ELV decision deepens north-south rift
Hated by some, clung onto as the vision of the future by others, the source of endless extra drinks in bars around the world as debates raged on, the ELVs have caused some hefty arguments.
Hated by some, clung onto as the vision of the future by others, the source of endless extra drinks in bars around the world as debates raged on, the ELVs have caused some hefty arguments.
None is bigger than the cultural gap between the north and south at the moment, and with its announcement yesterday that there will be a final decision on them on May 13, the IRB set itself up for a precarious balancing act.
For while northern unions have fallen over themselves to congratulate the probable decision to give rugby back the maul and lead us back into the era of penalties and equal numbers at line-outs, Australians in particular have become even more acidic.
The staunchest ELV supporter, Australian Rugby Union chief executive, John O'Neill, who championed the variations at the conference, has yet to comment on their likely removal, but the warning of his last year hangs in the table over every such meeting.
“What would a World Cup be like without Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in it?” he said.
“No one wants to see two games, but unless there is a degree of reasonableness, it could happen.”
So was Tuesday's decision reasonable? Time will tell for O'Neill, but others thought so.
Within an hour of yesterday's recommendations being publicised, both the WRU and RFU praised the decisions made.
“The conference represented a meeting of minds from around the rugby world and some of the greatest and most learned men in the game have given their views,” said WRU Chief Executive Roger Lewis.
“The top experts and administrators in the game have gathered in one place to debate and, most importantly, listen to each other's opinions, views and conclusions about the ELV experiment.
“The WRU along with all the unions of the world presented its research findings, Welsh voices were lead expertly by David Pickering and Nigel Owens, who is now regarded as one of the top referees in the game and, after two days, the conference has come up with recommendations which will be vital to the future of the game.
“Personally, it has been a privilege to hear the truly visionary insight offered by some of the great practitioners of the game from around the rugby world, by some of the great coaches and rugby experts who have such an impressive and intimate knowledge and understanding of the game.”
Meanwhile the RFU, whose involvement of players and officials from every single level of the game in England and the other of the Six Nations has been by some distance the most laudable response to the whole issue, said that he was glad a majority had been listened to.
All told, the English governing body received 17,438 completed questionnaires through their online survey of English rugby public, as well as an extraordinary level of techincal analysis.
“The Conference was constructive and positive about the way forward and credit should go to the IRB for organising it,” he said.
“As a Union we have been extremely methodical in both our consultation with those who play, coach, referee and support the game and in our technical analysis of club, provincial and international rugby around the world.
“We have worked closely with the other Six Nations unions to paint as accurate a picture as possible of the impact that the ELVs have had. We presented that to the Conference and we are delighted that they have taken our views on board.
“The whole idea of the ELVs is to improve the sport and while we support the majority of the globally trialled ELVs, the feedback from the Game and our game analysis indicates that pulling down the maul and unrestricted numbers in the line-out have not improved the game.”
But the Australians are revolting, with all four Super 14 coaches toeing O'Neill's line.
“When you see games played under ELVs and then Test matches under the old laws they are markedly different,” said the Waratahs' coach, Chris Hickey.
“I don't think that's a good direction for the game to move in and you'll find teams winning games by kicking penalty goals and not playing much footy.
“The northern hemisphere unions have got their way in keeping laws which suit their forward-focused game. If they go back to the penalty kicks you'll see a game that's completely dominated by 30-40 line-outs and driving mauls.”
The Western Force coach, John Mitchell, a former England assistant coach, added: “I think the half-arm is a great concept and it's totally necessary for us in Australian rugby in the sporting market that we live in.
“It creates an element where it asks the defence to respond quickly or negatively, and I guess that's what the game's all about.”
Reaction from New Zealand and South Africa has been scarce.
New Zealand Chief Executive Steve Tew said that rugby's breakdown would continue to be the problem area, but also cocked a snook at the Six Nations for rejecting laws not trialled – such as the free-kicks.
“The sanctions are most handy at the tackle and ruck situation because you don't have to go to a straight penalty every time there is an infringement,” he said.
“It is the part of the game which is the most difficult to both play and referee.
“We had the rather ridiculous situation yesterday where the Six Nations were en masse rejecting law variations which they had not trialled.
“It's fair to say that raised a few eyebrows given they were telling us why they didn't work. They were basing their arguments on assumptions rather than facts.”
Six more weeks… then we'll have one set of laws again… unless John O'Neill thinks he is serious.