Guys, the World Cup final is just a recent and highly publicised example. People do not want to change the game because the final was a tight defensive game, it's just the best example to use as a case-in-point for the trends of the current state of the game.
As has been said many times, the ELV's were well under way before the WC even began. The main aim of the laws are to:
A. Increase the amount of time of actual game time in a game.
B. Remove the strong bearing that interpretations of the law has on results.
C. (an extention of B.) Make it easier for refs to make the right decision.
D. Create more space for attack (to counteract the bigger and faster players in the modern day game)
Surely we can agree that all of these effects would have been nice in the final, but most importantly would be nice in rugby generally?
The laws are not there soley to ensure more tries are scored. This may be a consequence of some of the proposed changes, but is not what the law changes have set out to accomplish.
Regardless of the final, all of these are important factors.
As I've said, and Stormmaster has seconded, we need to discourage players from giving away defensive penalties. Reducing the amount of points for a penalty goal is only going to encourage infringment.
We have to agree that rucking is not PC enough to be acceptable these days in pro sport. Fair enough that alot of players deserve a few sprigg marks across their back at times! But Mum's not gunna let little Johnny watch or play a game where you can stand on another man with the desired intent of inflicting pain on him.
Rucking is gone, and is not coming back. So, we need another way of discouraging offending? Obviously sending a man off is the easiest way. But a 10minute send-off is a massive disadvantage and would place even more pressure on refs to make big calls that will effect the outcome of a game. I suggested the shortened 'powerplay' penalty idea as a healthy middle ground, but even this might not sort out the problem, and would add more compexity to an already complex area of a complex game.
The contentious issue of when a rucks a ruck, when a tackles a tackle and everything in between is one of the main problems that the ELV's have tried to combat. Currently the ref decides when a player is allowed their hands on the ball, and often they are forced to make a call that could have gone either way. How many times have we all heard "Ruck, ruck. Hands off 7, hands off 7. (7 comes away with the ball) That's ok, he was the tackler" or things of this nature?!
By allowing hands in the ruck at all times we should no longer have this issue. However, nothing in the new rules has changed to discourage players from lying on the ball or playing the ball once they're off their feet.
In the ARC this year, refs appeared to be very vigilant with their cards. I don't remember a single game where a couple of players weren't sent off at some stage, and some games had up aroound 5 yellow cards. Also, if players persisted with professionally slowing the ball, they were given a red.
It is a more strict refereeing mentality that will do most to increase the amount of attacking rugby we see in a game.
I would like most people to catch a bit more game time under these new laws so they can see them in action before rubbishing them as being a bad idea. So if you have the chance, keep an eye out for some Super14 games next year to see what the future of rugby might be like.
