Less haste needed over new law proposals

Apr 5 2008 by Guest1, Western Mail

NEW ZEALANDERS are currently very fond of ELVs. They did provide the backdrop for Lord of the Rings, after all. But we’re not talking pointy-eared sprites on a mythical quest to find a rather important item of jewellery.

It’s ELVs as in “experimental law variations” – the possible rugby rule changes being trialled in this year’s Super 14 competition.

The IRB’s laws project group met with representatives of the Six Nations’ unions last week to update them on how the new laws have fared in the southern hemisphere. The changes are designed to make the game more entertaining, by increasing ball-in-play time and encouraging free-flowing rugby.

This may also be shorthand for “England will never be allowed to get to a World Cup final playing such boring rugby again”.

There’s been a positive response in New Zealand and Australia, while South Africa is reserving judgement, as might be expected from a nation that didn’t do too badly under the current rules. But diehards from the school of kick and clap remain sceptical.

The new laws have attracted the derision of such noted rugby intellects as Jeremy Clarkson, who, in a column headlined “Ruck off you nancy Aussies” seemed to think it was all a Wallaby conspiracy to take the scrum out of the game… mainly because packing down ruins their coiffures.

“When you have spent upwards of A$700 on a haircut and colouring, the last thing you need is to spend 80 minutes with your new highlights rammed up a Welshman’s bottom,” he says.

Stick to Ford Focus reviews, Jeremy. Ironically, the ELVs have produced more scrums, not less. And if Australia is showing the most enthusiasm for the changes, it’s because down under, the union game has to fight for attention with league and Aussie rules, which must be pretty galling when you’ve lifted the World Cup twice. So Australia recognises the need to enthral the floating fan. One convert, Luke from Perth, expressed his zeal for the new-look game. “This year’s Super 14 matches are the first time I have seen two teams sucking up the O2 like their lives depend on it.

“Most importantly what these rules do are stop the penalty fest that has switched most people off the game. Rather than kick anything in the opposition’s half now we have more tries and play in the 22s.”

More complacent rugby nations should take note of Australia’s example. The IRB has a responsibility to expand the game’s global profile. So changes that make the action more compelling should be welcomed.

Even the commentators were bored senseless in the recent Blues v Munster game when the latter spent seven minutes of the climactic stage of the match sticking the ball up their jumpers in an endless series of pick and gos.

Thankfully, the Blues persuaded the audience not to switch to Dancing On Ice with a little choreography of their own. The adventurous move which snatched victory with a try in the final seconds was a triumph of positive play over negative.

Yet the IRB should not be too hasty. Fast-tracking the new laws in place for the autumn internationals would give the southern hemisphere an unfair advantage. They should also consider whether they would render the game too free-flowing – no one wants glorified touch rugby. Teams such as France, New Zealand and Wales manage to keep the entertainment quota high within the current rules, which suggests it’s more about how laws are interpreted by nations with contrasting playing styles rather than the laws themselves.

Naturally suited to high-tempo, ball-in-hand rugby, Wales could, of course, thrive on the changes, just as they did when the Australian and New Zealand experiment with rules forbidding kicking directly into touch from outside the 25-yard area was made law in 1970.

But the Grand Slam champions are also at ease with the status quo. The IRB may need more than one guinea pig Super 14 competition to prove there’s nothing airy-fairy about playing with the ELVs.