|
Moore: ELVs threaten chaos
05/05/2008 09:38 - (SA)
London - I only started digging into this issue recently, but with just a few phone calls it was became plain to me that the progress of the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) is fraught with inconsistency, if not downright intellectual dishonesty, writes former England hooker Brian Moore in his Daily Telegraph column on Monday.
The reason for the increased pressure is the fact that International Rugby Board rules state that two years before any World Cup there must be no law changes. Thus, if the changes don't get the green light before 2009 they're dead in the water.
The progress of the trials is said to have been unanimously positive. This is untrue. Moreover, the questions raised are legion - such as why is the Super 14 competition only trialing certain changes, and does this mean the others are defunct?
The Tri-Nations, meanwhile, have not yet agreed which changes, if any, they will trial. How will these be picked and why? Again what happens to those not used? Under which laws will the imminent tours by Six Nations teams be played?
If only four changes are to be used generally in the northern hemisphere next year, but another 11 in the Challenge Cup, how is this proof that any have been properly tested?
No scientific company would get past first base with a new product trialed under these conditions. Given their far-reaching effect, does our game deserve anything less than properly regulated scrutiny? There was a timely reminder to the proponents of the changes that there is little wrong with rugby's laws as they stand; and that in the northern hemisphere, at least, the product is growing in popularity.
The weekend games produced a plethora of tries, tension and skill. They attracted record crowds; TV audiences are up, in contrast to those of the Super 14 where the audiences are voting with their feet on the ELVs.
Therefore, where are the gaping chasms of peril that so threaten our game that we have to risk losing the very thing that makes it unique? Another thrillingly flawed contest Saturday at the Stoop was sold out weeks in advance; they had to turn away nearly 3 000 people. As neither Sale nor Quins are likely to lift the Premiership trophy this year, this support cannot be for glory. The truth is the fans like the way the teams use the current laws, which are capable of being understood and enjoyed by all.
The contrast between the muscular, slower approach of Sale and the higher tempo attempted by Quins was fascinating. Why should we want to reduce this to a game of unstructured tap penalties? Although Bath were aided by a thoroughly unprofessional performance in the first half by Saracens, they were still mightily effective in all areas.
Direct running by the forwards - heavily inspired by Olly Barkley -created quick balls for the backs, who then put Saracens to the sword. No one was left perplexed by the referee's application of the laws; everyone was satiated by a surfeit of tries.
The Wasps' game against Gloucester drew a huge crowd, which contained unsegregated fans who co-existed without rancour, but with passion and knowledge. All were repaid by two teams who threw heart and soul into the game.
The Gloucester storming of the Wasps' stronghold was a great combined effort by an underdog pack and ambitious backs. The absorbing contest was lengthened by Wasps' resolute refusal to capitulate, so preventing it being a cricket score for the Glaws.
Ask any of those who witnessed, close up, the enthralling contests of strength in the driving mauls in each of the above games whether they found them dull. If you report their responses honestly, you will say that they said the opposite.
For those who like to smear the opponents of the ELVs as antediluvian, this game exposed the utter fallacy of their claims that the present laws do not work; they do. What has to be altered is the approach of the teams playing thereunder.
You see, it just isn't true that everyone wants a simplistic game; unfortunately the lie has been so oft repeated that it is now accepted without protest. It is a little late in the day, but those who agree now have to stand up and shout about these canards.
The trials now have all the hallmarks of the 'consultations' for Heathrow's Terminal 5, purposed only to give the illusion of choice. I suspect, like in the case of Brian Ashton, the decision has already been made by those in charge.
|
Rugby
