ELVs, bizarre choices and stupid commentators

So, about 10 days ago the powers that be decided, in their infinite wisdom, what the future of the game will look like. The accepted about half of the ELVs that had been proposed. Of course, they couldn't decide to adopt the ones that have been in the Super-14s this year... that would be too easy.

Some of the Super-14 rules have got through, but they've ditched the "most offenses are free kicks" rule. Shame really, there are so many situations where the difference between being excellent play and a penalty is a matter of less than 1 second. Having a free kick in there, and then a penalty for the more blatant or repeated abuses, and a yellow card for the really blatant, bad position or long term repeated offenses makes sense to me.

The one I can't believe they've accepted (that Super-14 wisely IMO ignored) was "it's legal to collapse a maul." Now, I happen to think that rolling mauls are too powerful. There is no defence against them in essence (not even having a big, strong pack) but they are a thing of skill and power - two of the things that make rugby attractive - even if it's only the real purists that would regard them as a thing of beauty in their own right. Having the ability to just collapse the maul - well any idiot can do that, so you're removing an option of skill straight away. Replacing it with things like "as long as you join from onside you can work around the sides of the maul staying bound to attack the ball carrier" would, to my mind, make a lot more sense. Teams can still attack using the rolling maul, but there is a defence that doesn't deny the attacker the skill and power and requires skill and power rather than just the ability to lie down in the way. Obviously that's too easy...

The other reason I can't believe it happened this way: collapsing mauls was ruled out originally not to allow Leicester to score tries that way, but to prevent injury to players as it goes down. Players now have unbreakable necks presumably? Bizarre.

The commentators that I saw were all "OMG it's terrible" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." They then chose, rather stupidly, to demonstrate it ain't broke by saying the two Heineken Cup semi-finals produced good matches. They did, it's a fair comment. But are semi-finals between four of the best teams in Europe on a good weather day a representative sample? No one has denied that the existing rules CAN produce great games of rugby. But, about 2 weeks before this game an (equally unrepresentative sample of 1 game) produced a stolid 16-9 game with 1 try, lots of slugging it out in the middle of the field. It was a rugby match, but not one that would make me go back to watch another match if I was a newcomer.

The Super-14s, even in some pretty horrendous conditions (driving rain, howling winds, etc.) has usually produced interesting games. The Guinness Premiership and the Heineken Cup produces them as the weather gets better, but produces 9-6 dull, slow, boring games too in conditions not that dissimilar to the weather we've seen in some of the Super-14 games this year, where they're producing 3 and 4 try matches. Comparing overall... well I don't have the stats and some of it is about personal opinion, but Super rugby produces far fewer dull matches in my opinion than either of the big Northern Hemisphere contests that I can see here.

That brings us on to the final thing... who is Rubgy for? The commentators would have you believe it's for them. What crap. Rugby is for the fans at this sort of level. Sure, at the local club level it might be for the pleasure of the players, but they're the sort of people that still pay subs to play for fun. Professional players and clubs almost certainly contain a majority of people that enjoy what they do - but they don't play for that. They play for the wage. The wage comes from bums on seats and sponsorship. But sponsorship comes from TV revenue and bums on seats potential. TV revenue comes from bums on comfier seats. Rugby at the top level is predicated on pleasing the crowd so they keep paying to watch the games. I don't know what the viewing and attendance figures are like, but adjusting the game so it keeps the things that make it good and attractive but so that it showcases them more, making the game MORE attractive is surely a good thing?