Gerry Thornley, ELVS and an awful opening Weekend of HC

Inquitus

Plenty of drama but far from vintage weekend
GERRY THORNLEY ON RUGBY : The IRB and the new ELVs went some way to ruining the opening weekend of the Heineken Cup

THERE WAS drama aplenty, there was even some good rugby and it was anything but predictable. The opening match even came within three minutes of a 33 to 1 underdog beating the 1 to 250 favourites. Even by the standards of the Heineken Cup, that would have been seismic. But it was not a vintage Heineken Cup weekend for the quality of the rugby.

Munster's somewhat distracted performance will in part be attributed to the comments of Tony McGahan earlier in the week about chasing a bonus point. Sure enough, when Munster have allowed themselves to be distracted by such notions in the past (at home to the Dragons or Bourgoin, and against Harlequins in Twickenham) they have struggled. The cart before the horse, etc.

Nonetheless, McGahan would be entitled to highlight that his players still made 10 clean line breaks, and had their support play and finishing been half as clinical as Leinster's - or Sale's for that matter - talk of a bonus point wouldn't have been nearly so fanciful.

In further mitigation of Munster, the combined effects of the IRB's diktat about players going off their feet to "seal" the ball along with the ELVs regarding kicking to touch hardly encourage teams to counter-attack or play from their own half. Why run it when the odds have increased on conceding a penalty? Arguably the two teams most inclined to risk it over the weekend, Munster and Bath, were punished for doing so.

The diktat itself it not a bad thing, for it was meant, presumably, to stop the tactics employed by most teams in an endgame-winning position, regardless of their field position. These pick-and-go drives around the fringes to run down the clock were most famously (but by no means uniquely) exploited by Munster in last May's final win over Toulouse. The latter, ironically, emulated those tactics when closing out the French championship final against Clermont.

In a further irony, of course, it was Montauban who paid the ultimate penalty over the weekend for this exact offence. That is what the diktat was designed to achieve, for running down the clock in this manner has become an anti-climactic endgame.

Why, for example, did the IRB not introduce a use-it-or-lose-it rule at rucks as well? Instead, the new diktat is being applied more rigidly in some instances, and more so in the English Premiership than in the Magners League. Hence, with referees Wayne Barnes and the distinctly unconvincing Rob Debney, there is little distinction between players flopping on to the ground to seal the ball and good low clearing out. In a dynamic, robust, physical contact sport, penalising players for falling down is absurd, all the more so in wet conditions. What's more, suddenly it also seems like the only rule in town.

By stark contrast, the old laws are still not being employed, and defenders are being allowed to creep up in front of the hindmost foot, either at the fringes or in midfield. Why don't more referees adopt a sideways stance, a la Alain Rolland and Alan Lewis, it has to be said, so they can more easily scan across the offside line?

Failing that, why aren't referees' assistants employed more regularly to curb this practice and so give the game more room to breathe? Even some of the ELVs aren't being enforced as they might be. While it's true that mauls can now be legally brought down, this can only be from pulling a player from above the waist. But Montauban, on Friday night, were by no means the first team to bring down mauls from well below the waist with impunity. It also increases the risk of injuries as well, and not only completely removes an attacking weapon but also a means of sucking in defenders. Similarly, teams may start off defending five metres away from scrums, but very often encroach long before the ball is fed from the base. Yet in both cases one cannot recall either offence being penalised once this season.

As counter-attacking - arguably the game's most thrilling source of tries - or running from deep have become riskier, so hoofing the ball is the percentage ploy. Ironically, the ELVs were brought about in part to stem the excessive kicking out of hand at the last World Cup. Now, instead, everybody is emulating Argentina's tactics a year ago.

Leinster, in contrast to Munster, played their English referee and the percentages better. Edinburgh were generally the more ambitious or impatient, depending on your viewpoint, when ending bouts of aerial ping-pong, and paid for it.

Gloucester curbed their counter-attacking instincts against a typically conservative Biarritz, who lost the penalty count 17-6 and left Kingsholm incandescent with rage at Scottish referee Paul Allen. And it doesn't help that there are not sufficient good referees to cover a full weekend of Heineken Cup matches, never mind the Challenge Cup as well. All told, there were over 70 kicks out of hand in the match as Gloucester coach Dean Ryan extolled Ryan Lamb and Iain Balshaw for reining in their normally "flamboyant" ways. Is this what the IRB want? Modern-day rugby has become akin to boot tennis.

One sat down on Sunday to watch the Leicester-Ospreys and Toulouse-Bath double header and until the 77th minute of the second match, the only try was from a close-range blockdown. Admittedly Leicester butchered a few chances, and Rolland awarded only five penalties in the second half, after 10 in the first. But Sunday's double header would have provided altogether better rugby a year ago.

Perhaps it's still too early to make a definitive judgment, but were the full raft of ELVs being used in the Southern Hemisphere to be adopted (what with the licence to cheat that is legalising hands in the ruck coupled with the preponderance of tap-and-go penalties) we are only a generation away from 15 rugby league-type clones.

What was an outstanding product last season had been made an infinitely more boring game by the IRB. They even went some way to ruining the opening weekend of the Heineken Cup. That's quite a trick.

Well done gentlemen. Keep up the good work.

buck65

The article was ambling along nicely and then he went mad!!

Hazys

When do they decide on the ELVs? When do they get written into law or not and are no longer experimental?

Tim Robbins

Inquitus wrote: »

In a further irony, of course, it was Montauban who paid the ultimate penalty over the weekend for this exact offence. That is what the diktat was designed to achieve, for running down the clock in this manner has become an anti-climactic endgame.

don't agree with this. Teams should be able to prevent a contest. This is what teams in possesion were doing.

Why, for example, did the IRB not introduce a use-it-or-lose-it rule at rucks as well?

The team going forward at the ruck get possesion. So if the other team don't have possesion but are counter rucking, the team in possesion will loose it.

Instead, the new diktat is being applied more rigidly in some instances, and more so in the English Premiership than in the Magners League. Hence, with referees Wayne Barnes and the distinctly unconvincing Rob Debney, there is little distinction between players flopping on to the ground to seal the ball and good low clearing out.

Of course there is. If someone is blatantly not on their feet they'll be penalised. You can clear out and stay on your feet. And you can still "park" as well. Teams will have to just speed up their rucking. Nothing wrong with that.

In a dynamic, robust, physical contact sport, penalising players for falling down is absurd, all the more so in wet conditions.

A ref will not penalise if a player falls off his feet accidently. Similarly a ref will not penalise a player for not rolling away if he was trying to roll away and could not. This is a problem because fans shout on the sideline "off his feet, ref" who don't always know how a game is reffed.

Failing that, why aren't referees' assistants employed more regularly to curb this practice and so give the game more room to breathe?

They are. A ref will usually check with his assistants on the sly. "Are my missing anything?", "Watch offside from 12 at breakdown?".

You don't penalise every single thing in Rugby, otherwise there'd be no game.
You try to manage first and then penalise second.

What was an outstanding product last season had been made an infinitely more boring game by the IRB. They even went some way to ruining the opening weekend of the Heineken Cup. That's quite a trick.

Well done gentlemen. Keep up the good work.

The reason why Rugby is getting more boring is because defenses are getting better and better. The same happened in Soccer and the same happened in League. Go and watch a decent J4 match or a schools game and you'll see more line breaks.

Once a defense fans out and is well organised it's very hard to create any sort of line break.

Inquitus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

don't agree with this. Teams should be able to prevent a contest. This is what teams in possesion were doing.


The team going forward at the ruck get possesion. So if the other team don't have possesion but are counter rucking, the team in possesion will loose it.



Of course there is. If someone is blatantly not on their feet they'll be penalised. You can clear out and stay on your feet. And you can still "park" as well. Teams will have to just speed up their rucking. Nothing wrong with that.


A ref will not penalise if a player falls off his feet accidently. Similarly a ref will not penalise a player for not rolling away if he was trying to roll away and could not. This is a problem because fans shout on the sideline "off his feet, ref" who don't always know how a game is reffed.


They are. A ref will usually check with his assistants on the sly. "Are my missing anything?", "Watch offside from 12 at breakdown?".

You don't penalise every single thing in Rugby, otherwise there'd be no game.
You try to manage first and then penalise second.



The reason why Rugby is getting more boring is because defenses are getting better and better. The same happened in Soccer and the same happened in League. Go and watch a decent J4 match or a schools game and you'll see more line breaks.

Once a defense fans out and is well organised it's very hard to create any sort of line break.

The Reff'ing is shocking atm, there are not enough decent refs to go around on a HC weekend as Gerry says. Interpretation differs massively. I saw one game where sealing off was allowed pretty much as last year, in a few others it was correctly pinged off the park, most were just inconsistent. We need consistent reff'ing on this across the board, atm it is just a joke.

The HC weekend was poor as a result of the ELV's, and also the poor and inconsistent standard of reffing across the home nations to date this year, mainly around the ruck laws.

The ELV's have directly contributed to the endless kicking we saw in alot of the games, it has nothing to do with improved defences, it is a direct result of the ELV's. Last season the defences were just as good, yet the rugby was of a much higher standard.

It was the worst opening weekend of HC Rugby I have ever seen.

Some English and French comment on the ELV's

http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4193061,00.html

http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_4192660,00.html

buck65

Didn't think the games were THAT bad, I actually enjoyed the Munster game - tense affair, Toulouse v Bath was a great game with Bath playing some outrageous running rugby - that may have cost the game.
Leicester v Ospreys was a dour traditional Leicester affair, Stade looked good, Scarletts v Quins was a good game too. Fair enough Gloucester v Biarritz was awful.

Trojan

I agree with the general point - the game is far less entertaining this season. And shockingly, we didn't even get the worst of the new laws (almost everything being a free kick instead of penalty). These ELVs have not provided the great rugby I was expecting after all the rave reviews of Stellenbosch rules we heard from the southern hemisphere.

Snickers Man

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Once a defense fans out and is well organised it's very hard to create any sort of line break.

Well Duhh!!! Einstein.

As anybody with a brain has been trying to tell our delightful but dim rugby league lovin' cousins from Australia for the past decade, any law brought in ostensibly to "open up the game" has had precisely the opposite effect.

Remove contests at ruck and maul and all of a sudden there is no need for forwards to be forwards so they clutter up the middle of the park, leading to endless rounds of kicking for position. Further restrict the laws on kicking for touch and what you get is an endless boring repitition of kicks like a clay court tennis rally.

It's like the Roland Garros with mud.

So what to do:

1. Scrap this ridiculous law about pulling down the maul. You CAN stop a rolling maul if you commit bodies to it. That's the whole bloody point of the maul in the first case. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Should I write it more slowly?

2 Concentrate all efforts on ENFORCING THE BLOODY LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE!! We're behaving like a bunch of pants-wetting opposition politicians demanding new laws to outlaw stuff that is already outlawed. Enforce offside properly. Enforce scrum binding properly. Make use of touch judges to assist in this. Like soccer uses linesmen, or assistant referees as they are now called.

3 Allow teams to kick out on the full from inside their 22, no matter how the ball got there. The current change is just reinforcing the dull trend to piing pong that has been evident for some time.

If I really wanted my own way I would say go back to where we were BEFORE the use it or lose it laws came in. they were the single biggest factor in turning Union into League with clutter. I mean, if you want to watch League, there is a "WORLD CUP" (ooooooh) coming up real soon. Including an "Irish" team, made up almost exclusively from Australians, Englishmen and a few people from Carlow.

Leave the rest of us to get on with the traditional game we love. And let's get it back to the traditional great game it was.

bleg

think thornley hit the nail dead on the head.

homergriffin

Snickers Man wrote: »

1. Scrap this ridiculous law about pulling down the maul. You CAN stop a rolling maul if you commit bodies to it. That's the whole bloody point of the maul in the first case. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Should I write it more slowly?

2 Concentrate all efforts on ENFORCING THE BLOODY LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE!! We're behaving like a bunch of pants-wetting opposition politicians demanding new laws to outlaw stuff that is already outlawed. Enforce offside properly. Enforce scrum binding properly. Make use of touch judges to assist in this. Like soccer uses linesmen, or assistant referees as they are now called.

3 Allow teams to kick out on the full from inside their 22, no matter how the ball got there. The current change is just reinforcing the dull trend to piing pong that has been evident for some time.

Agree completely with you and it's not just Northern Hemisphere. 'Ping pong rugby' is getting ridiculous. I remember watching the Western Force vs the Sharks and saying: 'If this is what rugby is going to become, forget these laws now'.

Anyone know the percentage increase in kicking since the ELV's have been introduced?

Crash

I think we should have "height of ball vs. time" graphs for each game. realistically we should see |...|..|......|.......|........ as a match.

Instead we get |....||||......|..||.||.||..||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

and then i turn off the tv.

anonymous_joe

I really think some of the ELV's are alright in concept, but hasn't rugby sucked badly since they came in?

il gatto

When we had two decent teams competing under the "normal" laws and a decent ref, what exactly was wrong with the game? I never once thought to myself, "I wish players couldn't kick out on the full if the ball got into their 22 by certain means", or "I wish the maul would be severely resticted as an attacking option", or "why do we reward teams who've earned a penalty to gain points by having a skillfull kicker who practices really hard, to score points just because the other team cheated or were forced to commit an error?". I had a problem with things like going off your feet in rucks and constantly offside defence, but then there were laws there already if anyone chose to enforce them properly. I disliked the ELVs before they got here and rightly some people said I couldn't offer an opinion until I'd seen them in effect up close and in the NH game. Well now I've seen them, and I like them even less. Thornley=Nail+Head.

Trojan

The positive side of professionalism and corporate sponsorship (I'm hoping) is that Heinken are going to shout blue murder about viewership and interest in the game dropping. That will hopefully have a direct impact on the issue.

Erin Go Brath

Inquitus wrote: »

In further mitigation of Munster, the combined effects of the IRB's diktat about players going off their feet to "seal" the ball along with the ELVs regarding kicking to touch hardly encourage teams to counter-attack or play from their own half. Why run it when the odds have increased on conceding a penalty? Arguably the two teams most inclined to risk it over the weekend, Munster and Bath, were punished for doing so.

Thornleys got a point here. Either rule in its own right is fair enough, but together anyone with a bit of cop on is going to hoof the ball downfield. If Bath hoofed downfield near the end they would most likely have beaten the former European Champions. More tinkering with the rules until they get it right i think.

Inquitus

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Thornleys got a point here. Either rule in its own right is fair enough, but together anyone with a bit of cop on is going to hoof the ball downfield. If Bath hoofed downfield near the end they would most likely have beaten the former European Champions. More tinkering with the rules until they get it right i think.

In the past due to the better odds of recycling the ball at rucktime, teams built pressure, territory and possession and it would usually result in a score of some sort......the number of "Turnover" penalties was low as Thornley states. From watching the games especially at the weekend, attacking sides attempting to create pressure very often were pinged for a "Turnover" penalty, often for sealing off, or other rucktime misdemeanors, the odds of winning your own ruck ball when abiding to the re-enforced interpretation of the ruck laws has gone from 90%+ to 60-70% or so, as Thornley states. This creates a disjointed game to watch where much of the pressure from the attacking sides is cancelled out by getting pinged for attacking ruck misdemeanors and results in the ball shooting 50m+ up the pitch, this really kills the game as a spectacle.

JWAD

Gezzer wrote: »

What was an outstanding product last season had been made an infinitely more boring game by the IRB

What utter tosh.
Last year outstanding rugby? Six Nations? RWC? The entire ERC???
:rolleyes:

Having a go at the ELVs en-bloc is quite a feat to attempt in itself but to keep mentioning them and then discuss the kicking out of one's own territory in the same context is all very convenient especially when the ELVs are not what is causing this kicking tactic (which is hardly new, by the way).

The biggest influence on the state of the game that has apparently turned for the worst is the reffing of the rucks (hence Thornley's new love affair with the word 'diktat' which is now as done to death as his 'think-tank' line in his pieces).
There are NO RUCK VARIATIONS. Rucks are now reffed as they have always meant to be and no laws have change in that regard.

Quit codding yourselves that the game was all fine and dandy last season. It wasn't. Take a step away and look at the game without the Irish provincial wins. Outstanding product? Bollocks.

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

What utter tosh.
Last year outstanding rugby? Six Nations? RWC? The entire ERC???
:rolleyes:

Having a go at the ELVs en-bloc is quite a feat to attempt in itself but to keep mentioning them and then discuss the kicking out of one's own territory in the same context is all very convenient especially when the ELVs are not what is causing this kicking tactic (which is hardly new, by the way).

The biggest influence on the state of the game that has apparently turned for the worst is the reffing of the rucks (hence Thornley's new love affair with the word 'diktat' which is now as done to death as his 'think-tank' line in his pieces).
There are NO RUCK VARIATIONS. Rucks are now reffed as they have always meant to be and no laws have change in that regard.

Quit codding yourselves that the game was all fine and dandy last season. It wasn't. Take a step away and look at the game without the Irish provincial wins. Outstanding product? Bollocks.

The game is much worse this year, the amount of kicking is out of control, the Ruck Laws MIGHT AS WELL HAVE CHANGED, change in enforcement and interpretation has much the same effect as changing a LAW. The game is poorer this season for these ill-thought out ELV's, making an attacking ruck a lottery does nothing to improve the game, or a teams willingness to attack with ball in hand. The opening HC weekend was much better last season, we had maybe 1 decent live Sky game last weekend....if you watched all of the games, I am analysing them for quality of play etc, just because a game is close and exciting doesn't mean the rugby was of any great quality.

JWAD

Inquitus wrote: »

The game is poorer this season for these ill-thought out ELV's, making an attacking ruck a lottery does nothing to improve the game, or a teams willingness to attack with ball in hand

Its not an ELV. Not even "as good as" one. An entirely seperate issue, in fact. However, certain punditos and 'experts' in the media/on the web would have you believe it as a part of the whole ELVs implementation.

Playing dumb when pinged for not staying on your feet or entering through the side just doesn't cut it anymore. Neither does 'oh, the game was wonderful before these ELVs (plus reffing of breakdowns sticking to laws of game) came about'.

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

Its not an ELV. Not even "as good as" one. An entirely seperate issue, in fact. However, certain punditos and 'experts' in the media/on the web would have you believe it as a part of the whole ELVs implementation.

Playing dumb when pinged for not staying on your feet or entering through the side just doesn't cut it anymore. Neither does 'oh, the game was wonderful before these ELVs (plus reffing of breakdowns sticking to laws of game) came about'.

I clearly stated its not an ELV, but it might as well be for it has changed the way the ruck is reff'ed just as much as if it was a new Law. Whether its a re-enforcement of an existing law or whether it was a new law, the effect is much the same....it's semantics, whichever way you look at it the ruck has changed immeasurably from last year.. It's also being reff'ed incredibly inconsistently which means in any given game it could be reff'ed as per last year, somewhere in between, or as per the letter of the law.......or as an inconsistent mish mash of all 3.

JWAD

Inquitus wrote: »

I clearly stated its not an ELV, but it might as well be for it has changed the way the ruck is reff'ed just as much as if it was a new Law. Whether its a re-enforcement of an existing law or whether it was a new law, the effect is much the same....it's semantics. It's also being reff'ed incredibly inconsistently which means in any given game it could be reff'ed as per last year, somewhere in between, or as per the letter of the law.......or as an inconsistent mish mash of all 3.

Its not "semantics". And there you go again with "it might as well be". The aim is clear. The laws are clear. Quit fouling and play the game. Its that simple.
And you're going to blame all this on referee inconsistency too? lol
Yeah sure. A whole new phenomenon hits the game now. Referee performance :rolleyes:

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

Its not "semantics". And there you go again with "it might as well be". The aim is clear. The laws are clear. Quit fouling and play the game. Its that simple.
And you're going to blame all this on referee inconsistency too? lol
Yeah sure. A whole new phenomenon hits the game now. Referee performance :rolleyes:

Oxymoron that, the laws are so clear....that without changing them we have completely changed the ruck and the way it is refereed......nice debating skills :rolleyes: All laws be they rugby or constitutional etc are open to interpretation.

And referee consistency is vital, a GP ref is reffing the game differently to a ML ref and a Top 14 ref......you are saying this is a good thing?

dub_skav

Inquitus wrote: »

Oxymoron that, the laws are so clear....that without changing them we have completely changed the ruck and the way it is refereed......nice debating skills :rolleyes: All laws be they rugby or constitutional etc are open to interpretation.

And referee consistency is vital, a GP ref is reffing the game differently to a ML ref and a Top 14 ref......you are saying this is a good thing?

I think he's saying that referee inconsistancy is not new, indeed it existed last year. The law on securing in a ruck has always been very clear, referees just chose to ignore it. I believe that it needed addressing.
Being able to use 1 man to flop over the ball to secure it was against what rugby should be, i.e. a contest.
There are a lot of penalties because players and referees are getting used to having to abide by this law, this will lessen over time and the ruck will become a contest again.
As for the ELVs I do not think that they can be blamed for the perceived increase in kicking as this was creeping in last year anyway. Also, it is still possible to make good ground in a maul, just not the gauranteed 10 - 15 metres that good mauling teams used to get.

JWAD

Inquitus wrote: »

Oxymoron that, the laws are so clear....that without changing them we have completely changed the ruck and the way it is refereed......nice debating skills :rolleyes: All laws be they rugby or constitutional etc are open to interpretation

There is no interpretation involved in how a player enters a ruck off their feet or not through the 'gate'. There's no "debate" required. They either do it or they don't. The laws seem to confuse you yet they're there in black and white. What you write would refer more to pre-2008 season actually.

Inquitus wrote: »

And referee consistency is vital, a GP ref is reffing the game differently to a ML ref and a Top 14 ref......you are saying this is a good thing?

When did I say it wasn't? Inconsistent refereeing has been prevalent in the game for as long as the game has been in existence. The rucks are reffed the same in all three of those competitions. If they're not, they're not reffed according to the laws of the game.

JWAD

dub_skav wrote: »

There are a lot of penalties because players and referees are getting used to having to abide by this law, this will lessen over time and the ruck will become a contest again

Exactly. The aim of the whole bloody exercise in the first place.

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

The rucks are reffed the same in all three of those competitions. If they're not, they're not reffed according to the laws of the game.

Have you watched much rugby this season? Clearly they are not being reff'ed the same in all three of those competitions. Try watching a ML Game, a GP game and a Top14 game and see how different the rucking is in each. At the end of the day the laws are only as relevant as how the Ref's interpret them / ref them etc.

Tim Robbins

Inquitus wrote: »

Try watching a ML Game, a GP game and a Top14 game and see how different the rucking is in each. At the end of the day the laws are only as relevant as how the Ref's interpret them / ref them etc.

I haven't seen any GP or Top 14. I have seen a few Magners Leagues games though. The difference between a good ref and a bad ref, is generally their ability to keep up with the game, mentally and physically, so they spot more and manage better. All refs make mistakes. According to Dan Cottrell, there are 150 rucks in a game. There's also about 15 scrums. So of course every single ref will miss a thing here or there that you might spot on the tv. Or they might let the odd thing go, because it has no material effect and decide to manage it rather than penalise it. That can cause confusion amongst fans.

I'd be interested in hearing how you think the laws are being applied differently.

The only thing I know that differs is positioning:
1. Irish Refs always stand on the goal lineside of the lineout in the 22.
2. Irish Refs tend to stand at 2 or 6 in the lineout.
Some Welsh / English Refs stand off it completely.
3. Welsh refs, stick the hand up before the ball is thrown into the lineout where as Irish ones stick it up when a the jumper has caught it and returned to the deck.

Downtime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The only thing I know that differs is positioning:
1. Irish Refs always stand on the goal lineside of the lineout in the 22.
2. Irish Refs tend to stand at 2 or 6 in the lineout.
Some Welsh / English Refs stand off it completely.
3. Welsh refs, stick the hand up before the ball is thrown into the lineout where as Irish ones stick it up when a the jumper has caught it and returned to the deck.

Not completely true but there is not many lineout problems at the moment. Interpretation of the breakdown is different and positioning is vital here. Working to keep players on their feet is done differently and better by irish referees I think.

Inquitus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing how you think the laws are being applied differently.

I have seen games where sealing off has been allowed, I have seen some games where it was penalised very inconsistently, I have seen other games where it is being penalised to the letter of the law (as per IRFU Guidelines).

Within the first 5 minutes of any game you get a good idea where this particular ref stands on it.........as long as he is not being inconsistent as per the 3rd option above.

Tim Robbins

Inquitus wrote: »

I have seen games where sealing off has been allowed, I have seen some games where it was penalised very inconsistently, I have seen other games where it is being penalised to the letter of the law (as per IRFU Guidelines).

Interesting. You can still "park" but sealing off if preventing a contest should be penalised. I wonder why they are not.

il gatto

I think some refs have been pedantic about the sealing off and are penalising players quicker than they can react. Players seem reticent to clear out at rucks because any aggressive rucking can lead to a slip or the opposing players pulling back. It's a fluid situation and constantly pinging players for inadvertantly sealing off and going off their feet is making the game more stop start. I think something had to be done about some of the "professional" infringements (a la Richie McCaw) with regards hands in the ruck and flopping down on the wrong side, but enforcing it to the nth degree is not helping the game as a specticle. I know this is enforcement of a pre-existing law rather than an ELV, but aliied to the ELVs it's not a good move. The IRB should encourage refs to use more discretion.

JWAD

Inquitus wrote: »

Have you watched much rugby this season? Clearly they are not being reff'ed the same in all three of those competitions. Try watching a ML Game, a GP game and a Top14 game and see how different the rucking is in each

What a cop out of a question. Of course, I've watched "much rugby" this season. Do you think the organisers of each tournament have a sit down with the relevant unions' ref directors and dictate how they should instruct each tournament will be reffed? :rolleyes:

Inquitus wrote: »

At the end of the day the laws are only as relevant as how the Ref's interpret them / ref them etc.

In other words, laws are abused to the point where they have to be reiterated by the governing body of the sport.
You are clearly not a ref.

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

In other words, laws are abused to the point where they have to be reiterated by the governing body of the sport.
You are clearly not a ref.

The refs allow the abuse, players will adapt to the limits of the referees, ergo the refs are at fault not the players. They are the arbiters of the laws during the game, they are the ones who define the boundaries of legal and illegal play.

If the ref's were not of such a generally shocking standard, perhaps they could manage to ref in a reasonably consistent manner across the Grade 1 professional game, rather than butchering our sport with one ref allowing something that the ref on the next day will penalise.


Clearly you think it is too much to ask that in the Grade 1 professional competitions we have at least a modicum of consistency. There are but a handful of decent refs on the circuit, certainly not enough to manage a HC weekend full of fixtures.

JWAD wrote: »

What a cop out of a question. Of course, I've watched "much rugby" this season. Do you think the organisers of each tournament have a sit down with the relevant unions' ref directors and dictate how they should instruct each tournament will be reffed? :rolleyes:

The IRFU stated how the rules should be reff'ed, and the refs should be capable of reff'ing in line with the laws on a consistent basis and unless you really have watched eff all rugby this season you would see that clear divisions in the ruck law reff'ing exist in the different leagues :rolleyes:

NotWormBoy

A point that I'm sure has been made before is that the Northern Hemisphere competitions have had record turn-outs from fans in the last year - but Southern Hemisphere matches are losing attendances.

Thus we have the ELVs. Australia and NZ are looking for a way to boost attendances, and assume that more attacking running rugby equates to fans bums on seats. From what I've read (I watch about a dozen SH 'club' games a year, so my watching isn't extensive at all) and seen, much of the SH problems with fan attendances is that its all a franchise - like the US NFL. Teams can relocate and still be called the Chiefs (or whatever) - fans have little loyalty to a franchise - but when its their local team (Leinster, Munster, Toulouse, etc) then the fans have something to get behind, not just a name.

I think this is a major factor in the reason for ELVs. Now, I'm not saying that alll ELVs are bad, but I can't see Australia or NZ being reasonable about this. They'll want to get all of them through, not admit that maybe they were wrong about some, and just let the good ones in.

From what I saw, I really enjoyed the rugby that I watched in the NH - be it Six Nations, Magners League, Guinness Premiership or Heineken Cup. Generally, the quality of the games is higher than it has been this season. Do I blame this on the ELVs? Generally, yes.

bleg

reddan gives his views here: http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/features/reddane1.html


Reddan's Rugby Review

16 October 2008

How magnificent Munster were in the way they closed out the game on the biggest stage of all last May.

Millions of rugby fans around the world looked on with respect and awe at the way they squeezed the life out of probably the best attacking outfit in the world.

This year's final will be different and I'm betting it will be decided by a massive refereeing decision that infuriates half the rugby world and will send the other half into sheer ecstasy.

As I'm preparing to pack my bags and travel to Dublin to play Leinster this weekend for what should be a top-class game of rugby, my mind cannot help but drift to the agony and frustration I felt at Thomond Park in January last year as we were sent packing at the first hurdle. But at least the game was decided on the pitch and by the players, not the referee.

New Rules

As we all know this season has seen the introduction of new rules and directives from the powers that be. Of all the changes, the single biggest shift I've noticed so far is the willingness of referees to give decisions that can decide the outcome of the game.

All through last season, starting at the World Cup, the feeling amongst the referees was to let the rugby do the talking and to avoid making calls that influenced the result of the game. This was due mainly to the fact that getting these critical decisions wrong resulted in very bad marks from the referees' assessor.

As a result we saw games like France v New Zealand and Munster v Toulouse, where you had nail-biting endings to classic rugby encounters and the outcome was firmly in the hands of the 30 players on the pitch.

The Ruck

The reason for the shift this season is not even a new rule; it's simply that the referees have been told by their assessors to concentrate more on a certain aspect of the game - the ruck.

The ruck rule is probably one of the least significant to the people in the stands, but to the players and referees it is without doubt the most important change. The rule concerns particularly the attacking players staying on their feet when they enter the ruck.

This means they can't seal over the ball and ensure the ball stays secure until the scrum-half passes it away from the ruck.

A good example was the captain of Montauban (Raynaud) sealing off the ball in the dying minutes against Munster and the referee correctly giving a penalty against him that decided the outcome of the game.

When you consider the new rules for scrums and for lineouts and the change in approach to the ruck laws in order to determine the effect they will have on the game, you must also look at the average amount of each of these in a game. (Lineouts 12-20, Scrums 12-20, Rucks 90-130). When you do this, it's easy to see why the changes regarding the ruck affect the game the most.

Refereeing

Refereeing has become highly competitive and the assessor's marks can seriously improve or damage a referee's chances of getting the bigger games, so naturally he will aim to please the assessor.

This will mean refereeing the rucks to the letter of the law.

While the southern hemisphere referees have the luxury of refereeing the rucks correctly - and not influencing the outcome of games due to the fact they can award free-kicks and not penalties - the northern hemisphere referee might find himself deciding on the outcome of a Test match because of a relatively minor offence that in reality should have had no bearing on the game.

As a scrum-half, I can't believe I'm about to finish by saying that I genuinely feel for the northern hemisphere referees. The laws do not allow them to referee to the letter of the law while at the same time avoid being the critical factor in the game.

In order to progress up the ladder they will have to make some huge calls on the biggest days and ultimately not let the rugby do the talking.

Let's hope Nigel Owens doesn't have to make a call like that on Saturday, unless of course Rocky Elsom falls over at a ruck near the end. I'm sure I will shout: 'Play on Nigel, he didn't mean it.'

Eoin Reddan is a scrum-half for Wasps and Ireland

JWAD

Inquitus wrote: »

The refs allow the abuse, players will adapt to the limits of the referees, ergo the refs are at fault not the players. They are the arbiters of the laws during the game, they are the ones who define the boundaries of legal and illegal play.

If the ref's were not of such a generally shocking standard, perhaps they could manage to ref in a reasonably consistent manner across the Grade 1 professional game, rather than butchering our sport with one ref allowing something that the ref on the next day will penalise

Referee ability and consistency changed with the introduction of this new IRB directive aimed at making rucks competitive again, did it? If you believe it did, you're way off the mark.
Refs don't define anything. They are as you say 'arbiteurs' who do their best to enforce these pre-defined (and pre-existing) laws.
Its down to their own individual ability. Trying to lump a re-iteration of the laws of the game on a ref's ability is trite at best.

Inquitus wrote: »

Clearly you think it is too much to ask that in the Grade 1 professional competitions we have at least a modicum of consistency. There are but a handful of decent refs on the circuit, certainly not enough to manage a HC weekend full of fixtures

I'm a realist. Point out a field sport where all refs are on the same page. You have clearly never refereed a rugby union game.

Inquitus wrote: »

The IRFU stated how the rules should be reff'ed, and the refs should be capable of reff'ing in line with the laws on a consistent basis and unless you really have watched eff all rugby this season you would see that clear divisions in the ruck law reff'ing exist in the different leagues :rolleyes:

Again, you blame the difference betweent the quality of individual refs on the laws of the game. An argument as solid as water.

Inquitus

JWAD wrote: »

Referee ability and consistency changed with the introduction of this new IRB directive aimed at making rucks competitive again, did it? If you believe it did, you're way off the mark.
Refs don't define anything. They are as you say 'arbiteurs' who do their best to enforce these pre-defined (and pre-existing) laws.
Its down to their own individual ability. Trying to lump a re-iteration of the laws of the game on a ref's ability is trite at best.


I'm a realist. Point out a field sport where all refs are on the same page. You have clearly never refereed a rugby union game.


Again, you blame the difference betweent the quality of individual refs on the laws of the game. An argument as solid as water.

If you feel like actually making a point, let me know and I will deign you with a response, if not then.........:rolleyes:

Downtime

JWAD has actually made some very valid points there.

Trojan

Regardless of the reason for the change in play style (ELVs or enforcement) there is no doubt that there is a problem. The entertainment factor of the game has significantly dropped since last year. That is something that the IRB needs to look out for.

From a business perspective, I think that market forces will intervene, and the IRB will be forced to make changes to bring back the entertainment level, I'd guess in the next 12-18 months. Whether that means more new changes, or reversal of the existing ELVs we shall see.

JWAD

Trojan wrote: »

From a business perspective, I think that market forces will intervene, and the IRB will be forced to make changes to bring back the entertainment level, I'd guess in the next 12-18 months. Whether that means more new changes, or reversal of the existing ELVs we shall see.

The laws of the game will be finalised at end of next July and implemented on August 1st. This will then no longer be a trial period.
By then, hopefully teams will have shown the spine to actually use the laws rather than continuing to abuse them and getting away with negative, cynical play. I reckon the ruck laws will remain the same as being directed now. As for ELVs, the only law I see being open to change is the Maul law which is still a safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

daveharnett

Inquitus wrote: »

In the past due to the better odds of recycling the ball at rucktime, teams built pressure, territory and possession and it would usually result in a score of some sort......the number of "Turnover" penalties was low as Thornley states. From watching the games especially at the weekend, attacking sides attempting to create pressure very often were pinged for a "Turnover" penalty, often for sealing off, or other rucktime misdemeanors, the odds of winning your own ruck ball when abiding to the re-enforced interpretation of the ruck laws has gone from 90%+ to 60-70% or so, as Thornley states. This creates a disjointed game to watch where much of the pressure from the attacking sides is cancelled out by getting pinged for attacking ruck misdemeanors and results in the ball shooting 50m+ up the pitch, this really kills the game as a spectacle.

I still think that this will sort itself out. The lack of consistency in the reffing of these new laws has been the biggest problem so far for me. I've seen refs ping consistently for going down at rucks for ten minutes, then ignore it for the rest of the game. I'd say give it a few months - the refs will decide what they want, and the players will adapt.

There are two key ingredients to ELV rucking. Attackers MUST stay on the feet, and defenders MUST enter from the back foot. Whatever about haphazard enforcement of the former, I have seen no enforcement of the latter so far. Once it is enforced, it will be much harder to defend against an attacking team who has broken the gain line. Defenders will need to retreat 'round the corner' in order to enter, allowing attackers to ruck through the ball and move it quickly.