ELVs: The great divide

Saracens supremo Eddie Jones reckons they were taken off the back of a cornflake packet. Australian coach Robbie Deans says the northern hemisphere is against them simply because of a fear of change.

Australia's World Cup-winning coach in 1999 Rod Macqueen says he isn't surprised at the paranoia about them, but he's disappointed. Wasps coach Shaun Edwards believes the changes proposed are marginal and won't threaten the foundations of the game. But Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill warns of a split in the world game.

Related articles

• The Premiership view on ELVs
• Search the news archive for more stories

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the controversial world of the ELVs (Experimental Law Variations), the most contentious issue to hit rugby union since professionalism burst like a cluster bomb into its presence 13 years ago.

Such has been the multitude of emotional outbursts about the whole project that it is worth going backwards before we can go forwards to make a proper study of this contentious issue.

THE BACKGROUND

It is a little remembered point amidst the hubris and emotion, but the impetus to look at possible changes to the game came from a group of the world's leading coaches.

They asked the IRB about the possibility of making future changes to certain laws, so a conference was staged in Auckland in January 2004 entitled 'The Playing of the Game'. As a result of play at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, these men felt that some of the laws were too complicated and there was too much uncertainty surrounding key areas. Coaches like Clive Woodward, Warren Gatland, Ian McGeechan, Rod Mcqueen, Eddie O'Sullivan and Andy Robinson - some serious hitters, in other words.

Specific areas mentioned were the breakdown, ways of defending the maul, the numbers at the line-out, the scrum engagement and the lack of space for attacking plays. They went so far as to say that in its current form, the maul was legally impossible to stop.

As a result of the conference, the IRB set up a Laws Project Group. It included former coaches Pierre Villepreux of France, Ian McIntosh of South Africa, Rod Macqueen of Australia and Richie Dixon of Scotland, plus IRB referee supremo Paddy O'Brien.

Experiments began some months later, initially between two teams at Stellenbosch University. The IRB's Laws Project Group agreed to have an open mind and observe all kinds of radical ideas. For example, the breakdown was initially observed as a free for all, with hands in the ruck. They tried to hone things as they went along, so that in time two things which were taken out were handling in the ruck and sanctions with the exception of foul play, offside and not entering the ruck through the rear 'gate'.

Subsequent to the first trials at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, trials spread around the world. Finally, some of them were introduced into the northern hemisphere's top flight professional game in September 2008 (although there had been trials at lower levels in countries like Scotland well before that), but without the sanctions idea at the breakdown, offering teams the option of a free-kick or scrum rather than full penalty. The latter could only be awarded for offside, foul play or deliberate infringement. But this issue alone is threatening to cause a major divide between the hemispheres.

THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

Some of the ELVs can be swiftly consigned to the file marked 'common sense'. For example, touch judges are re-named 'assistant referees' and can help the referee on adjudication.

In all, there were 33 original ELVs, as devised by the Laws Project Group, but these have gradually been whittled down. This may have soothed some furrowed brows but Macqueen, a member of that group, warns that the value and full impact of all 33 will be lost if only some are implemented.

"If the new laws are proven not to work at the end of a 12-month trial, then we would scrap them," he says. "But the sort of questions we are asking are: is the referee now not having as much of a say in the outcome of the game? Are the players enjoying it more? Are the players now more responsible for the outcomes of the games? Are the coaches more responsible for the outcomes? Are the players not as frustrated with referees? Are referees finding it easier? I don't think the entertainment factor has ever entered into conversations. I think it's an add-on."

Macqueen is honest enough to say that he doesn't believe that rugby is in a dire state. "I think the state of the game now is reasonable," he says. "However, the rules can be broken and, in fact, are. If you look at Tests or even schoolboy football, you'll see that the referee has got to make a split second decision, and most times, he's probably got three or four decisions he could make.

"Then there's the breakdown and 45-60 per cent of the game is involved in the breakdown, so the reality is that the game is becoming rather lost in subjective decisions. I think that was one of the main things that the International Rugby Board thought should be looked at.

"The game has changed dramatically because it went professional. With a sport that suddenly goes professional, you get players that are a lot fitter, obviously, but you go through a revolutionary phase rather than an evolutionary phase, and to do that, you have to have the systems in place to keep up.

"I think the thing to keep in mind is the game itself; it's a game for all different shapes and sizes. That's the unique thing about rugby, and I think it's something that has been guarded very preciously since day one.

"When you look at the past - where we were and how things were done - there were recommendations which came from the Unions, and those, a lot of the time, were discussed in the board room and a decision would be made. I think everyone realises that's not the way to do things.

"We need to make decisions on what would be good for the game, and also what isn't good for rugby."

Is Macqueen surprised at the paranoia which has arisen? "I'm disappointed, would be the best way to describe it. All I'm asking for, what I want to see, are informed decisions (on the ELVs).

"I'm not here to sell the ELVs, but we will only know the effect of these laws after we trial them right through, then go back to the games played to see what worked and what didn't.

"I understand people's reluctance to change. In business and in sport, people are reluctant to change, and sometimes for good reason. However, usually businesses at the top accept change and so they stay at the top. For rugby, we need to make sure that self-interest doesn't overcome professional sense."

THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE'S EXPERIENCE

The first serious opportunity to make a judgement on the ELVs came with their introduction into the 2008 Super 14 and Tri-Nations Championship. The pace of the game had clearly been raised and there was far greater continuity, albeit at times somewhat directionless.

Matches were being decided, too, not so much by penalty kicks but by tries. Above all, it was obvious that the stereotypical type of rugby which had been too prevalent at both the 2003 and 2007 Rugby World Cups was being superceded. Teams that had been so rigidly structured that their players knew what they were doing off fifth and even sixth phase possession suddenly found that life wasn't like that anymore.

There wasn't as much shape in the game but that created a situation whereby players had to make decisions for themselves. Questions were being asked of individual players and at times, some surprisingly eminent players looked bemused and decidedly inferior. It was a revealing process.

Nolan says: "This was in line with one of the original ideas raised as far back as 2004, that we should 'give' the game back to the players, to make decisions and call the shots out on the field."

This hugely significant element of the ELVs has tended to become blurred and lost amid the emotions and prejudices regarding the ELVs.

It took most of the southern hemisphere's best players the whole of the Super 14 season and, in certain cases, almost the entire Tri-Nations to come to terms with the ELVs and their quintessential requirements. Only by the time they played Australia in Johannesburg in the last of their six matches, did South Africa's players really show that they were beginning to grasp the rudiments of the envisaged new game. Until then, players like Victor Matfield, Schalk Burger and Juan Smith, World Cup winners all, had begun to resemble dinosaurs threatened with extinction.

By contrast, players like New Zealand captain Richie McCaw and Wallaby flanker George Smith were already reminding us of their supreme skills by adapting almost seamlessly to the new requirements. Yet even a world 'great' like Dan Carter had struggled to adapt, kicking woefully in Sydney as Australia overran New Zealand. But Carter proved his class by showing only seven days later he was a rapid learner, kicking superbly to destroy the Australian defence and turn the tables on the Wallabies.

More kicking has been one effect of the ELV that prevented players kicking directly into touch from their own 22. 'Aerial ping-pong' developed in the southern hemisphere, with defenders hammering the ball downfield, just ensuring it did not go into touch on the full from their own 22.

Springbok fly-half Butch James jokes: "A bad kick has become a thing of the past for a No.10 in the modern game. If you belt it somewhere downfield, you say you were going for position. If, perhaps fortuitously, it rolls into touch, then you say you were going for touch. We can't lose."

Aimless kicking was undoubtedly a blight on a lot of southern hemisphere matches this season. Yet the salient point was that once players came to terms with the fact that they had to adapt, things improved drastically. It was no coincidence that those teams' fortunes tended to improve, too; witness, the All Blacks' 34-19 hiding by Australia in Sydney when Carter kicked atrociously, to their 39-10 win over the same opponents one week later.

In Auckland, Carter no longer drilled the ball aimlessly somewhere down the middle of the Australian defence but kicked for proper position and touch. The effect was dramatic - New Zealand played a far more structured game, attacked the Australian line-out and won eight of their throws and dominated the match. It proved that even under the ELVs, you could perfectly well play a structured, traditional game.

SELF INTEREST

The refusal of the northern hemisphere countries, most particularly Ireland, England and Wales, to trial the so-called 'short arm penalty' for a whole raft of offences in the 2008-09 northern hemisphere season strikes at the heart of the whole ELVs project, although at the time of writing I understand a competition may be used in French rugby to circumvent the British & Irish nations' intransigence.

The original idea was to bring to an end a familiar scenario where a refereeing decision, quite probably not understood by 70-80 per cent of people in a ground, would decide the outcome of a match.

The sentiment behind this idea is surely commendable; players should settle games through their skills or speed, not match officials. Thus, the number of offences for which a full penalty could be awarded was drastically reduced to just three - offside, foul play and deliberate infringement.

This was trialled in the southern hemisphere and it revealed one major flaw. Players at the breakdown, safe in the knowledge that killing the ball, handling in the ruck or lying all over the ball, would not concede three points, constantly infringed for their own self interest. Thus, it quickly became dubbed a 'cheat's charter' for there was no doubt, wily players were using the law for their own benefits.

But this exposed the general poverty in world refereeing. Generally inferior officials tolerated this nonsense, or at best used only verbal threats which were seldom backed up by use of yellow cards. Yet the law states that a yellow card can be applied for the first offence, if an official deems it appropriate. Clearly, referees should have been tougher, cracking down on the cheats by sending players to the sin-bin. Repeat offenders should have been red carded but until referees crack down, forcing players off the field so that they (and their coaches) at last get the message, this new law cannot work properly.

GENERAL REACTIONS

It's too early to get any measured views from those in the northern hemisphere. They need to trial those ELVs that have been included and make a considered decision at a later date.

But the fact that the version of the ELVs introduced in the northern hemisphere is a very watered down product was underlined by the reaction of Wasps coach Shaun Edwards. He wrote: "Thirteen new laws might have seemed a lot to digest, but the players at Wasps took them on board pretty rapidly because so many were pretty marginal."

Edwards believes that the changes will not threaten the foundations of the game. He said: "The big worry was for the rolling maul. When done properly, it has its own beauty and is to be admired. Its demise seems greatly exaggerated and I don't see it going away just because it can be pulled down. Teams will adapt, find new ways of protecting the maul and be more selective in its use."

The hysteria has been wildly misplaced because teams can still use a rolling maul. Sure, they're going to have to be a lot smarter in how they do so, ensuring perhaps two or three pods of loosely-bound players able to spin off in different directions so as to maintain continuity. But it can be done.

Yet Edwards' boss at London Wasps, rugby director Ian McGeechan, the man who will coach the 2009 British & Irish Lions, is far from convinced. McGeechan, together with Lions manager Gerald Davies, flew to Cape Town and Durban to see the Springboks' home Tri-Nations matches in August.

His response to a question about the ELVs? "They are a mess. They produce a game that seems shapeless, without any proper structure. I can't think that's the way rugby should go in the future."

Back in Australia, 1991 Wallaby World Cup winning captain Nick Farr-Jones admitted he enthused at the notion of greater continuity and momentum in the game. "It's critical; I want to see more ball being played, that's for sure, I want to see more continuity, more movement."

But then the Farr-Jones came up with a surprise. "I think you can get that under the old structure; I'm not one who was desperate for the changes. I understand the northern hemisphere's reluctance to embrace them. They're putting up 'Ground Full' signs most weeks so they think, why change things? It's understandable."

Farr-Jones' World Cup-winning coach Bob Dwyer calls for calm debate to resolve differences. "It seems to me that we're in a situation where people are saying 'I don't like this because you proposed it. And because you're proposing it (and in some cases rather forcefully), I like it even less'.

"So both sides are at fault because we don't need to ram something down somebody else's throat. We need dialogue and debate. Then we'll reach a conclusion. I'm sure that the ELVs offer opportunities for the game and they should be considered."

Wallabies coach Robbie Deans said that the intransigence of England, Ireland and Wales was based solely on fear. "I understand it; it's fear of change. It's been there since the beginning of time. But it's not based on facts, just fear. I suspect part of their thought process is they look at full stadiums and the fact that they are not cash strapped and they say 'Well, there's no need to change'. But we are not considering balance sheets here; we are considering the game. The question is, what is in the best interests of the game globally? That is the only thing for us to consider as governors of international rugby.

"The worse case scenario would be if one hemisphere committed to these new laws and the other didn't, because you would have two distinct games. If that is what you finish up with, the group that was playing more ambitiously would benefit. They would develop a skill set that would be advantageous.

"There is no doubt it has forced players to become better decision makers and that is the key to the game. They have to look at what is in front of them and make decisions. This is evidenced by the ball being in play longer - 10 minutes - a significant amount of time, and the opportunity for positive rugby. And because there is less ability for a referee to enter the game in a way that is difficult to interpret, it has been beneficial to officials, too.

"The scrum has become an even more important platform in terms of utilising the set piece as a launching pad for attack. This was evidenced by the fact that teams were opting to scrummage by the end of the Super 14 as opposed to tap and go. So it has evolved to the point where you could fit your method, your pattern, your game if you like to your team profile."

All Blacks coach Graham Henry concurred with much of that, adding: "The players seem to enjoy playing under these experimental new laws. They can create a more open game, an entertaining style of rugby. But you can still play a traditional type of game under them, that's the good thing. No-one is forcing you to change your approach if you don't want to because these ELVs cater for all types of game. That has to be positive."

But there are darker words emanating from other mouths in the southern hemisphere. Australian rugby chief executive John O'Neill warned that the game is in danger of a worldwide split over the new ELVs.

O'Neill believes there are severe consequences around the corner for the game in both hemispheres, from the key northern hemisphere countries' decision to go back on their original promise to trial sanctions and offside at the breakdown from this September.

He warned: "You would hate to think we will end up with a situation where we have two games in world rugby. But that could happen. No-one wants to see that happen but ultimately, unless there is a degree of reason here, it could. This has to be done and dusted by the end of next year otherwise you will run out of time before the next World Cup.

"We are simply saying to England, Wales and Ireland, 'Give it a fair go because until you have had a universal trial of all the ELVs, you cannot make an informed judgement'. Just to sit back and say no is not in the best interests of the world game.

"What we are seeing is a tremendous test to the IRB's leadership to stare down England, Wales and Ireland and force them to find competitions to trial particularly the sanctions."

O'Neill went on: "They feel they have been ambushed by these, despite the fact that the IRB set out publicly and clearly a timetable for the trialling.

"But when the northern hemisphere was asked to go ahead, it was like Hiroshima, like an atom bomb was dropped.

"Nothing I say nor South Africa or New Zealand, can force the northern hemisphere countries to trial these laws in full. The body with the only real clout is the IRB. If they bottle that decision I am not sure what we do because we can't go back to the old laws. The players and spectators here have made it perfectly clear which set of laws they prefer.

"We have seen some wonderful Test matches under the new laws in this season's Tri-Nations. We have also seen Test matches between southern and northern hemisphere countries played under the old laws and you don't have to be Einstein to figure out which game is a far more impressive spectacle. It is a better game under these new laws."

CONCLUSIONS

Clearly, there are plusses and minuses to some of the ELVs but the basic concept, that they force players to make more decisions themselves has to be sound. Bill Nolan says: "Clearly, some people think they are a panacea for all ills, others think they are the antithesis of what the game is all about. I'd just say to people, leave your prejudices behind, leave out what might happen and focus on what can happen. Just take it from there."

STATS AND FACTS

* 96 per cent of teams that started a rolling maul under the old laws still had possession when it ended.

* 80 per cent of those mauls ended up on the ground even though pulling them down was illegal under the old laws

* 45-60 per cent of the game is involved in the breakdown

* 33 - The number of Experimental Law Variations devised by the Laws Project Group

* 84 per cent - The percentage revealed by a poll of southern hemisphere players taken around the end of the Super 14 and as the Tri-Nations got under way, showing the players who preferred the game under the new laws

* 102 - The number of points scored in just two Tri-Nations matches this season between New Zealand and Australia

This story was sourced from International Rugby News