31 March 2009

ELV Kick-Frenzy Blame Misplaced?

As an International Rugby Board conference met today to discuss the Experimental Law Variations that were introduced to rugby union globally last year, discussion about their appropriateness has been resurgent. Although some have been sanguine about their effects on the sport, the law variations have been controversial. Among the loudest complaints has been the claim that the ELVs have turned rugby union into a "kickfest" with aimless hoofing of the ball taking the place of exciting play.

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:

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another well researched and enlightened comment. Well done Armchair Playmaker.

Armchair Playmaker said...

Thanks for the feedback! We'll find out soon enough whether the IRB reads it the same way!