<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
<div class='quotemain'>
Fine you can debate this forever. Fact is, the game isn't yours to change.
[/b]
Indeed, it's the IRB's, and the ELV's are an IRB initiative. wink.gif (Where can I pick up my winners trophy?)
[/b]
Don't mean that just because it suits you lot it should by rights be changed. There's no way the ELVs will be implemented, since they are already unpopular in Europe. And we have 6 major unions, you have 3. [/b][/quote]
Really? So Scotland and Italy are major stakeholders in the game now are they? ****, wasn't aware of that... well in that case I guess we have 6 supporting us as well, given that the PI nations are in favour.
ANYWAY though "gingergenius", in line with Prestwicks admirably logical line of argument, may I ask you what it is in particular about each of the ELVs that means the entire lot should be thrown out the door? I mean other that "RUGBY IZ FROMZ INGLIND!!! WE OWNZ IT" etc.
This may shock you, but most people in the SH aren't keen on all of them, but rather think that some of them have proven positive and may have a place in the game.
[/b][/quote]
You're all presenting them as a big new type of rugby that we all should accept.
If you go.. hang on maybe the game might be better if you implemeted the 22 law (for example)... then maybe people wouldn't have such a problem. I mean rugby's had subtle changes throughout its history. But keep them subtle. I think the main opposition in the Northern Hemisphere is because the ELVs are a whole new set of rules, and we are all given the impression that we'll have to either take all or none. Perhaps it might have bee better to have a more conservative approach when it comes to changing a sport that on the whole works fine as it is... [/b][/quote]
As far as I know the idea of the ELVs was to try as many variations as possible to see what kind changes worked and what didn't. What you're talking about is the image the conflict hungry media have presented... and you've caught by it hook line and sinker.
And in any case I wasn't actually asking you to answer reply to the SH proverbial "all" on behalf of the North, I was asking why
YOU don't see a place for any of the 30 new law variations in the game. For example, what's your problem with # being able to throw the backwards on a quick throw line out #having no number restrictions in the line out, #putting a 5 meter gap at scrum time, #not being able to kick out on the full from inside the 22 unless the opposition has sent the ball there? Personally, I'm still not convinced about the ruck penalties, am against collapsing in the maul, have mixed feels on the the 22 kicking rule, and think that renaming touch judges to "assistant referees" is pure pointless vanity (they're still judging from the bloody touch). But I quite like the new line out laws and the 5 meters at the scrum.
[/b][/quote]
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...