Without trying to sort out the reasoning behind this claim, Armchair Playmaker thinks it’s a good time to have a look at the way things where before the ELVs. The consternation about the ELVs making rugby union a “tedious display of kicking” might suggest that rugby union before 2008 was a slashing display of running rugby. To jog our memory, let’s consider the biggest match played in the year before the ELVs came our way: the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final.

A glance at the match statistics reminds us of a few things. For one, there were zero tries scored in the match. For two, each side only had one clean line break. But that’s a pretty superficial peek.

Let’s look closer. The stats also say possession was kicked away 92 times in the match (48 times by South Africa and 44 times by England). Meanwhile, there were 185 attempted tackles (97 by South Africa and 88 by England). If we assume that almost all phases of play end with an attempted tackle or a kicked ball, then adding the total tackle attempts to the total number of times possession was kicked away gives us a total of about 277 phases of play. If 92 of those phases involved possession being kicked away, then that means about 33% of the total phases in the match ended with posession being kicked away.

A third. Not a third of the times they had posession. A third of the total phases. So every time the ball went to a player from a ruck, scrum, lineout, kick, etc., there was about a one in three chance a player kicked it away. This estimate is a little rough, and is actually probably a little bit low if we consider that some phases might have had more than one attempted tackle in them if a player was able to break a tackle or two, so the percentage of phases where possession was kicked away may have been even higher.

We know this is just one match, and may not be representative in a lot of ways. But it was also probably the most-watched rugby union match ever. And for every three times a team picked up the ball to play with it, they kicked it away once.

The ELVs, of course, have the convenient alibi of not being at the scene because their global implementation came several months later.

Armchair Playmaker suspects that if you see a side kick away possession a lot in a rugby union match, it has less to do with the ELVs and more to do with the oft-repeated statement, “The contest for possession of the ball is one of rugby’s key
features.” You’ll find that said in a number of places, such as a playing charter document provided by the IRB. When possession is constantly at risk, territory is at a premium. Kicking is a quick way to gain territory. Seems simple to us. And rugby union still seems okay to us as well.

If rugby union fans really can’t stand the kicking, though, they can always play and watch a code that where we usually only see a kick every six tackles. But wait: We also see people saying the ELVs have made rugby union too much like rugby league.

o the ELVs make people kick too much possession away and they make rugby union like rugby league, a sport where people don’t need to kick as much possession away because there is less ongoing contest for posession? There’s just no pleasing some folks.

The IRB will make a final decision on the ELVs in July. In the meantime, have a look at the video below if you want another chance to see what could be causing such chaos in so many disparate ways–and all at once:

While the International Rugby Board has released a very good printed guide to the new laws, their video, which has been posted at Rugby Dump, is a very handy way to get up to speed on the new laws and their application:

In the rugby union laws, seven substitutions are allowed from a bench of seven reserve players, and they can also be for any reason (Law 3.4). Unlike rugby league, though, rugby union does not allow a replaced player to return to a match (Law 3.7). There are two exceptions for safety reasons, though. For one, if a front-row player is replaced and that replacement is injured, then the original player can return to ensure safety in the scrum (Law 3.12). For two, a player with a bleeding wound can be temporarily replaced to prevent transmission of bloodborne illness (Law 3.12; see also 3.10 and 3.11). Aside from those exceptions, though, a player who leaves the match is done for the day.

Until now. In today’s thrilling Tri-Nations match, which saw the Australia Wallabies get over the New Zealand All Blacks 34-19, New Zealand seemed to make a dubious use of the blood replacement law to keep a halfack in play. Starting halfback Andy Ellis was replaced by Jimmy Cowan early in the second half. Later, Cowan limped off the field with an apparent knee injury, and Ellis returned to play. After a few minutes, confused referee Craig Joubert inquired about the situation and was informed that Ellis had come back on due to a bleeding wound, despite there being no apparent blood on Cowan at the time he had limped off the pitch. Cowan later returned, as is allowed with a blood replacement, with a heavily strapped knee. (Interestingly, Cowan would later be seen bleeding from the nose, though only long after returning from the original blood replacement.)

Questions are being asked about the legitimacy of the maneuver, and the commentators covering the match for FOX Sports enjoyed several jokes about the possibility of “finding some blood” on other players to give them a rest (even playfully suggesting the clandestine use of a razor blade by a trainer to free up a replacement).

Given that the blood replacement rule is imperative for safety, it will be difficult for referees and opposing sides to challenge such questionable situations without compromising safety standards. At the same time, incidents such as this threaten to make a joke of the rugby union replacement laws. Armchair Playmaker suggests that rugby union should bring in some sort of interchange, similar to that of rugby league, before the blood replacements become a sham altogether. Why not allow seven total interchanges among any players in a side, or perhaps ten or twelve given the fast pace of the game under the new experimental law variations? It’s worth noting that bringing the interchange to rugby union was also suggested recently by rugby union legend Mark Ella, weeks before today’s halfback circus.

If something isn’t done, we may see a lot more rugby union players wheezing for air or clutching at sore knees and shoulders as they limp off for “blood” substitutions.

It may indeed have been the new laws that had Smit displeased with the match. It may have been the final scoreline. Or maybe, just maybe, this illegal dump tackle off the ball from Brad Thorn (who gets in trouble on the field rather than off it, noting over the weekend that he’s no longer a drinker) had a little bit to do with Smit’s dour outlook:

SANZAR, the cooperative entity created by the joint efforts of the South Africa Rugby Union, the New Zealand Rugby Union, and the Australia Rugby Union, announced today that the Tri-Nations rugby tournament will be played with a new ELV combination this year. The Tri-Nations, for those unfamiliar, is a three-way annual competition between the thre SANZAR nations’ national sides. This year’s tournament will run from 5 July to 13 September and will include three matches between each pair of teams.

Anyway, back to the ELVs. The 2008 Tri-Nations will be played using the same ELVs used during the recently concluded Super 14 tournament, plus two more: mauls may be pulled down and sides can put as many players as they like in the lineout. Another way to put it is that the Tri-Nations will use the 13 ELVs to be trialed worldwide, plus a bunch more that aren’t. An even simpler way to put it is to say that you still can’t watch a match on television or the Internet to get an idea of the worldwide ELVs because the big competitions are either using none of them or a different combination than will be used in the upcoming worldwide trial.

If you’re not confused yet, consider these additional spanners in the works: England’s Rugby Football Union is reconsidering whether the ELVs pertaining to mauls (making it legal to pull down mauls and making it legal to have one’s shoulders below one’s hips in a maul) are safe enough to be used. And don’t forget that when the global ELVs do go into effect worldwide, at least one elite European Competition will feature a different set of them anyway.

In short, we’re about one step from the old days, when it was so much work to get everyone playing by the same set of laws in the first place.

Armchair Playmaker likes the ELVs and the action they bring, but there’s one thing we don’t like: For now, it looks like the best way for a lower-level player or referee to learn how to play rugby union is not to watch it! Surely more uniformity in implementation could have been maintained. The current hydraic rollout of the ELVs across comps calls to mind the old cliche about animals designed by committee.

Some detractors, such as 2007 IRB player of the year Bryan Habana, claim that the ELVs will make rugby union more like rugby league. If he means that we’ll actually start seeing some tries, perhaps he’s right.

In any case, the ELVs will surely get interesting when they hit the lower levels. In Armchair Playmaker’s homeland of the United States, for example, there are over 76,000 registered members of USA Rugby. A lot of those members are players refereed by part-timers making 50 USD or so to referee a match. A lot of them rely on general memories from their playing days for most of their laws know-how, leading to more than a few errors on the finer points of advantage, when to award a 22-meter dropout vs. a 5-meter scrum, how crooked a lineout throw has to be to merit a sanction, when to award a free kick instead of a penalty, etc., etc. How will they handle the ELVs?

Armchair Playmaker says full speed ahead. If a lot of lower-level referees are getting things wrong already, then maybe a major law overhaul will force them to learn not just the ELVs, but those laws they should already know. And if not, then they’ll just get the new laws wrong just as they did the old ones. If the ELVs make the sport more exciting, then more interest = more new referees. Maybe they’ll be more studious than some of the old ones!

What do you think? Comment below and share your thoughts on the ELVs and how you think they’ll be handled by referees, etc.