Morrison's Warning

[chopper15]

Head of England's referees says Premiership coaches are hostile towards changes in laws

With the spectre of a raft of new laws being foisted upon the game, Ed Morrison, the head of England's referees, warned that coaches in the Premiership were hostile to the initiative.

By Mick Cleary, The Daily Telegraph

"I've not met one Premiership director of rugby who would wish these laws upon the game," said Morrison, who has had to spent a "vast amount" of time touring round clubs to clarify rulings and allay anxieties.
Even though Morrison was at pains to stress that had briefed his referees to be "positive and non-judgmental", he has not succeeded in encouraging head coaches to be optimistic.
Saracens' director of rugby, former Wallaby coach Eddie Jones, believes the International Rugby Board have plucked the experimental law variations (ELVs) "from a cornflake packet," while Sale's Philippe Saint-Andre has watched various games with increasing bafflement.
"Nothing is being refereed in the same way," Saint-Andre complained. ''It's been like a swimming pool at the breakdown, with arms all over the place. We don't know what is happening."
Morrison's trusted lieutenants, former international officials Brian Campsall and Tony Spreadbury, have been on the road as well. The worst excesses of the ELVs, a cack-handed and self-interested project, have been kept at bay in the northern hemisphere.
Morrison's office will insist on enforcing the current law at the breakdown, however.
"If you're off your feet at the breakdown, you'll be out of the game," Campsall said. "The only time there can be a true contest for the ball is when a player is on his feet."
To that end, Rugby Football Union disciplinary officer Jeff Blackett announced that there was to be a crackdown on players taking out opponents on the fringe of rucks, and on players entering a breakdown without binding on another player. "There will be zero tolerance in that regard," said Blackett, who also revealed that there has been a significant improvement in on-field discipline, with red cards and citings reducing last season from 74 to 51. Yellow cards for foul play are also down, from 463 to 318.
There is great concern still, though, as to what might happen as a result of the maul being effectively outlawed. "There will be more kicking and not much rugby played in the middle third of the field," is the view of Wasps and Lions head coach Ian McGeechan.

New laws:
· Offside line 5 metres behind rear foot of scrum
· Players able to pull down a maul
· No restriction on number of players in a line-out
· Quick throw can go backwards
· No putting ball back into 22 to clear to touch

 

[Simon Thomas]

Along with Alan Jones comments yesterday this is the visible tip of a very large iceberg of disquiet, complaint, and possible rebellion from what I have been hearing this week.

 

[Ian_Cook]

How strange it is that so many of the supposedly intelligent rugby brains in charge of the GP clubs are finding it so difficult to cope with the changes, when the Super 14, Currie Cup and Air New Zealand Cup coaches (and players) had very little trouble at all.

IMO, mindset and motivation has a lot to do with it. When the British media, led by such luminaries as Brian Moore, Stephen Jones, Eddie Butler and Stuart Barnes, launched into a campaign of misinformation about the ELV's in an effort to derail them, too many of your top rugby people latched onto it, becoming closed minded to the changes.

Additionally, the ELV's were put together by a group of rugby men who are far smarter than prats like Eddie Jones, and certainly a lot smarter than the aforementioned bunch of media jocks. The ELV's were supposed to be a package. They should have been adopted in total, not in the "picky-choosy" way they we're. If you mess with a package that was designed to work as a whole, choosing only the bits that suit you, you are bound to have problems with the end product. It is worth noting that in all the rugby competitions of any note where the entire ELV package was used without any amendments or alterations, those competitions ran smoothly with few if any problems.

In the SH, we've stopped debating about the ELV's now. Most of the players prefer them, and the public support them overwhelmingly.

 

[Dickie E]

I wonder if they want some cheese with their whine :Looser:

 

[SimonSmith]

Ian

Sorry, but I feel that's a little one eyed. There is SOME good in the ELVs; equally, there is some unnecessary change.

I think as well the pejoratives you're offering up are cheap, and unnecessary shots. You may not like some of the people whose names you've cited, but I think to some degree they're entitled to some degree of respect. Sean Fitzpatrick has voiced reservations - are you so quick to condemn him? Their opinions are just as valid as any of the SH luminaries or pundits you'd want to mention.

The change management process has been shambolic, as I cast a professional eye on it. One of the keys is a rationale for any change, and so far that has not been forthcoming. In fact, the view that some of these changes don't add anything to the game is valid view point.

And so I can get in my own cheap shot: Any country that uses Mexted as a pundit should start to put its own house in order before attacking others.

 

[Dixie]

It is worth noting that in all the rugby competitions of any note where the entire ELV package was used without any amendments or alterations, those competitions ran smoothly with few if any problems.

I am not aware of any such competition. Has there been one?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Mirroring Simon S's comments, if one of my subsidiary companies or plc project managers had delivered the IRB's ELV shambles (poor performaces across specification, planning, project management, PR, implementation, etc) there would have been blood on the walls and immediate management opportunities for new people.

 

[chopper15]

Ref. Ian Cook; Additionally, the ELV's were put together by a group of rugby men who are far smarter than prats like Eddie Jones, and certainly a lot smarter than the aforementioned bunch of media jocks.

If only they could've written the ELVs as well as those 'prats' could have done, Ian, perhaps there wouldn't have been so many probs!

And even more disturbing news for you to comment on;


The Rugby Football Union has been forced to draw up a code of conduct to prevent rowdy parents from ruining their children's matches.


A new rule book has been distributed to 1,200 member clubs setting out expected standards of behaviour for mothers and fathers.
It comes after complaints from officials that parents are becoming increasingly aggressive, even verbally abusing young players and, in one case, assaulting a referee.
Parents are to be banned from straying onto the pitch, must curb their language and must not do anything likely to insult or humiliate players or officials.
Mothers and fathers are also prohibited from forcing their children to play.
Jeff Blackett, the RFU's disciplinary officer said: "We are tackling it in response to clubs who want us to do something about it.
"We had one instance of a referee being assaulted at a mini-festival by an irate parent who was upset because the referee had given a forward pass against the parent's son.
"If we don't do something about it children will see it as acceptable behaviour."
The issue is being blamed on a huge influx of new fans attracted by England's World Cup victory in 2003.
Aggression in amateur soccer has been a problem for decades with a number of campaigns launched by the Football Association to clean up its image.
But it is the first time the RFU has admitted it has a crowd problem.
Mr Blackett added: "Unless behaviour improves we will consider taking sanctions but the last thing we want to do is deprive the children of their rugby because of the behaviour or a minority of adults."

 

[Davet]

Additionally, the ELV's were put together by a group of rugby men who are far smarter than prats like Eddie Jones, and certainly a lot smarter than the aforementioned bunch of media jocks.

That must make Eddie and the Jocks particularly stupid, then.

If that's the best job the smartest brains in rugby can do then frankly we'd all better pack up and play netball.

The reason that many of us over here are against the ELV's is that they bring no additional benefit to the players, nor the spectators.

If the best the SH can do is play interminable games of kick and chase between themselves then why do they still think think their brand of rugby is more entertaining. Will this 3N series NEVER end?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am not aware of any such competition. Has there been one?

AUSTRALIA
Australian Rugby Championship
Shute Shield
Bartercard Championship

SOUTH AFRICA
The Currie Cup
The Vodacom Cup

NEW ZEALAND
Air New Zealand Cup B competititon (equivalent ND1 in England)

- - - - - -

Simon & Simon

Firstly, it may be a shambolic mess in your part of the world, but it went through pretty smoothly here. SANZAR were asked by the iRB to trial 13 changes in Super 14. They did so, and the competititon went smoothly with hardly any fuss or bother. But then, we don't have a blinkered media in this part of the world that is hell-bent on throwing a spanner in the works of anything that looks like progress. With one exception, we have no equivalent of your muck raking "Tabloid" type papers.


The NH National Unions should just do what we did in the SH; shut up, stop whining and get on with it! The ELV's introduction has became a mess in the NH mainly because your unions wanted to pick and choose and argue about what they wanted in and out of the ELV's, the result being that things have been left out that went hand-in-hand with things that remained. For example, an integral part of the whole philosophy was allowing hands in the ruck. Leaving out the hands in the ruck part has meant that a lot more FKs were given than had been planned for. Now I saw a LOT of the ARC and the ANZC-B on the Rugby Channel in NZ. The hands in the ruck idea was an excellent one, and it worked very, very well. The ball was cleared quickly and efficiently and led to some excellent running and attacking rugby. Leaving it out returned the breakdown to the shambles we had before the ELV's came along, and ended with the ELV's being criticized for not working.

Like I said earlier; mindset and motivation. The fact is that the shambles you have in the NH is of your own doing. If we can manage to organise the introduction in the SH, half a world away from Dublin, there is no reason why you cannot do this also.

As for Mexted, while I am not one to defend him, in the NH you only get to hear and see one side if him. Mexted has set up one of the worlds leading rugby academies here; one that has literally thousands of players from all other the world on waiting lists to come for courses. It covers a wide range of teaching in its players, coaches and managers courses including; skills training, position specific training, vision and decision training, rugby specific fitness, strength and conditioning, laws and refereeing, media presentation, nutrition, sports psychology and mental toughness

He has put together some on the best rugby people on the planet to instruct and coach at his academy at various times, and it reads like a who's who of world rugby; David Nucifora, Graham Henry, Jim Telfer, John Boe, Nick Mallet, Jake White, Sean Fitzpatrick, Nick Farr-Jones, John Eales, Sir Clive Woodward, Peter Thorburn, Dave Rennie, Buck Shelford, Sir Brian Lochore and others.

In short, Mexted may come across as a tit sometimes, but he is no fool.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That must make Eddie and the Jocks particularly stupid, then.

The reason that many of us over here are against the ELV's is that they bring no additional benefit to the players, nor the spectators.

The 95% in favour from a SH public that has actually SEEN a FULL SEASON of rugby under the ELVs, as compared with the mostly opposed NH public that hasn't seen a single match under ELVs, tells a different story.

If the best the SH can do is play interminable games of kick and chase between themselves then why do they still think think their brand of rugby is more entertaining. Will this 3N series NEVER end?

Well its certainly more entertaining that watching interminable scrums, interminable line-outs and interminable kicks at goal. Scotland V England 2008 springs to mind, as does 2006.

 

[SimonSmith]

I never thoughht the day would come that I'd defend Brian Moore, but...a very honest, very smart man.

I think you need parse out what this issue is:I'm not aware of any "problems" with the implementation of the ELVS m- save some people doing some due diligence around questions that they raise in law. Perhaps if the oh-so-perfect SH bodies had done THEIR work, a lot of these questions wouldn't be coming up.

What is different is the way that the ELVs have been received, and in fairness to you that is an indication of mindset. However, you starting from the point that the ELVs are good and necessary and that everyone you cite is reactionary and blocking good stuff. That does, in all honesty, remain to be seen.
The NH does not tend to strong central bodies in the way that the SH bodies do - the RFU and SRU are much more representative of their constituent members. As such, diktat from above does not always work well.

You're right to mention motivation, and I think it speaks to a lot of my personal stance: I'm OK with refereeing these ELVs - but I'm not motivated to welcome them with open arms. There was nothing wrong with the game that I feel warranted as many ELVs as have been promulgated, and I don't see what was so wrong that needed to be so fixed.

Maybe the great minds in the SH are omniscient and see what us poor benighted Colonials are missing. But we aren't "blinkered" - and the tabloids don't care.
You'll find Moore writes for The Daily Telegraph, a fine newspaper; Stephen Jones for the Sunday Times, one of the better Sundays. Both have good rugby brains, and write to incite reaction.

 

[Davet]

Ian

Firstly, the notion that we should just shut up and get on with - garbage.

I never have simply done as I am told, and I don't intend to start now. I'm a fully adult functioning member of society and I believe that if something is happening that I don't like then I can make damned clear that I oppose it - and seek to prevent it's occurence by democratic means.

Telling me to shut up and get on with it is not acceptable - that applies to you, the iRB, Gordon (Uncle Joe) Brown, and any god who may be foolish enough to try it.

Secondly, there is simply no point to the ELVs.

They do NOT improve the game. They have resulted in interminable kick and chase games. The pulling down of a maul is simply an attack on good forward play, prompted, it is clear from your post, to allow a more running game, in the mistaken belief that that is what is wanted. Frankly, it isn't.

If that was such a good thing then League would be more popular than Union - it isn't. It's a minority sport all over the world that gets little TV coverage and has few fans. The notion that we should seek to emulate that is laughable.

The opposition to the ELVs from here is becuse the ELVs, by and large, are a damned poor idea. And especially so the ones that we have refused to adopt - such as hands in the ruck and converting PKs to FKs - which resulted in very poor S12 series involving stacks of quick resets - play the ball - and much running with little brain or purpose. If that's entertainment then stuff it.

Well its certainly more entertaining that watching interminable scrums, interminable line-outs and interminable kicks at goal. Scotland V England 2008 springs to mind, as does 2006.

I wouldn't agree. But then headless running never did appeal to me. Each to thier own - if you guys want a different game the why don't you simply start one, from scratch. Instead of trying to steal an existing game, with an existing infrastructure and fan base? Oh, I know - because it would never get off the ground. Well tough.

 

[OB..]

The ELV's were supposed to be a package. They should have been adopted in total, not in the "picky-choosy" way they we're. If you mess with a package that was designed to work as a whole, choosing only the bits that suit you, you are bound to have problems with the end product. It is worth noting that in all the rugby competitions of any note where the entire ELV package was used without any amendments or alterations, those competitions ran smoothly with few if any problems.

I don't believe that was ever the case. For example I see no necessary connection between Assistant Referees, pulling down the maul, and changing the effect of the corner post. The main reason for trialling disparate ELVs all at once was surely to get them done before the RWC.

The ELV's introduction has became a mess in the NH mainly because your unions wanted to pick and choose and argue about what they wanted in and out of the ELV's, the result being that things have been left out that went hand-in-hand with things that remained. For example, an integral part of the whole philosophy was allowing hands in the ruck.

The letter from the IRB dated 25 January 2008 starts:
February 2008 sees the start of Super 14 (S14) which will incorporate some of the ELVs developed by the IRB Laws Project Group (LPG). The inventory of ELVs to be used in the S14 is attached as Appendix One. In addition, the Australian Rugby Union and the South African Rugby Union will be utilising all of the ELVs developed by the LPG in certain domestic competitions (Appendix Two).

The ELVs used in the S14 did not include allowing hands in the ruck, yet this could hardly be blamed on the NH.

Hands in the ruck is not part of the current selection either, nor is the infamous offside line at a tackle. The original set allowed Truck & Trailer: where did that go?

In the SH, we've stopped debating about the ELV's now.

The NH National Unions should just do what we did in the SH; shut up, stop whining and get on with it!

They are experimental. All those who trial the ELVs are asked to report on their findings. The IRB is doing its own analysis.

Yet you have the nerve to tell us we should not be expressing our views. You are entitled to yours, but you are not entitled to dictate to us.

The fact is that the shambles you have in the NH is of your own doing. If we can manage to organise the introduction in the SH, half a world away from Dublin, there is no reason why you cannot do this also.

The current set of ELVs is global. If we have a shambles, then so do you. Devised by the IRB's LPG, not the NH Unions

BTW do you really think you are going to persuade us to change our minds by talking down to us like this?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The current set of ELVs is global. If we have a shambles, then so do you.

We currently have the same set of Global ELV's that you have, in our Air New Zealand Cup. Its been a seamless transition carried out with hardly any problems at all. We are 6 weeks into our National Championship. We have no whingeing from our coaches or complaints from any of our players, or dissension from any of our referees. In short we are NOT in the shambolic mess you appear to have gotten yourselves into in your part of the world. If we can do this, why can't you??

Mindset and motivation is the reason, IMO.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ian

The scale of things is a little different here ! And rugby is a minority sport and dwarfed by the numbers and money involved in all levels of soccer.

And in terms of rugby we have many more players, coaches, plus over 10,000 referees in England alone. NZ and Aus, and even SA are not comparable.

As for a shambolic mess, hardly.

Debate - yes.
Media interest - yes
Forthright opinions - yes
A few interested folkls on Forums getting a little worked up - yes

Concern for a headlong rush towards a type of Game that enulates RL, for a perceived (and expressed) effort to compete with RL in Australia - yes

But in three weeks I have seen no problems in actual matches, and see little evidence for problems over the next month or so - until we get the first major injury from a dropped maul.


The ELVs have been well communicated by the RFU to a massive audience in England, during the peak holiday period ! A major contrast to the poorly worded, confused and incomplete set of support information supplied by the IRB.

 

[Dixie]

And Ian - if we on this forum can spot problems with the SH offside lines that force a complete rethink by the iRB (so we end up with an "interpretation" that is significantly different from the wording used in the ELV), how come all those great rugby folk in NZ haven't had the gumption to do so? Mindset and motivation, IMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

And Ian - if we on this forum can spot problems with the SH offside lines that force a complete rethink by the iRB

In 94 Super 14 matches, 35 Air New Zealand Cup matches (so far), and 8 trinations fixtures (so far), not to mention the whole season of ARC last year, there have been no issues with the SH offside law.

Looking at the wording, of the relevant ELV, I can't see a problem with it either.

 

[PaulDG]

In 94 Super 14 matches, 35 Air New Zealand Cup matches (so far), and 8 trinations fixtures (so far), not to mention the whole season of ARC last year, there have been no issues with the SH offside law.

Looking at the wording, of the relevant ELV, I can't see a problem with it either.

Yet it was apparent from the reply given on the SA refs website that even the most senior professional SH refs got it wrong.

 

[FlipFlop]

In 94 Super 14 matches, 35 Air New Zealand Cup matches (so far), and 8 trinations fixtures (so far), not to mention the whole season of ARC last year, there have been no issues with the SH offside law.

Or none of the refs have deemed any offences to be worth PKing, or they have got the rulings wrong.

But I'm guessing that at least 95% of the time the SH will do what they always used to: either follow the ball, or drop to the back foot on the opposite side to enable them to cover across. The remaining "near" the scrum hasn't changed when he's in front of the normal backs offside line.

How often did the SH decided to drop back the 5m?

Now that it is world wide, and at lower levels, these things are far more likely to happen. And the longer coaches have the new laws, the more "interesting" alternatives we'll get, and the more law rulings that will be required!