Super14 compared to Global ELVs as used in the NH in 2008-09:

- if the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle, ruck or maul a FK is awarded to the team not taking the ball in to them.

- FKs awarded for all infringements other than offside, coming into the side of a tackle, and Law 10 Foul Play.


It will be interesting to see some of the changes to the ELVs in the Super14 this year.

Even the trialling of the maul ELV is a good thing because I am sure that SH players and fans will add their censure to those of everybody else and we can get rid of it globally from August 2009.

As for the offside line at the tackle used in the 2007 Super14: I was getting used to that and had a minority opinion that it was OK.

Under standard law, players in the tackle area can't get in the way or participate, but players away from the tackle area can remain on the attacker's side of it, or move there. They can get into likely areas to stop a quick clearance before a ruck is formed and I think it is better for them to retire to their side of the tackle.

It was also easier for the ref in the 2008 S14 because he didn't have to form an opinion as to whether it was a tackle only, or had formed into a ruck. It was offside in either instance.

It will be interesting to hear Super14 coaches comments on the no numbers in lineouts ELV, which is new in the S14, and compare them to the whinges we have heard from EJ (Eddie Jones) and other NH coaches in their season.

Coaches of S14 teams can afford to be a bit more pragmatic, as their professional players are, on average, a bit more mobile and versatile than those of their NH counterparts. I suspect that EJ (Eddie Jones) coaching the Reds in a parallel universe would make different comments on ELVs compared to EJ (Eddie Jones) the Sarries coach.

I never saw any problem with no lineout numbers in the 2007 semi-pro ARC competition and one didn't miss the referee blowing his whistle for numbers not matching up. Let's see how it goes at a higher level with our players.

As for the FK sanctions: I think the NH is nuts for not wanting to use them. Amongst other things this ELV prepared our players better to play under the global ELVs in the autumn tests, which didn't have the sanctions. If the South African teams do better in the Super14 this year I think that SANZAR will keep the FK sanctions whatever the IRB says.

 

[Thomond78]

Iesu Mawr, it's not just the NH on FKs! How bloody often do I have to say this? It was a vote across the world. The global vote was not to trial the FK law as part of the global ELVs! If there was an NH lock-step on this, we'd have binned them, end of, because we have the votes to do just that.

Lads, it's one thing complaining about NH paranoia, but recognise that you're equally paranoid on this one, and then let's leave it there on the conspiracy theories, okay?

As for keeping them regardless - well, there's a split view in SANZAR on this already, as witnessed at the recent vote on this. In any event, SANZAR need an IRB derogation to use FKAGG as is; if it's binned globally, turning around to world rugby and basically giving the finger to the result of a vote of world rugby is unlikely either to get a new derogation or get SANZAR any favours in any future votes. But we'll see; personally, I don't think it'll come to that.

Spook, Fat Prop, as Lee has shown, the laws for this year's 3N and S14 aren't the same as last year's. Hence the need for precision.

Lee's summation of the arguments for the offside at the tackle is as neat a one as you could wish for. The offside line at the tackle went, I think, because it meant that you couldn't chase a guy down from behind as you were retreating. We saw penalty tries given in last years S14 over this one, and even the ref looked embarassed. It's one of those ones that sounds good, makes initial sense, but when you see things like that you realise that actually it doesn't work. Worth trialling, not worth keeping. How bad; that's the way trials are meant to work.

No numbers has shaken down (remember, Sarries have a shit lineout in any event, and EJ (Eddie Jones) has never exactly been the "suck it up and bear it" type). I want this to stay, despite initial reservations, because I'm convinced that once you allow proper mauling with this, you've got a real winner, with lots of tactical options and subtlety.

The last two lineout ones Lee lists there are bug-bears of mine. They're pointless (the "reason" given by the IRB as to why you have to be 2m away is - so that the ref can see you're two metres away. As perfect an example of circular reasoning as you'll find, that), they prevent positive lineout play and options and they create new offences where there was no need. Bin them, please, gentlemen.

The interaction of the maul one and FKAGG is going to be horrendous, I suspect. If you bring down a maul and make it unplayable, it's a FK turnover. Right. Richie McCaw, Schalk Burger and George Smith let loose on that one; what do you think will happen?