Rugby - Tours Tours Everywhere!

[finbar]

First, let me apologise for the typo in my previous post. The ELV doesn't allow for the pulling down of a shopping centre, only a maul.

It defeats me why the Boks, in particular, would agree to the pulling down of the maul.

[Havak]

Darn it - wish I had caught that typo for you.

In all honesty the pulling down of mauls benefits one nation more than any other - and it defeats me why both NZ and RSA keep agreeing to changes that benefit Australia the most.

I simply don't see ourselves or the French adopting that ELV without being dragged kicking and screaming....

[Havak]

The BBC is reporting that the ELVs "as trialled in S14 earlier this year" will be used globally for a trial one year period from the autumn.

But I wonder if that really means the ELVs that will be used in the tri-nations?

Either way it is infuriating that these stupid ideas from Paddy's brain trust can be forced on everyone. Scrums have been neutered over thre last fifteen years - mauls are about to become redundant. How long before someone suggests six phases of uncontested possession should be tested?

to the IRB

[finbar]

No, the ELVs trialled in the S14 didn't include pulling down the maul, handling in the ruck, unlimited line out numbers, etc. These were the S14 ELVs:

Assistant Referees

* Assistant Referees can assist referees in any manner required when appointed by a match organiser.


Posts and flags around the field

* Corner post, and post at corner of touch in goal and dead ball line not considered to be touch in goal unless the ball is grounded against the post.


Inside the 22 metre line

* When a defending player receives the ball outside the 22 metre line and passes,puts or takes the ball back inside the 22 by any means, the following can occur.
* If the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is in line withwhere the ball was kicked.
* If a tackle, ruck or maul is subsequently formed and the ball is then kicked directly into touch, the lineout is where the ball crossed the touchline.


Lineout

* On a quick throw in, the ball can be thrown straight or backwards towards the defenders goal line, but not forward towards the opposition goal line.
* Pre-gripping, lifting and using another team mate to lever is allowed.


Tackle/Post Tackle

* Players entering the breakdown area must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED [re-emphasises existing Law]
* Immediately the tackle occurs there are offside lines.
* The offside lines run parallel to the goal lines through the hindmost part of the hindmost player at the tackle
* A tackled player must immediately play the ball and may not be prevented from playing the ball by any player who is off their feet. [re-emphasises existing Law]
* Any other players playing the ball at the breakdown must be on their feet.
* If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a Free Kick
* Free kicks can be taken in accordance with current Laws [re-emphasises existing Law].
* Dangerous play will not be tolerated. e.g. Diving over the breakdown [reemphasises existing Law].
* The half back should not be touched unless he has his hands on the ball [reemphasises existing Law].


Maul

* Players joining the maul must do so through the gate. RIGIDLY APPLIED [reemphasises existing Law].
* If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a Free Kick.


Scrum

* The offside line for players who are not in the scrum and who are not the team’s scrum half, is 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum.


Sanctions

* For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10 - Foul Play, the sanction is a Free Kick.

What isn't properly explained is the law preventing kicking out on the full if the ball is passed back into the 22. It doesn't matter how many pairs of hands the ball passes through after it's passed back into the 22, the ball can only be kicked out on the full if another phase of play happens or there's a stoppage of some sort. This caught out a few players this year. They thought the law meant the ball couldn't be kicked out on the full only from the pass back into the 22.

The other one that caught out quite a few players was the formation of the offside line at the tackle point. As soon as a tackle is made - not a ruck is formed - defenders behind the tackle have to move to the other side before involving themselves. I don't like the law.

[Havak]

What I was actually asking was what ELVs did the IRB approve last month for the global trial from August.

Is it the ELVs from S14 as you have kindly detailed above or the more 'full fat' ELVs that will be used in the tri-nations that will include the mauls?

[finbar]

The S14 ELVs, as detailed.

[Havak]

Ta muchly.

[LDiCesare]

The other one that caught out quite a few players was the formation of the offside line at the tackle point. As soon as a tackle is made - not a ruck is formed - defenders behind the tackle have to move to the other side before involving themselves. I don't like the law.

That's the law that allowed for a penalty try for what everybody on the field thought was a legit tackle, if I remember well. I think it's not a good law as it makes it almost impossible to catch many players if the tackler managed to pass the ball.

[finbar]

That's right. A tackle - as against a ruck - should remain broken play. It reduces the contest for the ball. It's the experimental law that most mimics L*****.

[Havak]

Break the initial defensive line, offload the ball iin the tackle and a try is practically guranteed then? Or have I misread that one?

Tigers executive hold their season review next week - Marcelo's chances are 50/50 I suspect.

[finbar]

No, it doesn't necessarily guarantee a try but it helps. It depends how many defenders are behind the ball, hence (according to the new law) offside. And how far they're behind the ball. From my observation in S14, it was the law that caused the most problems for players. Old habits died hard.

Re next week, I'm in Marcello's corner. He hasn't had a fair chance. Apart from that, they need to take two factors into account: (1) who else is there?; and (2) what confidence would it instill in a replacement knowing his predecessor was sacked after less than a season? It's heading into s***** territory.

[Havak]

Valid points.

I'd give him one more season IF he delivers Hernandez this summer.

But when we talk of fair chances consider that the results under his leadership this season deteriorated significantly from those achieved before he arrived. He took us from second to a very lucky fourth in the table. Almost the first thing he oversaw was us crashing out of Europe and he has to take a lot of responsibility for our abject surrender to a thoroughly average Ospreys side.

My own feeling is that the falling out between him and his subordinates ripped through the locker room and destroyed the side. If the price to pay to fix that is to ship him out without a further chance I'm perfectly happy to do so.

The reality is certainly that the two main English coaches - both highly regarded ex Tigers players - have more political kudos at the club (be that right or wrong).

We certainly won't struggle to replace him Finbar - who might be available is the more important factor on that one.

Changing tack - I am not exactly looking forward to the NZ tests but I have high hopes we might see a good young back row to the pack. Rees, Haskell and Croft may all make the 22 - though I suspect one of them will shine the bench so the lumbering ox (Easter) can play.

You might also want to keep an eye on the Churchill Cup tomorrow Finbar - it should be more entertaining that seeing the new ABs destroy Ireland and the Boks hammer Wales.

England Saxons: Foden; Biggs, Smith, Allen, Banahan; Lamb, P Hodgson; Lloyd, Chuter, Wilson, Blaze, Skivington, C Jones, Skinner (capt), Crane.

Replacements: Titterrell, Forster, Guest, Robshaw, S Armitage, Abendanon, Monye.

(Blaze is Tigers young English second row - he has had an injury blighted season).

Finally have you seen the BBC website piece "Where have all the All Blacks gone". They suggest that Dan Carter will earn over four years worth of AB salary for spending just six months at Toulon. No one can blame him for taking a sabbatical on those terms? Equally it seems Toulon are openly making a mockery of French rugby by simply pouring money into theur squad - it reminds me of Richmond before salary caps here. "Who?" I hear you say? Quite. Bought success is not sustainable.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
The reality is certainly that the two main English coaches - both highly regarded ex Tigers players - have more political kudos at the club (be that right or wrong).

On that basis that both the forwards and defence were huge problem areas, I'd've thought their political kudos should amount to not much. And if it doesn't, if their kudos remains at status quo, there's blind loyalty at work. Not a healthy thing.

There's also the fact that, historically, the team have underachieved in World Cup years. Yet another factor to take into account.

We certainly won't struggle to replace him Finbar - who might be available is the more important factor on that one.

That's what I meant.

Changing tack - I am not exactly looking forward to the NZ tests but I have high hopes we might see a good young back row to the pack. Rees, Haskell and Croft may all make the 22 - though I suspect one of them will shine the bench so the lumbering ox (Easter) can play.

Easter will undoubtedly play. The ABs' front row is problematic. The hooker is as tough as nails but whether he has the class is another matter. They're also weak at #9 and in the centres. Nonu has been tried before and found wanting and hasn't got any better with age. He's a barge merchant who doesn't or can't pass the ball. Hullo Jamie Noon. Only Noon's defence is vastly stronger than Nonu's. Conrad Smith at #13 has slipped from promising to underachieving. He had a very average S14 and is said by some Kiwis to be a pretender. The AB back row also seem to be playing out of position to me. If the England forwards can turn up anything like they did against the Wallabies in the QF, they can upset the ABs.

You might also want to keep an eye on the Churchill Cup tomorrow Finbar -

I'm puzzled as to George Chuter's presence. There aren't any better, younger hookers?

Finally have you seen the BBC website piece "Where have all the All Blacks gone". They suggest that Dan Carter will earn over four years worth of AB salary for spending just six months at Toulon. No one can blame him for taking a sabbatical on those terms?

Absolutely. The dollar figures quoted in the article make it absolutely clear why the NZRFU is so vulnerable. And will remain so. It also must be slightly disturbing for Carter's teammates and others that a special case has been made for him.

[LDiCesare]

Equally it seems Toulon are openly making a mockery of French rugby by simply pouring money into theur squad - it reminds me of Richmond before salary caps here. "Who?" I hear you say? Quite. Bought success is not sustainable.

Toulon is indeed pouring lots of money. However, there's a parallel with what happened with the Stade Français, and even more than just a parallel.
The Stade Français won its way to the elite, then called 1ère division, by 1) money, 2)merging with the CASG whose sports results let them go up.
Since then, it's become one of the top French clubs, and they manage to make money too. Historically, the Stade Français and CASG were both some of the oldest French clubs.

Toulon is sponsored by a filthy rich president as the Stade Français is. It is also a historically old and famous club. They are recruiting a lot outside France, but look at Paris and Clermont: Half of the first team are argentinian, with some Italians mixed in. They still manage to raise some young French players (some of whom even leave for infamous English clubs).

A very funny thing is that many players who made the Stade Français what it now is originally came from Toulon:
Dominici, Moni, Comba...
Toulon has always been a successful school for rugby players. International players like Dominici, Mignoni, Delaigue, and others come from Toulon.

So in the long run, Toulon may stay afloat even without massive cash, because it's got many supporters who can probably bring in enough money to compete with other clubs, even without their current president. They have had an excellent rugby school for years and they may become what the Stade Français has become.

[finbar]

Leicester have gone down in my estimation. Particularly if the two locals - who oversaw the demise of the forwards and defence respectively - stay on. The sacking isn't brave, it's not courageous, it's shooting the messenger. Leicester might well have won trophies last season but rugby changes and changes mighty quickly and Leicester haven't anticipated. I also say again - who in their right mind would take on a coaching job knowing his predecessor was given less than a season - in a World Cup year - to prove himself?