ELVs put emphasis on skill and could save players


By James Peacock, The Birmingham Post
October 30 2008

Had anyone who tried to convince me two months ago that the Experimental Law Variations were a positive move for rugby would have received short shrift. Now, I’m not so sure. News that Jamie Forrester, the former England and Gloucester back-row forward, had been forced to retire through injury shed some light on a worrying trend enveloping the sport. In so many ways, the 27-year-old

epitomised what has changed since professionalism: he was a back-row forward with startling pace, the hands of a centre and supreme athletic ability.

While tragic scrum-related injuries like those incurred by Nuneaton’s Daniel James and Leicester’s Matt Hampson thankfully remain scarce, there is undeniably a link between curtailed careers and the increased physicality within the sport. If that seems like an obvious connection to make, that’s because it is; but the extent to which the corollary goes is absurdly far-reaching.

The Rugby Football Union website has some damning statistics on the subject: England international forwards and backs in 2003 weighed, on average, 109kg and 90kg respectively, compared with 100kg and 83kg for their counterparts in 1991.

Research found that a greater proportion of a player’s increased weight was lean body mass, therefore meaning greater force being generated in collisions.

Between 1995 and 2003, there has also been a 30 per cent increase in the time the ball is in play, significantly increasing the chance of injury per match.

More than 2,000 injuries at Guinness Premiership clubs were recorded in the 18-month research period between 2002 and 2004, which equates to 92 injuries per team per season.

On average, nine out of 38 players at every club required treatment and rehabilitation each day for the knocks reported and, of 72 per cent of match injuries caused in contact, 51 per cent came in the tackle situation.

These are only a selection of what, in my opinion, are the most notable figures from the RFU’s findings. Bear in mind that this project was concluded four years ago and that an argument could easily be made to suggest that the game has become even more brutal since then. It is no surprise that roughly 40 international rugby players have been forced to retire early in the past four years. More will follow unless the game changes.

On top of proving just how hazardous rugby has become, the research also highlights how much the sport has changed - many of the people who now go to matches as spectators have little comprehension of what it is they are watching.

This notion dawned on me while covering a Moseley match earlier in the season when I started eavesdropping on some of the all-knowing supporters standing near me (not Moseley supporters, incidentally).

While the much-derided ELVs have served to complicate matters further for supporters and in a legal sense, they could prove to be the sport’s saviour.

Rugby’s challenge in the long term will not be in addressing its arcane laws but reversing the trend which has seen power prevail over skill - and the ELVs can help this.

We have already seen teams - especially Wasps - forced to adapt defensive attitudes at the breakdown in order for the ball to be played quicker - meaning fewer men being committed to rucks and a subsequently diminished chance of players sustaining injury in the most combative area of the pitch.

If the ELVs become permanent, it will mean all teams have to adapt; forwards will have to be much fitter - therefore much lighter - and the game will be won and lost in the open spaces rather than in the dark corners of rucks and mauls.

Such thoughts will not be of comfort to Jamie Forrester but it might just provide some longevity for special talents like his.

That, surely, is rugby’s priority

Bookmark or share this story with:

ELVs put emphasis on skill and could save players
Discussion started by Unofficial Coventry Rugby (IP Logged), 30/10/2008 17:16
Unofficial Coventry Rugby
Unofficial Coventry Rugby
30/10/2008 17:16
ELVs put emphasis on skill and could save players

Reply Quote Report
Inside Every Prop There's a Fly Half
Inside
31/10/2008 10:23
I started to put a couple of points - it's turned out to be a bit of a rant!!! Better get yourself a cuppa before settling down!!

If it was just about reducing the ruck area, then the ELVs, arguably, based on the scribbler's selective evidence above....

The blasted ELVs are changing the game.

1) They have reduced decision-making and tactical acumen in the line out.

Because of the dropping of the numbers requirement, there is little to be gained from reducing the line out. A smaller but more mobile side could beat a bigger set of forwards by reducing numbers and having movement. Now most defences fill their defensive line out with 7 players, with the SH in the 5m, adding yet another forward to the mix. The 6 and 7 operate as breakaway flankers at the back of the line, one as 1st receiver (SH)
and inhibit bakcs play afterwards.

2) They have reduced decision-making and tactical acumen in the 22.

One great piece of common defensive play is to work from your own 5m line, scrums, lines out, gradually inching your way up field. Finally, your forwards break out of the 22, win the line out, feeds the scrum half who in return passess to the FH inside his 22 who then turns defence into attack with a spiralling kick to the opposition's half. No longer an option. The law makers have decided every team's tactics outside the 22 - you have to kick it, for your team to chase. (I would be interested to see the stat that shows whether more penalties have been awarded for players offside iin front of the kicker in this situation - so much for keeping the ball in play for longer. Is it really 'in play' 40m in the air?).

Before ELV the defensive team had an option. If they kicked to touch they knew they would probably lose possession. However, the pressure would be released for a short time so they could regroup. That decision-making process that is so vital to players' and teams' development is now pvirtually re-determined by the law makers.

3) The ball is in play longer.

An oft quoted stat. It may well be at the very top level. Do Old Fourskynnians 4ths want the ball in play any longer. Do the majority of amateur players want it to stay in play longer? I'm not so sure. Just becasue it's in play longer, it doesn't mean it's any better.

4) 5m scrum law

At any level below ND1 where there is one official only, can this ever be correctly policed? How many referees are saying "Stay back" or even "Get back" 4 or 5 times, before they actually penalise any FH? We're back to refs having their own interpretation of the laws again rather than the IRB wording. Do we really want a ref to concentrate on a difficult to see offside line rather than player safety in the front row. THis law was made by the same people who drew up the foxhunting law - fine in theory, looks good on paper, but the practicalities of it...

5) 5m scrum law

Again - has it seen an increase in backs play? I think not. No 8s are picking up more to cross the gain line quicker. And FHs are kicking more. Ball in play when up in the air? I think not.

No, for me, the ELVs are having a ruinous effect on the game. Yes, undoubtedly there are areas of the game which need tightening. Thank God the corner flag is now in touch! Our game would have fallen apart if this law hadn't have been changed. Again, without a TMO, does this affect any game whatsoever? Anybody in a junior game (remember, these games represent some 95% of rugby) ever waited for the ref to consult with the bloke videoing the match for game analysis whether the player touched the corner flag.

Once we started down the way (10+ years ago) of changing the game to become a televisual spectacle, the 'real' game has suffered. The maul turnover law as a prime example.

I'm happy to embrace change. My teams play using the current laws and we adapt. I don't want to go back to the forward rush laws, or anything dangerous. But, in my opinion, the ELVs haven't really enhanced the game. They have had the opposite effect.

Discuss!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:10:31:10:25:26 by Inside.

Reply Quote Report
Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search• Log In
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net