WRU pour cold water on ELVs

[BLR]

gingergenius: The ELV's aren't neccessarily 'fixing' anything are you seem to think, so the tired mantra you are using doesn't work. The ELV's attempt to 'evolve' the game, making it a little more refined, and if you are too attempt to say that the game is perfect as it is...well that shows how clueless you really are, the laws are messy at the moment and the ELV's act to clean them up. I mean, apes were pretty good at foraging for food and managing to survive, that doesn't mean that they weren't better to evolve into humans...change is good if it is bringing around a more refined game while still maintaining the basics that people liked about the old one, which is what the ELV's do

Putting aside all your preconceptions of ELV's being out to turn all rugby into running rugby the simple fact is that the laws take some of the subjectivity out of reffereeing, (although some sections will be ironed out before being implemented) the scrums have been once again made the main centrepiece of the game and the various styles of play have been given more options and avenues to be successful.

Now, this is to feicarsinn as well, the idea that all props will be skinny fit blokes in the future, I am not too positive. Sure in the Super 14 there has been a large amount of attackign rugby but that has always been our way, who is to say if it gets a trial in the NH teams will get a hold of it and use the free kicks to its advantage, packing scrum after scrum, slowing the game down to thier pace where attacks are launched off scrum after scrum into the opposition...if anything this will mean that the team with the most powerful scrums will win the day and the props places in the scrum will be preserved....

The rules are not a HUGE change, it's simply refining and evolving the game that stands today, the simple fact the NH seems to be against it without even trialling it under thier competitions shows how narrow minded you all seem to be, running rugby is enhanced sure, yet so is slower forward play and if you cannot see that, well maybe union is a little too complex for you to understand?

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Because, as I've already explained, the game works fine as it is. We've had arguably the best world cup ever this season, the most exciting and open Guinness Premiership season ever and a Heineken Cup which has continued to throw up high-intensity matches, surprises and, though i hope I'm wrong, by this evening there'll be the two best European sides in the final. From where we're standing, there's nothing wrong with rugby as it is.

Now from a SH perspective, Australia have fallen off the wagon internationally, stars are leaving the Super 14 in droves and a lot of people are saying the constant traveling between the 3 countries first in the S14 and then the Tri Nations, playing against largely similar opposition, is getting tedious. I can see why you lot want to change the game. I might suggest however, that there's 3 Pacific Island nations and Argentina who are all more than capable of making things more interesting for you lot. Helping them develop rather than poaching their best talent and snubbing them from competitions might be a better option to liven up SH rugby...
[/b]

Wow... you wrote 2 paragraphs and yet managed to completely avoid answering any of my questions and stuck to the tired old "I'm from the North and your from the South" rubbish. You sir, have clearly been taking notes from our good friend Humphrey Appleby.
[/b][/quote]

I've outlined why I couldn't care less if any of the new laws would speed the game up. I don't have a clue who Humphrey Appleby is... anyway you can accuse me of being conservative as much as you like, but I'll stick to the mantra 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Rugby (at least in Europe) has never been healthier. From our perspective there's no need to make any changes. [/b][/quote]
Humphrey Appleby is from Yes Minister - best British comedy of all time.
You haven't outlined a thing. All you've said is that you think Rugby is fine in Europe and that the ELVs must exist because Rugby is suffering in the SH... you clearly know next to nothing about the ELVs from your posts and are more concerned with SH bashing because that's what yo think this is about.
Anyway, let me clear a couple things up for you. Rugby in the SH is not suffering... indeed we dominate the international scene (5 of 6 RWCs all won by us remember ), and the Super 14 has been incredibly successful. For example, why would New Zealand ever think that they need to 'change' the game to increase it's popularity? People are crazy about rugby there and no other sport even comes close to rivaling it. Same in South Africa barring soccer (but even then the Springboks seem to get more coverage and have higher standing). Indeed, Australia is the only place where your argument might hold some water because of our unparralleled competative sporting atmosphere (no other country has 4 major football codes each with a professional league), but even in Aus the Super 14 has been massively successful and the wallabies have huge standing and it is GROWING from year to year... there has been no slide in the popularity of Rugby in Austrlia.
But anyway, you've completely missed the issue as far as I'm concerned... what you're ultimately suggesting is that the game should cease to change because it's "fine" in Europe (and as I've pointed out, fine in the SH as well). Which is a ridiculous argument given that at no stage has the game not been "fine" if that's how you define it. As a sport that has only been professional for a little over 10 years (a change that wasn't really necessary given that the game was fine as an amature sport for over 100 years) it has obviously grown in leeps and bounds thanks to the increased media exposure and the appeal of the RWC (a Aus-NZ initiative that the NH was largely against because the game was 'fine'), but to suggest this success is proof the game shouldn't be changed from now on is just pure stupidity given the impact of the game the referees have and the incredible grey areas in the game that, to paraphrase Martin Johnson, leave even veteran players baffled as to why some penalties are given. The ELVs may not fix everything, in fact some have increased referee interference. However, some of reduced the referees say on pedantic issues and also helped with continuity of play.
But I don't know why I'm bothering answering you in all honesty... you clearly have made no effort to really understand the purpose, origin and impact of the ELVs and think that the SH is 'out to get you'.
Good luck with that.
[/b][/quote]

not really. I've now seen the RFU's questionnaire on the subject which explains exactly what the changes are and how different they are to the current rules. And I'm even more vehemently against them than before. Why?

1. Half of them look to be pretty much exactly the same... ie. no point in a change in the first place.

2. The majority of the rest take rules where a scrum is awarded and change that into a free kick. Now you lot have all told me that this is not an attempt to take the scrum out of the game. ********.

You can all spend as long as you want calling me a Southern Hemisphere basher and all the rest of it, I don't care. Fact is I've got good reasons why the ELVs in particular should not be implemented, and good reasons why change in general would not suit rugby. You're welcome to your own opinion, you're welcome to come here posting as much as you like about why they should be implemented but the fact is, I've made a considered decision and my mind's made up.

 

[Bullitt]

The LAWS are not a HUGE change, it's simply refining and evolving the game that stands today, the simple fact the NH seems to be against it without even trialling it under thier competitions shows how narrow minded you all seem to be, running rugby is enhanced sure, yet so is slower forward play and if you cannot see that, well maybe union is a little too complex for you to understand? [/b]

Sorry, but just because forwards rugby can seem "boring" to a lot of people in the SH (where, I may add, only the Boks seem to understand it's benifits) doesn't make it wrong nor evil. The best way to stop a team full of speedsters is to wrap it up in the packand blugdgen them to death with it.

My take on the ELVs anyway;

-The revised 22m law leads to more aimless kicking from one end to the other (the exact opposite of the intention).
-The hands-in-the-ruck law ruins the point of a ruck at all.
-The reduction in the number of scrums is only one stem away from making them uncontested. Australia will like that.
-Making the lines and flags "not count" as touch will only artificially inflate scores and make trys too easy to score.
-The "existing laws need to be more stringent" should really go without saying.
-Making every penalty now a "free kick" makes defending team more likely to infringe in kickable positions as they won't get punished.

Basically, the ELVs are designed to suit the SANZAR nations, where faster running rugby is much easier on firmer surfaces. Where also, apart from the Boks, their front 5s are a bit ginger beer. In the north where rugby can get agricultural due to heavyness underfoot, they would not suit the game.

These all came about because of the world cup final not being as open as a Barbarians friendly and the IRB wanted a sulk. There's a bloody good reason the final was a tight game, Mr. Stallenbach... IT WAS THE WORLD CUP FINAL! No team is going to play open, flowing rugby for the sake of it when so much is at stake (okay, England and SA are hardly good at that anyway, but you get my point).

Still, at least the Aussies will get to use more of their league players.

 

[Charles]

Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.

 

[Steve-o]

You made a few mistakes there Mite.
1. Hands in the ruck are not allowed. They fell out of favour in the ARC last year already.

2. Aimless was an issue in the early stages of the S14 but teams learnt their lesson quickly after NZ fullbacks ripped them apart. Aimless kicking is not a major issue now.

3. The ELVs were drawn up way before the WC 2007 final.

4. There are more scrums on average.

5. Not every penalty is a free kick

 

[Bullitt]

Well, if hand in the ruck are not allowed under the ELVs, SH refs are chuffing useless -therefore breaking the other ELV condiutions of "enforcing existing laws".

 

[gingergenius]

Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.
[/b]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.

I still haven't heard any pro-ELV type say exactly why we need law changes. It doesn't count to say 'make the game faster' either, because that's just one aspect of rugby that may be better to watch but isn't the b all and end all. It's like changing the laws of football to cancel the long ball.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotemain'>
Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.
[/b]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.

I still haven't heard any pro-ELV type say exactly why we need law changes. It doesn't count to say 'make the game faster' either, because that's just one aspect of rugby that may be better to watch but isn't the b all and end all. It's like changing the laws of football to cancel the long ball. [/b][/quote]

When the defense infringes at a ruck (playing on the ground/hands) a penalty is awarded (not a scrum), or a free kick with the ELVs. The attacking team can them opt for a SCRUM, or a kick to touch, or a quick tap.

When the ball is unplayable in a maul, usually defending team gets the scrum, same with the ELV's. :bleh!:

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.
[/b]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.

I still haven't heard any pro-ELV type say exactly why we need law changes. It doesn't count to say 'make the game faster' either, because that's just one aspect of rugby that may be better to watch but isn't the b all and end all. It's like changing the laws of football to cancel the long ball. [/b][/quote]

When the defense infringes at a ruck (playing on the ground/hands) a penalty is awarded (not a scrum), or a free kick with the ELVs. The attacking team can them opt for a SCRUM, or a kick to touch, or a quick tap.

When the ball is unplayable in a maul, usually defending team gets the scrum, same with the ELV's. :bleh!:
[/b][/quote]

watch/ play a game of rugby you simon.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.
[/b]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.

I still haven't heard any pro-ELV type say exactly why we need law changes. It doesn't count to say 'make the game faster' either, because that's just one aspect of rugby that may be better to watch but isn't the b all and end all. It's like changing the laws of football to cancel the long ball. [/b][/quote]

When the defense infringes at a ruck (playing on the ground/hands) a penalty is awarded (not a scrum), or a free kick with the ELVs. The attacking team can them opt for a SCRUM, or a kick to touch, or a quick tap.

When the ball is unplayable in a maul, usually defending team gets the scrum, same with the ELV's. :bleh!:
[/b][/quote]

Wrong. It's which ever team is/was last moving forwards.

 

[darwin_23]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
Ginger and Teh Mite, either you can't properly understand what you're reading , or you are just blatantly lying.

Ginger, can you tell me where you've seen that a scrum is replaced by a free kick ?

Teh Mite, the hands in the ruck is not even experimented in the S14. There has been no reduction of the number of scrums. I'd say there will be even more of them (esp in the NH) if the rules are implemented.

"Every penalty" doesn't transform into a free kick, but I'm sure you know that. Hands on the ball and playing on the ground are a free kick. The rest are still penalties.




I'm not specially in favour of the ELV's but some people need to be a wee bit objective here, and stop talking ********.
[/b]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.

I still haven't heard any pro-ELV type say exactly why we need law changes. It doesn't count to say 'make the game faster' either, because that's just one aspect of rugby that may be better to watch but isn't the b all and end all. It's like changing the laws of football to cancel the long ball. [/b][/quote]

When the defense infringes at a ruck (playing on the ground/hands) a penalty is awarded (not a scrum), or a free kick with the ELVs. The attacking team can them opt for a SCRUM, or a kick to touch, or a quick tap.

When the ball is unplayable in a maul, usually defending team gets the scrum, same with the ELV's. :bleh!:
[/b][/quote]

Wrong. It's which ever team is/was last moving forwards.
[/b][/quote]

Both wrong - when a ball becomes unplayable in a mall the team not in possession of the ball at the start of the mall gets a Free Kick under the ELVs (same rule as for a ruck).

Anyone who thinks there will be less scrums or that scrums will be less important under the ELVs obviously hasn't watched any Super 14 games - stats have shown that there are on average slightly more scrums per game, and a much greater percentage of tries scored directly off scrums. I'd suggest people who think there are less scrums should stop listening to the opinions of a few journalists and watch a few games themselves so they can make there own opinions...(this increase in scrums is due to a number of offenses being changed from penalties to free-kicks, which many teams opt to take as scrums).

 

[BLR]

This topic is pointless, let's go over both sides points.

<div align="center">ELV supporters</div>

*the new rules allow greater variability in game style allowing rugby to evolve into an even more original and appealing game
*the scrum has become more important as they occur far more often, and the stats prove this. Already scrum dominance has destroyed opposition teams far more then would have occured without them.
*with a bit more ironing out the true purpose of the ELV's will be achieved, taking the subjectivity out of many areas of referreeing
*but the ELV's need to be worked on, thier are a few things that don't work and a trial in the NH can help refine the laws

<div align="center">Non-ELV supporters</div>

*why fix what's not broken, I mean, what's the use of trying to improve a game even more, it's obviously the most perfect game in every single way....I mean, I wouldn't try to get a better paying job then what I have now will I? Even though I may like the new one better, I still sorta like my old one too so I may as well settle with what I have now and not give myself a chance to perhaps improve an already great thing.
*there is less importance of scrums despite all the evidence to prove the exact opposite
*it's an Australian conspiracy to devalue the scrums, because the fact that thier are more scrums obviously means they are trying to destroy the scrum...despite the fact the laws itself were formulated by people all around the world.....I just know they were Australian.
*you're an idiot, we're right so shut up, and our trash newspapers prove we're right. And no we won't try it for just a little while, we didn't develop them, it's our game, I'm taking my ball and leaving!

Now can we finish this conversation? I think I have proven it's pointless....give the laws a trial and come back and give us feedback, there is so many incorrect facts being spewed out that it's just a stupid thing to talk about, you can't debate against a stubborn person who doesn't know the fact....come on, tell me scrums have been devalued again...

 

[Steve-o]

It's like trying to convince a donkey it's an ass!

Although this topic is getting a bit tedious, I wouldn't say it's gotten pointless. Irritatingly repetitive, yes. Pointless, no. It's still serving as a good educational topic.

Some people are very concerned about how their beloved rugby might change, which is of course very understandable.
I, in some ways, can admire their loyalty for backing their NH unions decision to critisize and fight the ELVs.
They have however gotten caught in the hype, and have in turn, over estimated the ELVs.

I think, or hope, people are starting to realise there are no new drastic laws. The old laws are just being tweaked. There's no entirely new faced of the game. You can't compare it to the intervention of being able to mark in your own 22. I mean that was straight up new.

It's about refining pre-existing laws, to encourage more positive play.

EDIT- I agree with BLR that no person can use the 'its not broken' angle. That's reeks of complacency in an ever changing game.

 

[Prestwick]

*you're an idiot, we're right so shut up, and our trash newspapers prove we're right.
[/b]

After Rippers random ranting, I think its fair you could put that specific part of that point for both the pro and anti ELV arguments.

 

[BLR]

<div class='quotemain'>
*you're an idiot, we're right so shut up, and our trash newspapers prove we're right.
[/b]

After Rippers random ranting, I think its fair you could put that specific part of that point for both the pro and anti ELV arguments.
[/b][/quote]
It's hard to keep some of my fellow ELV-ites on thier leashes.

 

[dullonien]

I'll excuse your apparent stupidity as something being 'lost in translation'. Here when the ball gets trapped in the ruck the attacking team gets a scrum. ELVs give a free kick. Just one example.[/b]

Sorry ginger, I gotta pull you up on this one. This is how it should have looked:

Here when the ball get's trapped in the ruck, the team moving foreward get's a free kick. ELV's give a free kick. So they are exactly the same.[/b]

You're understaning of the game is slightly sqewed, when a free kick is given, there's a few options of how to take it. Scrum, kick to touch (but opposition get's the linout, quick tap. When a penalty is given you can do all of those (instead you have the linout when kicked to touch), but you can also take a penalty kick for three points. I'm sorry, but your entire argument about devaluing the scrums is null en void.

I don't see any way the ELV's can devalue/de-power the scrum. No changes are being made. And as some SH guys have pointed out, they are probably doing the opposite. More scrums are bound to be taken by teams wanting to slow the pace of the game. You are not forced to take a quick tap. This doesn't mean that I agree with it, as I have tried to explain previously, but some of the comments here are just plain wrong.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
*you're an idiot, we're right so shut up, and our trash newspapers prove we're right.
[/b]

After Rippers random ranting, I think its fair you could put that specific part of that point for both the pro and anti ELV arguments.
[/b][/quote]
It's hard to keep some of my fellow ELV-ites on thier leashes. [/b][/quote]

And indeed vice versa...although I don't think Ripper would survive an argument over the ELVs with a member of the Georgian Rugby Community....although the Georgian would visit Ripper in intensive care afterwards and demand that they "go drink like brothers" so it'd be all good :lol:

EDIT: Also, BLR, in honour of Steve-o's total lack of effort in even explaining why he likes the ELVs, could you add the following point for the Pro-ELV point of view:

*Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I cant trace time

 

[dundeesmiffy]

I'm kind of split 50/50 on this.
I want to see a more expansive running game because penalty-fests bore me but I can see how it will cripple some teams, like Scotland who seem to be devoid of try's in recent encounters (The Italian prop, Castrogiovani scored more tries himself that Scotland did throughout the whole 6N).
I think it would force some teams into playing a more running orientated game, whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen.
I think it would be a good idea to have some internationals, maybe during the test season under the ELV's to see how they translate to the international game; which has it's subtle and not so subtle differences to the club/provincial game.
I have an ideal way I'd like this whole debacle to go, less international penalty yawnfests and more tries.

I can't remember who made the point about '40 y/o props playing from there clubs 3rd XV' but I have this to say.
Rugby as a sport is changing on many fronts, one such example is the shape of the players. In the new rugby union ethos (as at least how I've been taught) after the 3rd or 4th phase roles tend to blur a little, for instance your locks aren't the only ones responsible for clearing out at ruck-time, neither is it solely your blindside wing forward or eighth-man's job to act as pillar and post.
Brian O'Driscoll and both Munster centers are prime examples of this, they double up as back row forwards should play fall into there particular area of the field, acting as 'fetchers' or in Matt Banahan's case clearing out men from the ruck.
Also, from what I've seen of NH rugby recently (over the past 8 or so weeks since Father dearest got Sky Sports back) Hookers and Props are no longer the tubby lardarses they were in years gone by, guys like Lee Mears and Craig Smith of Edinburgh, not to say they are skinny welks but they have shown some initiative in following behind the backlines or even posting themselves out on the wing to run in from 10 or so metres or darting from the back of rucks not to bury there heads into another forward and set up another ruck a meter ahead but to head for the try line with the intent to score, albeit at a short distance.

This is mainly from what I've seen and experienced myself from playing rugby union to watching rugby union in my lengthily absence from the game through injury.
It's maybe not how the more stoic or even the more modern minded see the game, but it's what I've taken.

To sum up though, not to worry 3rd XV aging tubster, I'm mainly talking about the professional game and not your pub team....I tend to find pub rugby a bit less tactically minded and more of a 'I'm going to punch you until we are both crying' game, and I see little to no fault in that.

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
*you're an idiot, we're right so shut up, and our trash newspapers prove we're right.
[/b]

After Rippers random ranting, I think its fair you could put that specific part of that point for both the pro and anti ELV arguments.
[/b][/quote]
It's hard to keep some of my fellow ELV-ites on thier leashes. [/b][/quote]

And indeed vice versa...although I don't think Ripper would survive an argument over the ELVs with a member of the Georgian Rugby Community....although the Georgian would visit Ripper in intensive care afterwards and demand that they "go drink like brothers" so it'd be all good :lol:

EDIT: Also, BLR, in honour of Steve-o's total lack of effort in even explaining why he likes the ELVs, could you add the following point for the Pro-ELV point of view:

*Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I cant trace time [/b][/quote]

I'm taking it your being sarcastic, cause I've mention the benefits of the ELVs (the reasons I like them) and the draw backs (the reasons I don't like them)

 

[Prestwick]

*laughs* no, you've just banged on about change, change & change again before refusing to talk any further on the subject.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdRysgH2Jbw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AdRysgH2Jbw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>