Brian Moore on ELV attack

Thursday 24th July 2008 - www.planetrugby.com

Among all the reviews, reports and recriminations regarding the trial of the ELVs in the north ahead of next season, former England hooker and current solicitor/columnist Brian Moore's voice has been shouting louder than most.

After three or four choice columns on the subject of tight matches despite the ELVs and on southern hemisphere 'bullying', Moore went on the full offensive this week and delivered a withering attack on the ELVs, the trialling process, and the reasoning behind them.

It makes for reading every bit as compelling as Moore's performance on the field used to be, but then it would have to, being as it is delivered with the forthright and barely-masked aggression Moore used to carry onto pitches all over the world.

Here is Moore's Daily Telegraph column in near-full form for the staunch defenders of the old game to sit back and enjoy!

"The laws are for ALL levels of the game. The view of Super 14 supporters and viewers is no more legitimate than that of any third XV player in London Division Two. It is now quite plain that only the views of those connected with games seen on television, and thus 'in the shop window', are being heard. Few unions have sought the views of all their constituents and even fewer have a mandate on the subject.

- Any ELV that threatens the unique tenet of rugby - that it is a game for all shapes and sizes - should not see the light of day.

- I do not accept that there was, or is, overwhelming evidence that rugby needs fundamental changes to its laws. Nobody has ever identified the imperative which made this whole exercise necessary.

- 'If laws do not move forwards, the game moves backwards' - it's a stupid cliche, disproved by many other sports whose laws have remained static without detriment.

- I was and still am suspicious of the motives of certain countries that are pushing the ELVs, because I was at an International Rugby Board meeting at which it was stated that the moratorium in introducing any new laws had to be introduced because it became obvious that certain countries, Australia in particular, were suggesting law 'improvements' which would favour their international team's strengths.

- Trialling has been inconsistent.

- The alleged success of the ELVs is based on flawed reasoning and to principles that are incapable of being defined.

- Many of the alleged benefits of the ELVs are illusory.

- Many of the first-seen consequences of the ELVs have now altered in a way unsought by their proponents.

- The history of their introduction will be a standard text for future sixth-formers in how not to do things.

"Having been, wrongly, identified as a Luddite for daring to raise any or all of the points above, I do not agree with the following ELVs, and/or, make these comments:

"Allowing mauls to be collapsed: I don't think collapses will produce many more injuries, save for lifting a man off his feet, which is dangerous and should be carded immediately. I do think it removes the last method of ensuring opposition forwards are kept in, or close to, the breakdown and not clogging up the midfield.

"The assertion that it is impossible to stop is transparently untrue; if it were true every team that tried to drive the maul immediately from a line-out near their opponent's line would score. They do not - ergo?

"Not having to match the throwing team's numbers in the line-out: This allows packing midfields with forwards and putting 'flyers' at the tail to exploit an advanced position. This could be solved by making any forward not in a line-out stand 10 metres back and within 15m of touch.

"Handling in the ruck: They say this only legitimises what goes on anyway. It goes on only because referees allow it. Go back to the previous laws on rucking.

"Reducing all offences to a free-kick, save for offside, foul play and repeated or cynical offending: This has not led to the referee being less involved in games, the reverse is true. On average there are 50 per cent more times when the referee whistles. This is because players are prepared to take a risk on committing offences, knowing the referee has a difficult job deciding on their intention. Thus, referees are as much, if not more, involved in influencing the game.

"This proposed change has contradictorily been claimed to both speed up the game and empower the scrum. Both cannot be true. Further, even if there are scrums chosen instead of a free-kick, scrums are not empowered because they are not a contest anyway due to the IRB allowing referees to ignore the stated put-in law.

"Drawing an offside line immediately when a tackle takes place: It is a measure of the confusion caused by the 'okey-cokey'-style trialling of the ELVs that we do not know if this still lurks or is dead. If not, kill it, it is stupid.

"The avowed intent and claimed consequence of the ELVs to 'speed up the game' is illegitimate. The 95 per cent of players to which the ELVs will apply do not need or want a 'faster' game, nor are they equipped to play one.

"If you want to discourage aerial table tennis, extend the 'mark' rule to the 10m line of the opponents' half. This would stop aimless punting, particularly the chip and chase when players can think of nothing else to do with possession.

"Can I be any more candid?"

We at Planet Rugby think not.