Eddie Jones - Views on ELVs
Road_Hog
"Saracens rugby director Eddie Jones says the introduction of experimental
law variations (ELVs) are more about entertainment than improving the game."
"But Jones believes the game should not be tampered with, saying: "If the
game is played well and refereed well there is nothing wrong with it."
He added: "John O'Neill (Australian Rugby Union chief executive) is the
greatest supporter of the changes and the pressure on rugby in Australia is
to win fans.
"They're competing directly against Aussie rules, rugby league and football.
"All three are simple motion games where the ball is always in play. To
compete, the Super 14 has become a quick-tap motion game.
"The ball is in play a lot but that doesn't create a better game, it creates
entertainment - to the detriment of rugby."
viper
"Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:g95cmq$1euu$1...@energise.enta.net...
Eddie would know all about 'detrimental Rugby'.......he ran the National
side from 2001 to 2006 and managed to take it back to 1973.
Viper
grant
> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
> `
> end
Which is pretty much the complete opposite of what he said when he was
Wallaby coach.
grant.
----
Stomper
> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
> `
> end
Eddie wouldn't know the meaning of the word "entertainment"...
or for that matter; strategy, tactics, variety etc etc
From a coach that created such a one-dimentional method of attack it
took the opposition less than 5 minutes to counter and created pre-
programmed cyborgs of his players.
Karl aka Stomper
Mark (newsgroups)
Funny how you guys attack the man but not his argument. I reckon he's
just about correct on this.
Stomper
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark,
What is there in Eddie's comments to discuss / analyse?
That the ELVs will result in a game that is more entertaining? Not
sure if that is a bad thing.
That the ELVs result in the ball being in play more often? Is that a
bad thing?
Eddie makes no mention of which ELVs he believes are not an
improvement on the game - other than to say he doesn't think the
original rules are broken. He obviously didn't watch the mind numbing
2007 RWC final that was bogged down in penalties.
As much as the flat earthers may like to ignore it, rugby union is a
professional / commercial game - the more people who watch it, the
more sucessful it will be. It is in the interest of the game to ensure
that it evolves and meets the needs of all stakeholders.
I personally think, based on those games I have watched (many live),
that the ELVs do result in an improved version of rugby, in particular
the demotion of many infringements to free-kick status and the
resulting emphasis on tries.
There are some ELVs that I haven't formed a view on, such as; pulling
down the mauls, change in the offside line at tackle, and free-kick to
defending team at turnover (perhaps this should be a scrum?).
So why do you believe Eddie is correct?
Karl aka Stomper
Mike Gooding
>
> That the ELVs will result in a game that is more entertaining? Not
> sure if that is a bad thing.
>
Depends what you mean by entertainment - is a shedload of tries
entertaining ? Welcome to S10 1997-style and scores of 79-63.
Massive number of turnovers entertaining ? Not to me it isn't - I
like to see a team winning the turnover and then being good enough to
keep it and build an attack, not every ruck being a 50-50 contest
(having said which, 1999 Brumbieball was possibly the most boring
rugby style ever seen).
> That the ELVs result in the ball being in play more often? Is that a
> bad thing?
>
If by 'in play' you mean being 30 foot up in the air being ping-ponged
back and forth between the 22s, then no, I'd far rather see the ball
being taken back into the 22, kicked out, line out and then get on
with the game.
Mike Gooding
--------------------
Google Bully
The argument is well worn and holds no water outside of Australia.
The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
is hardly an objective observer.
Mark (newsgroups)
And accordingly, there were millions of people who did enjoy those
games, and the crowd attentance in Europe says that your view might be
common down under, but it's not up here. Before you think it, I'm a
South African, and I am just as tired as you at the pavlovian anti-ELV
response from certain posters.
You are talking about crowd attendance right (see below)?
> As much as the flat earthers may like to ignore it, rugby union is a
> professional / commercial game - the more people who watch it, the
> more sucessful it will be. It is in the interest of the game to ensure
> that it evolves and meets the needs of all stakeholders.
Indeed, but who are you targeting? The club game in Europe has never
been as successful as recently. I have my ideas on why that might be
so, but why would you expect them to adopt rules that favour Southern
Hemisphere rugby when it doesn't look like they need rule changes to
attract more crowds.
Besides which, you say it's in the interest of the game, but whose
interest? So that it can attract sports fans for whom a simpler and
monotone style is interesting? What about those of us longer term fans
who enjoy the fact that varying styles can be used?
> I personally think, based on those games I have watched (many live),
> that the ELVs do result in an improved version of rugby, in particular
> the demotion of many infringements to free-kick status and the
> resulting emphasis on tries.
Sometimes yes. At Super 14 level I did see many exciting games, but I
also saw some dour crap games. At international level, with the
matches typically being high pressure and about control and strategy,
I'm not sure the ELVs are working.
> There are some ELVs that I haven't formed a view on, such as; pulling
> down the mauls, change in the offside line at tackle, and free-kick to
> defending team at turnover (perhaps this should be a scrum?).
Well, you've really named the most important ones. The free kick
instead of penalty is huge. Some people complain that sides such as SA
and England won by forcing the opposition into penalties. While that's
not always true, even if it is, who is forcing them into penalties? If
they didn't infringe (slow down the ball, etc) and give away the
penalty, then maybe the game would be more open anyway. No SA or
English player is forcing anyone to commit an offense, not blowing the
refs whistle for him.
The offside at tackle is ridiculous, it changes rugby and I don't even
believe the referees are blowing it anymore.
The quick throw in can be used to neutralise a decent tactical kicking
game with wingers chasing, and that doesn't favour SA, so obviously
that doesn't entirely please me, though I can see some merit in it.
> So why do you believe Eddie is correct?
Because I don't think I've seen evidence at international level to
convince me he is wrong. He is also correct that the people pushing
the ELVs are those whose game it suits currently.
Ben L
<snip>
> Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> really adjusted to the modern game.
Never adjusted, as in was an integral part of the world cup winning
coaching team, coached another team that made the final, and gave the
Brumbies their first S12 title,
How modern is the modern game you're referring to?
rick boyd
> The argument is well worn and holds no water outside of Australia.
> The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
> doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
> ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
> of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
> conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
> rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
> Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
> world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
> is hardly an objective observer.
And bearing in mind the ELVs are not an attempt to change rugby in a new
direction, but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
(and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
The aim of the ELVs is to promote positive play and create more space in
the field of play.
However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
the ruck fringe obstruction and tackling of players without the ball.
This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
current game.
-- rick boyd
didgerman
> Google Bully wrote:
>
>
>> The argument is well worn and holds no water outside of Australia.
>> The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
>> doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
>> ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
>> of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
>> conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
>> rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
>> Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
>> really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
>> world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
>> is hardly an objective observer.
>
> And bearing in mind the ELVs are not an attempt to change rugby in a new
> direction, but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
> defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
Oh god, apart from drugs, budget and luck, now it's 'playing the game in
a way we can't understand', fuck, it's a non-stop whinging machine and
it's out of control.
>
> The aim of the ELVs is to promote positive play and create more space in
> the field of play.
And to make Aussie League fans happy....
>
> However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
> directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
> the ruck fringe obstruction
How exactly do you obstruct someone if you're on-side? Unless the ball
has been hoisted, which it rarely is.....
and tackling of players without the ball.
I think you're referring to driving players back on-side, which is
legal, and as far as I know, un-changed in the ELVs.
> This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
> current game.
Kicked out of the RWC, beaten by Aus' and SA, that's what ruining it for
you boy, reality.
>
> -- rick boyd
Dave Keegan
There is no tackling without the ball under ELV regulated games,
as in players driving past the ruck and levelling players not involved
in the ruck. I know this because didge told me so.
There is no hoisting of the ball and chasing it in ELV regulated
games. I know this because didge told me so.
New Zealand has not beaten South Africa twice and Australia once
in 2008. I know this because didge told me so.
New Zealand was the only team to lose at the RWC 2008. I know this
because didge told me so.
Reality is subject to change without notice. I know this because
didge told me so.
Keegan...
didgerman
I told you, no moonshine before breakfast....
Ben L
> Google Bully wrote:
> > The argument is well worn and holds no water outside of Australia.
> > The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
> > doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
> > ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
> > of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
> > conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
> > rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
> > Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> > really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
> > world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
> > is hardly an objective observer.
>
> And bearing in mind the ELVs are not an attempt to change rugby in a new
> direction,
I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
kickable penalty might.
>but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
> defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
one another?
>
> The aim of the ELVs is to promote positive play and create more space in
> the field of play.
Although, of course, if turnovers become less contested, which I
believe is the case, then you end up with forwards strung across the
pitch on second phase ball.
>
> However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
> directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
> the ruck fringe obstruction and tackling of players without the ball.
> This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
> current game.
That and all the other shenanigans around the breakdown. And crooked
feeds.
Lelio
ha scritto:
>However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
>directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
>the ruck fringe obstruction and tackling of players without the ball.
>This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
>current game.
>
>-- rick boyd
I would add flankers unbinding a second after introduction of the
ball.
Those enormous blokes leave no air to the scrum half and the first-
five to give the game a bit of fantasy.
But there is no need of ELV for this, just a smart look around the
scrum.
Ciao
Lelio
Google Bully
David Nucifora also won a S12 title, and Jake White was the coach of
SA.
Success for a coach is to win at test level, something Eddie didn't do
much of.
Google Bully
The game should always be foremost about the test match. It is
traditionally what makes rugby great.
If the existing rules change rugby into an EPL style setup clubs have
more power than test matches than the rugby will be ruined forever.
The one great value of the test match is that you have to earn your
wins. Club sports pale in comparison, as it changes from a sporting
contest into a money contest. If your team sucks this year, just go
buy all the good players and win next year.
Dave Keegan
mmmmm....shine.....
Never before 10 am...
Keegan....
rick boyd
> There is no tackling without the ball under ELV regulated games,
> as in players driving past the ruck and levelling players not involved
> in the ruck. I know this because didge told me so.
>
> There is no hoisting of the ball and chasing it in ELV regulated
> games. I know this because didge told me so.
>
> New Zealand has not beaten South Africa twice and Australia once
> in 2008. I know this because didge told me so.
>
> New Zealand was the only team to lose at the RWC 2008. I know this
> because didge told me so.
>
> Reality is subject to change without notice. I know this because
> didge told me so.
Didgerdunce hasn't been anywhere near reality for decades. He's Nigel
without the big words, Terdi without the knowledge of rugby, Mother
Alvey without 120 kilos.
He's a lightweight pommy fanboy and should be completely ignored as
valueless and irrelevant.
Other than that, I like him.
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
> I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
> which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> kickable penalty might.
One of the prime reasons why teams play a forward/defensive oriented
game based on slowing the ball and offside play is to pressure the
opposition into conceding penalties. Take away the penalties, the
incentive is gone. Take away the penalties, teams must try and score
points by other means that include using the ball themselves rather than
spoiling the opposition's use of the ball. Take away the penalties, 29
players are not standing around for protracted periods watching one back
line up and kick a penalty goal, they are getting on with the game and
using the ball positively. Well, that's the theory anyway. I'm not 100%
convinced at the international level yet.
> What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
> teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> one another?
I'm not in a position to comment authoritatively. I'd suggest that at a
NH club level, those teams with attacking ball runners would probably be
using them as attacking ball runners. The best of them just don't seem
capable of making the step up.
> Although, of course, if turnovers become less contested, which I
> believe is the case, then you end up with forwards strung across the
> pitch on second phase ball.
That can certainly happen. The ELVs are not without downsides. But one
thing they do is break up the field of play with more kicking and more
running so there is less time for monotonous defensive lineups. It's a
long way from ideal yet and maybe other things may need to be tried.
People will probably get tired of constant changes though so time is
probably limited.
> That and all the other shenanigans around the breakdown. And crooked
> feeds.
I can't help feeling that some of the really obvious things are being
missed by the ELVs, and I wonder why they weren't addressed at all.
-- rick boyd
didgerman
Well, I've a cute arse it's true. To be expected from a winger I suppose...
>
> -- rick boyd
Stex
eh boyo, thats what your Pacific Island club team has been doing for
years, arf
Stex
(Didgerman impersonator extrordinare)
Ben L
> > > defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> > > (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
> > What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
> > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > one another?
>
> The game should always be foremost about the test match. It is
> traditionally what makes rugby great.
Says a man pretending not to be Australian. Plenty of club fans and
grassroots players would beg to differ.
Google Bully
> On 28 Aug, 22:23, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > >but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
> > > > defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> > > > (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
> > > What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
> > > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > > one another?
>
> > The game should always be foremost about the test match. It is
> > traditionally what makes rugby great.
>
> Says a man pretending not to be Australian.
Apart from the fact that I am Australian and have said so on many
occasions. Try again lightweight.
>Plenty of club fans and
> grassroots players would beg to differ.
Yeah yeah, and plenty of people vote for George Bush. What was your
point again?
Ben L
> On Aug 29, 5:53 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Aug, 22:23, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > > >but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
> > > > > defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> > > > > (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
> > > > What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
> > > > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > > > one another?
>
> > > The game should always be foremost about the test match. It is
> > > traditionally what makes rugby great.
>
> > Says a man pretending not to be Australian.
>
> Apart from the fact that I am Australian and have said so on many
> occasions.
My sincere apologies. On both counts.
>
> >Plenty of club fans and
> > grassroots players would beg to differ.
>
> Yeah yeah, and plenty of people vote for George Bush. What was your
> point again?
I see. We should discount all majority opinions everywhere, for ever,
because of George Bush?
Ben L
> Ben L wrote:
> > I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
> > which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> > Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> > free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> > specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> > kickable penalty might.
>
> One of the prime reasons why teams play a forward/defensive oriented
> game based on slowing the ball and offside play is to pressure the
> opposition into conceding penalties.
I'm not clear why slow ball/defence oriented and offside go hand in
hand. Without wishing to create a whole other argument, New Zealand's
defence at the breakdown has been, to put it politely, on the
borderline for some time.
Anyway, to your main point. If you take a team like England circa
2003/4, I don't believe the game was ever about scoring penalties
through grinding pressure. It was about minimising risk, and moving
the ball upfield and exerting pressure however which way from within
the 22 - be it penalties, forwards tries, drop goals or even the good
ol' fashioned backline move. The supposed reliance on penalties came
because the team were simply less able to score tries - if you
watched, say, the Ireland-England game from the 2003 6N, when the
England backline was still functioning, there was still plenty of
appetite for tries.
>Take away the penalties, the
> incentive is gone. Take away the penalties, teams must try and score
> points by other means that include using the ball themselves rather than
> spoiling the opposition's use of the ball.
That's one way of seeing it. Another is that if you take away the
penalties, it becomes riskier to retain the ball because the
punishment for a defending team deliberately disrupting possession is
less: thus it changes the balance of risk/reward for playing the ball
in open field
One might argue that this is still the same result, but the difference
is that in the second version negative play is forcing the change.
>Take away the penalties, 29
> players are not standing around for protracted periods watching one back
> line up and kick a penalty goal, they are getting on with the game and
> using the ball positively. Well, that's the theory anyway. I'm not 100%
> convinced at the international level yet.
<snip>
> > Although, of course, if turnovers become less contested, which I
> > believe is the case, then you end up with forwards strung across the
> > pitch on second phase ball.
>
> That can certainly happen. The ELVs are not without downsides. But one
> thing they do is break up the field of play with more kicking and more
> running so there is less time for monotonous defensive lineups. It's a
> long way from ideal yet and maybe other things may need to be tried.
> People will probably get tired of constant changes though so time is
> probably limited.
My feeling is that ELVs may lead to a different kind of monotony: my
impression is that the number of up and unders in later games this
season had increased. It's early days, but one of my objections to the
changes were that they would get adapted to and exploited eventually,
just like the old laws.
>
> > That and all the other shenanigans around the breakdown. And crooked
> > feeds.
>
> I can't help feeling that some of the really obvious things are being
> missed by the ELVs, and I wonder why they weren't addressed at all.
Yup: my other pet peeve is players holding onto the ball for even a
fraction of a second after the penalty/free kick had gone against
them. I'd rewrite the law so that any instance of a player moving the
ball away from the mark or witholding possession would earn their team
another 10 yards back.
Google Bully
So plenty has now become majority now?
> for ever, because of George Bush?
No. But we should never take popular vote as the only representation
of truth.
Plenty of people like Brittney Spears, does that make her a talented
musician?
(and just in case you I've overestimated your taste in music:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ak1cpi74RM)
Google Bully
> On 28 Aug, 23:50, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Ben L wrote:
> > > I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
> > > which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> > > Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> > > free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> > > specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> > > kickable penalty might.
>
> > One of the prime reasons why teams play a forward/defensive oriented
> > game based on slowing the ball and offside play is to pressure the
> > opposition into conceding penalties.
>
> I'm not clear why slow ball/defence oriented and offside go hand in
> hand. Without wishing to create a whole other argument, New Zealand's
> defence at the breakdown has been, to put it politely, on the
> borderline for some time.
It's supposed to be border line. That's the point. You get as close to
the offside line as possible, ie right on the borderline.
>
> Anyway, to your main point. If you take a team like England circa
> 2003/4, I don't believe the game was ever about scoring penalties
> through grinding pressure. It was about minimising risk, and moving
> the ball upfield and exerting pressure however which way from within
> the 22 - be it penalties, forwards tries, drop goals or even the good
> ol' fashioned backline move. The supposed reliance on penalties came
> because the team were simply less able to score tries
England have always been a 10 man rugby team. All that happened in
2003 is they finally found the players to pull off the 10 man strategy
and still win.
It would probably reduce the arguments if you specified particular
ELVs, rather than blanket them all under the bad banner.
eg I highly doubt that renaming the touch judges has contributed to
the amount of kicks in a game.
> It's early days, but one of my objections to the
> changes were that they would get adapted to and exploited eventually,
> just like the old laws.
Of course they would, that's how life works. The idea, as with the
numerous changes that have happened previously, is to spark new life
into the game. With new rules, comes new opportunities, new
strategies, new possibilities. The longer the rules remain static, the
more everyone's strategies converge, until you end up with a defensive
nightmare. So you then tweak the game again and the cycle starts all
over. It called progress, and it only happens through change.
>
>
>
> > > That and all the other shenanigans around the breakdown. And crooked
> > > feeds.
>
> > I can't help feeling that some of the really obvious things are being
> > missed by the ELVs, and I wonder why they weren't addressed at all.
>
> Yup: my other pet peeve is players holding onto the ball for even a
> fraction of a second after the penalty/free kick had gone against
> them. I'd rewrite the law so that any instance of a player moving the
> ball away from the mark or witholding possession would earn their team
> another 10 yards back.
I'm starting to not like the free kick rule. I originally thought it
would improve the flow of the game by reducing the endless penalties
for trivial offences, but it seems to have taken the structure out of
the game.
Having said that, the old way of penalising everything sucked too.
There has to be a balance in there somewhere.
Ben L
> On Aug 29, 11:46 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Aug, 23:50, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Ben L wrote:
> > > > I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
> > > > which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> > > > Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> > > > free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> > > > specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> > > > kickable penalty might.
>
> > > One of the prime reasons why teams play a forward/defensive oriented
> > > game based on slowing the ball and offside play is to pressure the
> > > opposition into conceding penalties.
>
> > I'm not clear why slow ball/defence oriented and offside go hand in
> > hand. Without wishing to create a whole other argument, New Zealand's
> > defence at the breakdown has been, to put it politely, on the
> > borderline for some time.
>
> It's supposed to be border line. That's the point. You get as close to
> the offside line as possible, ie right on the borderline.
>
I was being polite, slow one.
>
>
> > Anyway, to your main point. If you take a team like England circa
> > 2003/4, I don't believe the game was ever about scoring penalties
> > through grinding pressure. It was about minimising risk, and moving
> > the ball upfield and exerting pressure however which way from within
> > the 22 - be it penalties, forwards tries, drop goals or even the good
> > ol' fashioned backline move. The supposed reliance on penalties came
> > because the team were simply less able to score tries
>
> England have always been a 10 man rugby team. All that happened in
> 2003 is they finally found the players to pull off the 10 man strategy
> and still win.
That's nice. I wonder what the other 5 were doing.
The presiding assumption being it needs new life.
>With new rules, comes new opportunities, new
> strategies, new possibilities.
Or confusion, and change for change's sake.
>The longer the rules remain static, the
> more everyone's strategies converge, until you end up with a defensive
> nightmare.
What's the evidence for this? Even in the supposedly dull and boring
Guinness Premiership, there are several obvious different playing
styles.
>So you then tweak the game again and the cycle starts all
> over. It called progress, and it only happens through change.
The presiding assumption being that progress is necessarily a good
thing.
Ben L
> On Aug 29, 8:32 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Aug, 09:45, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 29, 5:53 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Aug, 22:23, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > >but rather an attempt to change it BACK before the current
> > > > > > > defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> > > > > > > (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
> > > > > > What about non-internationals, though? Are you suggesting that NH club
> > > > > > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > > > > > one another?
>
> > > > > The game should always be foremost about the test match. It is
> > > > > traditionally what makes rugby great.
>
> > > > Says a man pretending not to be Australian.
>
> > > Apart from the fact that I am Australian and have said so on many
> > > occasions.
>
> > My sincere apologies. On both counts.
>
> > > >Plenty of club fans and
> > > > grassroots players would beg to differ.
>
> > > Yeah yeah, and plenty of people vote for George Bush. What was your
> > > point again?
>
> > I see. We should discount all majority opinions everywhere,
>
> So plenty has now become majority now?
You brought up the George Bush analogy, not me, Dully. Bush won a
majority.
>
> > for ever, because of George Bush?
>
> No. But we should never take popular vote as the only representation
> of truth.
Gee, thanks for the lesson. What can I say, you really *have*
convinced me that anyone that loves club rugby should just shut up and
agree that tests are more important/exciting/relevant etc.
Google Bully
Change or Die.
Depends if you like living or not I guess.
Google Bully
Strawman.
Regardless of what you and your imaginary friends believe, the
pinnacle of the sport has always been the test match.
Now the game seems to be at a crossroad, try and maintain the
tradition of the test match, or sacrifice the most valuable jewel on
the crown move to and club style sport a la soccer.
IMO, the test match is one of the key components that makes the game
so great.
Ben L
> Depends if you like living or not I guess.
Who is going to die without change? Not the NH game, that's for sure,
based on the continued growth of audiences for rugby.
Ben L
> Regardless of what you and your imaginary friends believe, the
> pinnacle of the sport has always been the test match.
Nobody doubts what the pinnacle of the game is. It's sufficiently
obvious even you can work it out.
But what you wrote was "The game should always be foremost about the
test match. It is traditionally what makes rugby great", which is
debatable at best, and bullshit in the eyes of grassroots players and
fans devoting time to their clubs.
Try going to Leicester, or Toulouse, or Munster and telling fans that
the game is foremost about the test match, and it's what makes rugby
great. No, seriously.
> Now the game seems to be at a crossroad, try and maintain the
> tradition of the test match, or sacrifice the most valuable jewel on
> the crown move to and club style sport a la soccer.
Rugby *has always been about the club game* foremost in much of the
world. It's only recently that the number of internationals has crept
up and inherent tensions over player access, season saturation has
come about.
> IMO, the test match is one of the key components that makes the game
> so great.
So it's just your opinion it is a key component now, but higher up the
thread it was fact that tests had to and have come first?
rick boyd
> But what you wrote was "The game should always be foremost about the
> test match. It is traditionally what makes rugby great", which is
> debatable at best, and bullshit in the eyes of grassroots players and
> fans devoting time to their clubs.
You can't really believe this. When a good club player gets the call up
to the provincial side, he doesn't say "sod that, it's the biggest game
of the championship next week, I'll play for my club thanks very much".
There's a reason why they charge big bucks for test matches but you can
stand on the sidelines of your local club for free. And there's a reason
why casual followers and general sports spectators go to see test
matches when they wouldn't dream of setting foot on a club ground.
Test matches are where it's at. Club rugby is great and a good thing to
be a part of, it's great to see your club doing well and you can get a
sense of personal reward available nowhere else.
But when your national side wins a vital test match, club rivalries
disappear, provincial rivalries vanish and all are united in
appreciation of the best of the best succeeding.
The national side comes first. Test matches come first. I don't know
where else you'd be coming from with this line of reasoning.
-- rick boyd
BrritSki
Of course Tests are important, but they couldn't exist without club
rugby. OTOH club rugby (in the NH at least) could certainly thrive
without Tests.
Ben L
> Ben L wrote:
> > But what you wrote was "The game should always be foremost about the
> > test match. It is traditionally what makes rugby great", which is
> > debatable at best, and bullshit in the eyes of grassroots players and
> > fans devoting time to their clubs.
>
> You can't really believe this. When a good club player gets the call up
> to the provincial side, he doesn't say "sod that, it's the biggest game
> of the championship next week, I'll play for my club thanks very much".
You're correct, I don't.
Scroll back a bit. The original issue was whether making changes that
improved the international game, possibly without regard for rugby
played at any other level, were justified under the idea that test
rugby must come first.
I don't see that as a given. There are lots of fans who enjoy playing
for their club or supporting their club who consider "the game" to be
the game that they participate in - be it playing or watching. Put
simply, the grassroots is important, however much we understand that
it's a great, unifying thing for one's national team to win.
It doesn't mean a club player/supporter would think their rugby is
better quality, or that Joe Bloggs from St Swithins 2nd XV wouldn't
consider it an honour to turn out at Twickenham for their country.
Google Bully
Of course. Because growth rates only ever go up.
Google Bully
> On 1 Sep, 11:56, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Ben L wrote:
> > > But what you wrote was "The game should always be foremost about the
> > > test match. It is traditionally what makes rugby great", which is
> > > debatable at best, and bullshit in the eyes of grassroots players and
> > > fans devoting time to their clubs.
>
> > You can't really believe this. When a good club player gets the call up
> > to the provincial side, he doesn't say "sod that, it's the biggest game
> > of the championship next week, I'll play for my club thanks very much".
>
> You're correct, I don't.
>
> Scroll back a bit. The original issue was whether making changes that
> improved the international game, possibly without regard for rugby
> played at any other level, were justified under the idea that test
> rugby must come first.
You might want to scroll back a bit.
The issue is that you;re taking exception to my statement that the
test match is foremost, yet you seemed quite happy to accept that it
is the pinnacle.
Seems to be an issue of semantics
Mark (newsgroups)
> I don't see that as a given. There are lots of fans who enjoy playing
> for their club or supporting their club who consider "the game" to be
> the game that they participate in - be it playing or watching. Put
> simply, the grassroots is important, however much we understand that
> it's a great, unifying thing for one's national team to win.
I'm probably just falling into the trap of "the old days were better"
but it feels to me that international rugby is losing some of it's
aura and isn't remaining true to the rugby ethos, which is very
unfortunate.
I place a lot of blame on commentators, they're creating bitter
feelings between supporters of various countries with their blatant
bias. It's very easy to prod people along and someone said it better
then I, "like cattle".
While I love playing and supporting the game at grassroot level,
nothing for me comes close to the feeling of a true hard international
played between men prepared to be foes on the field and friends off
it. Jerry Collins brought that to the field, as do some other players.
It feels as though some NH fans are happy to see club rugby replace
internationals, much like the football model. That would be a shame.
Ben L
> On Sep 1, 9:40 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Sep, 11:56, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Ben L wrote:
> > > > But what you wrote was "The game should always be foremost about the
> > > > test match. It is traditionally what makes rugby great", which is
> > > > debatable at best, and bullshit in the eyes of grassroots players and
> > > > fans devoting time to their clubs.
>
> > > You can't really believe this. When a good club player gets the call up
> > > to the provincial side, he doesn't say "sod that, it's the biggest game
> > > of the championship next week, I'll play for my club thanks very much".
>
> > You're correct, I don't.
>
> > Scroll back a bit. The original issue was whether making changes that
> > improved the international game, possibly without regard for rugby
> > played at any other level, were justified under the idea that test
> > rugby must come first.
>
> You might want to scroll back a bit.
> The issue is that you;re taking exception to my statement that the
> test match is foremost, yet you seemed quite happy to accept that it
> is the pinnacle.
> Seems to be an issue of semantics
If by semantics, you mean two different statements meaning different
things.
You said: "The game should always be foremost about the test match. It
is
traditionally what makes rugby great. "
Understanding that test rugby is the highest quality is not the same
as declaring that the game should always be foremost *about the test
match*. Neither is it the same as declaring that high quality rugby
automatically makes the makes the game great.
For example: I don't give two hoots for high quality football: it
might supposedly be beautiful, but the players are often ungracious,
uncommitted, overpaid and overhyped.
Ben L
<snip>
> It feels as though some NH fans are happy to see club rugby replace
> internationals, much like the football model. That would be a shame.
I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience. Many fans
are fans of both club and international rugby, but dislike the idea
that support for international rugby must come at the expense of the
club game - rather than wishing club rugby could or should supplant
international rugby.
To put this in context: in 1986, England played 4 internationals. By
1996, it played 6 games and in 2006 it played 11. If anything,
internationals are competing more with the traditional club model,
through more frequent games and demands on players' time.
Ben L
You're right. Better to make a bunch of changes and see if growth
rates can come down.
johnmhill
> On Aug 28, 6:28 pm, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 7:44 am, Stomper <karlni...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 28, 3:22 pm, "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/7584984.stm
>
> > > > "Saracens rugby director Eddie Jones says the introduction of experimental
> > > > law variations (ELVs) are more about entertainment than improving the game."
>
> > > > "But Jones believes the game should not be tampered with, saying: "If the
> > > > game is played well and refereed well there is nothing wrong with it."
>
> > > > He added: "John O'Neill (Australian Rugby Union chief executive) is the
> > > > greatest supporter of the changes and the pressure on rugby in Australia is
> > > > to win fans.
>
> > > > "They're competing directly against Aussie rules, rugby league and football.
>
> > > > "All three are simple motion games where the ball is always in play. To
> > > > compete, the Super 14 has become a quick-tap motion game.
>
> > > > "The ball is in play a lot but that doesn't create a better game, it creates
> > > > entertainment - to the detriment of rugby."
>
> > > > begin 666 o.gif
> > > > K1TE&.#EA`0`!`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
> > > > `
> > > > end
>
> > > Eddie wouldn't know the meaning of the word "entertainment"...
>
> > > or for that matter; strategy, tactics, variety etc etc
>
> > > From a coach that created such a one-dimentional method of attack it
> > > took the opposition less than 5 minutes to counter and created pre-
> > > programmed cyborgs of his players.
>
> > Funny how you guys attack the man but not his argument. I reckon he's
> > just about correct on this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Karl
I'll take your points one by one
>
> Mark,
>
> What is there in Eddie's comments to discuss / analyse?
>
> That the ELVs will result in a game that is more entertaining? Not
> sure if that is a bad thing.
>
Entertaining for whom. It looks like he is saying that making it more
"tap and go faster" is geared towards protecting the game in one
country
> That the ELVs result in the ball being in play more often? Is that a
> bad thing?
>
Yes it is , if that is contrary to the charter - which is concerned
with the specialness of the game
- not the similarity to other games
> Eddie makes no mention of which ELVs he believes are not an
> improvement on the game - other than to say he doesn't think the
> original rules are broken. He obviously didn't watch the mind numbing
> 2007 RWC final that was bogged down in penalties.
>
Well, since he was coaching adviser to one of the teams he must have
done. Consistent refereeing through out the tournament and an early
couple of yellows would have given us a better spectacle. But,
penalties have been a way of a team building a lead. Which has been an
important tactical factor out that Remember it has always been the
team with more points that won and that has lead to cheating.
My son played his first serious game under the ELVs and pointed out
that it has become a free for all with hands everywhere at the
break down and referees missing all sorts of things
> As much as the flat earthers may like to ignore it, rugby union is a
> professional / commercial game - the more people who watch it, the
> more sucessful it will be. It is in the interest of the game to ensure
> that it evolves and meets the needs of all stakeholders.
>
And it is a raging success in the NH under the old laws. It is not
broke here so why the meddling ?
Besides it is only a professional game at a rarefied level. No one
besides the underqualified Laws committee was complaining, apart from
some Aussies who were being monstered out of rugby and some whingers
who's team failed to live up to RWC expectations
> I personally think, based on those games I have watched (many live),
> that the ELVs do result in an improved version of rugby, in particular
> the demotion of many infringements to free-kick status and the
> resulting emphasis on tries.
>
> There are some ELVs that I haven't formed a view on, such as; pulling
> down the mauls, change in the offside line at tackle, and free-kick to
> defending team at turnover (perhaps this should be a scrum?).
>
The pulling down of the maul is monstrous. The maul ties in forwards
who are not free to defend - which frees up the rest of the field for
the backs to dance around in.
Pulling down is not only inherently unsafe, it destroys
> So why do you believe Eddie is correct
Because he and every other GP coach are saying the same thing. The
ELVs will distort the game - I can see falling gates and a major loss
of income, players and supporters in the NH
JH
>
> Karl aka Stomper
johnmhill
> The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
> doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
> ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
> of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
> conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
> rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
> Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
> world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
> is hardly an objective observer.
So Australia and NZ support it - who else ?
JH
johnmhill
> > The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
> > doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
> > ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
> > of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
> > conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
> > rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
> > Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> > really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
> > world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
> > is hardly an objective observer.
>
> defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
Good point Rick with only one tiny flaw. The "defensive-oriented,
negative, ball-spoiling climate" was installed from 1991 as a direct
result of the introduction of the UIOLI law proposed and driven at the
IRB by NZ with Australian support. This meant forwards free to roam
the field as defenders which led to the
RL style defenses.
> The aim of the ELVs is to promote positive play and create more space in
> the field of play.
>
> However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
> directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
> the ruck fringe obstruction and tackling of players without the ball.
> This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
> current game.
But, the refs are too busy policing the mess that the breakdown is
with hands all over the place rather than watching all the other
issues such as the offside line and
coming in from the side
JH
>
> -- rick boyd
johnmhill
> On Aug 29, 3:21 am, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Aug, 13:33, rick boyd <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Google Bully wrote:
> > > > The argument is well worn and holds no water outside of Australia.
> > > > The Australian code war argument seems to be a lame excuse since it
> > > > doesn't explain all the markets outside Australia that support the
> > > > ELVs. Could it be, just maybe, that some rugby fans are sick and tired
> > > > of stop start stop start defnesive, penalty oriented rugby? No
> > > > conspiracy, not hidden agendas, just a fundamental appreciation for
> > > > rugby as a game of attack AND defence, not just one or the other.
> > > > Oh and Eddie Jones was a fan of extremely structured rugby, and never
> > > > really adjusted to the modern game. The Aussies were on top of the
> > > > world when he took over and they haven't won a single thing since. He
> > > > is hardly an objective observer.
>
> > > And bearing in mind the ELVs are not an attempt to change rugby in a new
> > > direction,
>
> > which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> > Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> > free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> > specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> > kickable penalty might.
>
> > > defensive-oriented, negative, ball-spoiling climate was instilled by NH
> > > (and SA) teams that had no other way of staying competitive.
>
> > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > one another?
>
> traditionally what makes rugby great.
Total Twaddle. Rugby is a game played and enjoyed by hundreds of
thousands around the world. It is above all else a players game The
Test match is simply the pinnacle
> If the existing rules change rugby into an EPL style setup clubs have
> more power than test matches than the rugby will be ruined forever.
The biggest issue with the ELVs is the damage to the
grassroots.Without that no one to coach and nurture the age groups and
no Test matches.
JH
>
> The one great value of the test match is that you have to earn your
> wins. Club sports pale in comparison, as it changes from a sporting
> contest into a money contest. If your team sucks this year, just go
> buy all the good players and win next year.
>
>
>
> > > The aim of the ELVs is to promote positive play and create more space in
> > > the field of play.
>
> > Although, of course, if turnovers become less contested, which I
> > believe is the case, then you end up with forwards strung across the
> > pitch on second phase ball.
>
> > > However the ONE thing I would like to see more than any ELV is a simple
> > > directive to referees to keep defences ON SIDE at rucks, along with all
> > > the ruck fringe obstruction and tackling of players without the ball.
> > > This more than anything else in my opinion is what is ruining the
> > > current game.
>
johnmhill
> Ben L wrote:
> > I'd disagree - the focus on increasing the time the ball is in play -
> > which was going up anyway, isn't a reaction to nefarious NH tactics.
> > Similarly, given that some respectable rugby minds have said that the
> > free kick rule is a cheat's charter, I don't see how the ELVs
> > specifically target ball-spoiling any more than penalising them with a
> > kickable penalty might.
>
> game based on slowing the ball and offside play is to pressure the
> incentive is gone. Take away the penalties, teams must try and score
> points by other means that include using the ball themselves rather than
> players are not standing around for protracted periods watching one back
> line up and kick a penalty goal, they are getting on with the game and
> using the ball positively. Well, that's the theory anyway. I'm not 100%
> convinced at the international level yet.
>
> > teams all play a uniform defense-oriented ball spoiling game against
> > one another?
>
> NH club level, those teams with attacking ball runners would probably be
> using them as attacking ball runners. The best of them just don't seem
> capable of making the step up.
>
> > Although, of course, if turnovers become less contested, which I
> > believe is the case, then you end up with forwards strung across the
> > pitch on second phase ball.
>
> thing they do is break up the field of play with more kicking and more
> running so there is less time for monotonous defensive lineups. It's a
> long way from ideal yet and maybe other things may need to be tried.
> People will probably get tired of constant changes though so time is
> probably limited.
>
> > feeds.
>
> missed by the ELVs, and I wonder why they weren't addressed at all.
>
I like lineouts and mauls. Scrummaging was my life until they
introduced lineout lifting.
JH
johnmhill
There is one. Enforce a higher standard of refereeing. How about one
penalty = warning repetition by either side = yellow card.
JH
johnmhill
More Twaddle. Appeal to your market or die, absolutely. Unfortunately
the thriving NH market and the moribund Australian market don't
attract the same type of punter. So let democracy win say I
JH
johnmhill
> where else you'd be coming from with this line of reasoning.
>
> -- rick boyd
Hell even my local (Level 6) club charges now. My old club has been
charging for years all the way up to level 2 and back down to level 5.
JH
rick boyd
I agree with you absolutely. Test matches used to be so valued because
they were rare and special. Now we have two three-test series between
the SH giants every year and familiarity breeds contempt, along with
monotony.
There is a happy medium that would make more money but the myopic dolts
we have running the game seem incapable of seeing what is obvious to
true rugby supporters everywhere.
-- rick boyd
rick boyd
> Hell even my local (Level 6) club charges now. My old club has been
> charging for years all the way up to level 2 and back down to level 5.
No wonder English rugby has so much money. They steal it from their juniors.
-- rick boys
rick boyd
> I like lineouts and mauls. Scrummaging was my life until they
> introduced lineout lifting.
Say what? Lifting in the lineouts destroyed your scrums? Loosen up that
scrum cap JH, it's cutting off the flow of blood to the brain.
-- rick boyd
johnmhill
Sorry Rick a cultural reference to an old advert for Vodka.
JH
simon s-b
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw much better rugby at club level last season, especially in the
Heneiken Cup, than I did in the 6N. I could name a number of HC sides
that would have beaten England. Thousands turn out each week to watch
a game they love which is stronger than ever, and they're confused as
to why it should change, especially at a time when the worth of
internationals has been so severely damaged by the weakened sides the
NH have sent on tour, or by the weakened sides played in the 3N, or by
the attitude in some parts that the RWC doesn't matter. Less
internationals are needed to restore their worth, so on that basis why
fiddle with the game for a few scratch sides playing a handful of
tests each year?
Google Bully
> On 1 Sep, 14:40, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > It feels as though some NH fans are happy to see club rugby replace
> > internationals, much like the football model. That would be a shame.
>
> I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience. Many fans
> are fans of both club and international rugby, but dislike the idea
> that support for international rugby must come at the expense of the
> club game
Whoever made that claim?
The crazy idea that an improvement to test rugby means sacrifice at
the club level only exists in your head.
>- rather than wishing club rugby could or should supplant
> international rugby.
>
> To put this in context: in 1986, England played 4 internationals. By
> 1996, it played 6 games and in 2006 it played 11. If anything,
> internationals are competing more with the traditional club model,
> through more frequent games and demands on players' time.
By club model you mean they play more often?
IMO, the 'club model' means players are bought and sold to the highest
bidder, there is no tangible attachment to any team, and no real
loyalty. This compares to the 'International model' where all players
are a product of your own industry. the team is born, or at least
raised into the team, and the supporters are too. This is what makes
test matches great, your have to earn your wins, not buy them.
simon s-b
> On Aug 30, 6:37 pm, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 Aug, 07:43, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've seen the crowds you lads pull in and i'd say that if the game is
going to die anywhere, it won't be here.
Google Bully
Or up even higher.
The question is change or not change, it is which changes will give
the best results.
Google Bully
IMO, The specialness comes form the following:
- test matches being the top of the sport (ie loyalty over money)
- a game with a position for everyone (short, tall, fat, thin, fast
slow)
- competing for the ball (tackles, rucks, mauls, lineouts, scrum.
None of the ELVs take any of those away.
>
> - not the similarity to other games
>
> > Eddie makes no mention of which ELVs he believes are not an
> > improvement on the game - other than to say he doesn't think the
> > original rules are broken. He obviously didn't watch the mind numbing
> > 2007 RWC final that was bogged down in penalties.
>
> Well, since he was coaching adviser to one of the teams he must have
> done. Consistent refereeing through out the tournament and an early
> couple of yellows would have given us a better spectacle. But,
> penalties have been a way of a team building a lead. Which has been an
> important tactical factor out that Remember it has always been the
> team with more points that won and that has lead to cheating.
>
> My son played his first serious game under the ELVs and pointed out
> that it has become a free for all with hands everywhere at the
> break down and referees missing all sorts of things
>
> > As much as the flat earthers may like to ignore it, rugby union is a
> > professional / commercial game - the more people who watch it, the
> > more sucessful it will be. It is in the interest of the game to ensure
> > that it evolves and meets the needs of all stakeholders.
>
> And it is a raging success in the NH under the old laws. It is not
> broke here so why the meddling ?
see Paddies videos on youtube for the answer to this.
>
> Besides it is only a professional game at a rarefied level. No one
> besides the underqualified Laws committee was complaining, apart from
> some Aussies who were being monstered out of rugby and some whingers
> who's team failed to live up to RWC expectations
And here your credibility collapses into stinking pile in the toilet.
Last time I checked, the IRB had more than just Aussies on its board.
How does that fit in with your conspiracy?
>
> > I personally think, based on those games I have watched (many live),
> > that the ELVs do result in an improved version of rugby, in particular
> > the demotion of many infringements to free-kick status and the
> > resulting emphasis on tries.
>
> > There are some ELVs that I haven't formed a view on, such as; pulling
> > down the mauls, change in the offside line at tackle, and free-kick to
> > defending team at turnover (perhaps this should be a scrum?).
>
> The pulling down of the maul is monstrous. The maul ties in forwards
> who are not free to defend - which frees up the rest of the field for
> the backs to dance around in.
> Pulling down is not only inherently unsafe, it destroys
>
> > So why do you believe Eddie is correct
>
> Because he and every other GP coach are saying the same thing. The
> ELVs will distort the game - I can see falling gates and a major loss
> of income, players and supporters in the NH
Perhaps if you offered more constructive input you're chances of
influencing the sport would be higher?
Conspiracies and prophets of doom aren't doing you or your side any
favours.
Google Bully
The IRB
Google Bully
You keep saying this. Bearing in mind each trial has used different
combinations of ELVs, which particular ones did you find most
detrimental?
Google Bully
Good!
A constructive suggestion. This I believe is the main issue under
either set of rules.
I would also propose a trial of post match reviews. eg any
professional fouls caught on camera would result in a one game
suspension.
One issue under the old system is that an accidental penalty (eg
collapsed scrum, falling over in a ruck etc) results in the same
punishment as deliberate penalties eg hands in the ruck, tackling man
without ball etc).
A post match review would hopefully deter would-be cheats from
spoiling the game.
Ben L
> On Sep 2, 12:42 am, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Sep, 14:40, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > It feels as though some NH fans are happy to see club rugby replace
> > > internationals, much like the football model. That would be a shame.
>
> > I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience. Many fans
> > are fans of both club and international rugby, but dislike the idea
> > that support for international rugby must come at the expense of the
> > club game
>
> Whoever made that claim?
> The crazy idea that an improvement to test rugby means sacrifice at
> the club level only exists in your head.
Dully, the adults are talking. Mark raised a point, I'm responding it.
If you want to wade in with strawmen arguments, find a wall to talk
to.
>
> >- rather than wishing club rugby could or should supplant
> > international rugby.
>
> > To put this in context: in 1986, England played 4 internationals. By
> > 1996, it played 6 games and in 2006 it played 11. If anything,
> > internationals are competing more with the traditional club model,
> > through more frequent games and demands on players' time.
>
> By club model you mean they play more often?
No, I mean the club model that England has used for some years. If you
don't know what that means, come back when you've found out.
> IMO, the 'club model' means players are bought and sold to the highest
> bidder, there is no tangible attachment to any team, and no real
> loyalty.
It doesn't especially matter what your opinion of the club model in
England is. It is what it is.
>This compares to the 'International model' where all players
> are a product of your own industry. the team is born, or at least
> raised into the team, and the supporters are too. This is what makes
> test matches great, your have to earn your wins, not buy them.
That's touching. It's not born out by the reality of players switching
nationalities to play for other international teams, but if it makes
you feel better, you run with it.
Stephen Doyle
"johnmhill" <jo...@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46a9cbb3-1fd6-49f8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
JH
The good old Smirnoff ads eh?
I thoght cunnilingus was an Irish airline till I discovered etc...
Cheers
Stephen
JD
I'd suggest they do, but the critical mass is much smaller in
Australia. Hence why they seem to be marketing it to AFL and league
type fans as well.
The Old Fellow
Google Bully
> On 2 Sep, 09:26, Google Bully <hairyf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 12:42 am, Ben L <bjlong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 Sep, 14:40, "Mark (newsgroups)" <marknewsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > It feels as though some NH fans are happy to see club rugby replace
> > > > internationals, much like the football model. That would be a shame.
>
> > > I don't think that's true, at least not from my experience. Many fans
> > > are fans of both club and international rugby, but dislike the idea
> > > that support for international rugby must come at the expense of the
> > > club game
>
> > Whoever made that claim?
> > The crazy idea that an improvement to test rugby means sacrifice at
> > the club level only exists in your head.
>
> Dully, the adults are talking. Mark raised a point, I'm responding it.
> If you want to wade in with strawmen arguments, find a wall to talk
> to.
It's straw man, and I think you better go look it up as you clearly
have no idea what it means.
>
>
>
> > >- rather than wishing club rugby could or should supplant
> > > international rugby.
>
> > > To put this in context: in 1986, England played 4 internationals. By
> > > 1996, it played 6 games and in 2006 it played 11. If anything,
> > > internationals are competing more with the traditional club model,
> > > through more frequent games and demands on players' time.
>
> > By club model you mean they play more often?
>
> No, I mean the club model that England has used for some years. If you
> don't know what that means, come back when you've found out.
Humour me, explain what exactly this model is then...
>
> > IMO, the 'club model' means players are bought and sold to the highest
> > bidder, there is no tangible attachment to any team, and no real
> > loyalty.
>
> It doesn't especially matter what your opinion of the club model in
> England is. It is what it is.
And that would be?
>
> >This compares to the 'International model' where all players
> > are a product of your own industry. the team is born, or at least
> > raised into the team, and the supporters are too. This is what makes
> > test matches great, your have to earn your wins, not buy them.
>
> That's touching. It's not born out by the reality of players switching
> nationalities to play for other international teams, but if it makes
> you feel better, you run with it.
Easily?
OK, just for kicks, name how many players switched teams since Jan
2000 (when the new laws - ohh err changes - were brought in)?
I won't hold my breath....