Mailbox: The ELV review
The clock ticks down on the existence of the ELVs as we know them. After May 13, we shall know how our great game will move forward, hopefully under one set of laws the world over.
The clock ticks down on the existence of the ELVs as we know them. After May 13, we shall know how our great game will move forward, hopefully under one set of laws the world over.
We had our say on Wednesday, and as ever, you had a few things to say back…
“I used to referee, a long time ago!!, as I am now 74, and in Canada I did, in those days, some pretty high level games. It is interesting how the game and refereeing has changed, but I, as you say, feel that some of the ELV's have made the game much more akin to Rugby League. My comments are as follows in the order you had in article on the Wednesday April 1st “Should they stay or should they go.”
– 1) Assistant Referees – Assistant Referees can assist referees in any manner required when appointed by a match organiser.
Keep it. (but may be call them touch Judges again, giving the Referee a bit more authority)
– 2) Posts and flags around the field – The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch in-goal except when a ball is grounded against the post.
Keep it!
– 3) Line-out and throw – If a team puts the ball back into their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain of ground.
Keep it (maybe change it later as you suggest)
– 4) Line-out and throw – A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team's own goal line.
Keep it.
– 5) Line-out and throw – There is no restriction on the number of players who can participate in the line-out from either side (minimum of two).
Bin it.
– 6) Line-out and throw – The receiver in a line-out must stand 2 metres back from the line-out.
Bin it.
– 7) Line-out and throw – The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball may stand in the area between the 5 metre line and touch line but must be 2 metres away from the line-out.
Keep it, as you say it doesn't make much difference but does potentially keep things easier to see and referee..
– 8)Line-out and throw – Line-out players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in.
Keep it, ( I remember penalizing Delme Thomas in Canada for this in the early 70's and he commenting then that referees in the UK were letting it go way back then).
– 9) Line-out and throw – The lifting of line-out jumpers is permitted.
Keep it, see above!!
– 10) Maul – Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down.
Bin it, (dangerous and let the referee have discretion as to the penalty).
– 11) Maul – Remove reference in Law to heads and shoulders not to be lower than hips.
Bin this one too, dangerous as above
– 12) Scrum – Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the scrum.
Keep it.
– 13) Scrum – Scrum-half offside lines (must be in close proximity to the scrum as present Law or must retreat five metres).
Keep it and enforce it together with putting the ball in straight!!!!.
SANZAR additional ELVs
– 14) Sanctions – For all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and Law 10 – Foul Play, the sanction is a free-kick.
Bin it, it was fine before.
– 15) Tackle and ruck – If the ball is unplayable at the breakdown, the side that did not take the ball into contact will receive a free-kick.
Bin it.
– 16) Maul – If a maul becomes unplayable, the team not in possession at the start of the maul receives a free-kick.
Bin it. The maul was good as it was.”
Chris Edwards, Toronto.
“I think on the whole, people who play rugby in the NH are terrific people, but shouldn't be allowed near a rule book. On this occasion though, I completely agree with every point made about the ELVs. A free kick is too soft and 3 points is way too harsh.
Why don't we just reduce the penalty kick to 2 points? Maybe drop goals as well. This would place more importance on tries, wouldn't it?”
Max Graham, Australia
“Of course the majority of ELVs should stay , this is opening up the game of rugby to a wider audience.
The key is to find some common ground with a mix of old and new rules.
The staid and sterile northern style of game is a fossil and will make the six nations sides easier beats when the tri nations teams do there yearly holiday up north.”
Brent Stringer, Queensland, Australia
“I just have a couple of comments regarding your review of the ELVs. They pertain specifically to the line-out sections. In number 5 and 6, you talk about having line-outs with equal numbers of players. But while the ELVs currently allow for the defending team to put more players in the line-out that the team throwing in, the law always allowed the defending team to put fewer players in the line-out than the team throwing in. Therefore there was always the potential for the defense to clog up the midfield with forwards. And under the 'old' laws, when teams throwing into the line-out placed fewer players (say 4) into the line-out, then the defending team could not exceed that which would automatically lead to the midfield being, again, clogged up. Therefore your rationale for binning this ELV really doesn't make sense.
With regard to the receiver position, I see this ELV as only relevant if the ELV regarding numbers in the line-out is binned. As a referee, when you have to take into account the numbers in the line as under the 'old' laws, then you need to be clear as to who the receiver is. Perhaps 2m is excessive for the distance from the line-out that the receiver must stand, but at least 1m is necessary to ensure that the receiver is clear. Under the ELV allowing unlimited numbers of players in the line-out, the position of the receiver is irrelevant as you don't have to take them into account when determining numbers in the line.
Lastly, with regard to the defending player standing between the 5m and touchline, you are forgetting that under the 'old' laws where they are not required to be at least 2m from the lineout, they would often act as supporters for line-out jumpers. This would effectively give the defensive 1st jumper a positional advantage over the offensive jumper as his front supporter would be inches closer to the touchline and because the offensive front supporter would be restricted to standing outside the 5m line. Perhaps not a significant advantage at the top level of the game, but definitely an advantage at the lower levels where line-out throwing is not as precise and often it ends up just being a case of trying to beat the opposition jumper to the ball.”
Andrew McMaster, Canada
“I like your idea on changing the value of the free kick. While it is true that we want to ensure that Rugby Union is separate from Rugby League (which I also love as a sport), perhaps we could take just one of their ideas – the differential penalty. The differential penalty in League has all the benefits of a penalty except you cannot kick for goal. It was brought in because it was