Watching the opening Tri-Nations international in Wellington last week, it was hard to resist the thought that the experimental law variations were the result of a dastardly and convoluted ploy by England to place renewed emphasis on the scrum.
England's success in the 2003 World Cup, based as it was on time-honoured virtues, such as the scrum and line-out, was received with horror in parts of the south and the elvs, despite what the International Rugby Board may say, are a direct consequence of what happened during that tournament.
Mauls may now be collapsed, teams are no longer penalised for having too many players in a line-out and the sanction of a free-kick rather than a penalty for most infringements encourages more tapping and going at the expense of kicking for goal or touch. The values England held dear in 2003 have been compromised.
Intent is one thing, delivery another. It became immediately apparent during New Zealand's victory over South Africa last week that one side-effect of the line-out numbers change was if one side opts for a shortened line, the opposition will put in a full complement to ensure that its fastest forwards are 10 metres away from the other side's outside-half rather than the 20 metres they would have been under the non-elv rule.
In other words, the attacking side has less scope to move the ball than it did before. Contrast that with the scrum rule, which forces backs to stand five metres behind the feet of their No8, and you have two laws which are a total contradiction of each other. So much for the years of careful planning the IRB said it put in before putting the variations on trial.
It means that the scrum has assumed a new importance. England won the 2003 World Cup despite not being allowed to exploit their scrummaging superiority over the Wallabies, a restriction that had handicapped Argentina and Ireland in their group matches against the hosts. Ever since then, Australia's scrum has been such that would make even a rugby league side would blush.
Until now. The Australia Under-20 side scrummaged hard and effectively during last month's junior world championship, and in the two recent internationals against France the Wallabies showed how hard they have been working on that set-piece with their coach, Robbie Deans, well aware of how important the scrum has become again: even Al Baxter gave his opposite number a hard time and Australia were using scrums as a weapon.
It is hardly what the proponents of the elvs had in mind at their inception and, again despite what the IRB says, Australian fingerprints are all over the wretched things. How long will it be before the chief executive of the Australian Rugby Union, John O'Neill, starts calling for sides to forfeit possession if they do not use the ball from a scrum within five seconds of its being put in?
New Zealand and South Africa have spent the build-up to tomorrow's Test in Dunedin bickering about the scrum, which again stresses the renewed importance of the set-piece. The departure of Carl Hayman to Newcastle has not weakened the All Blacks' shove, but the Springboks have cried foul so loudly that the two sides have been granted an audience with the match referee, Matt Goddard, forcing the IRB to backtrack on its policy of not allowing coaches to speak to officials before an international.
Another contradiction in the variations is that mauls may be collapsed, but not scrums because of the risk to players' safety. That will not change, which is why there has been a lobby in recent years for restrictions on the number of metres a side is allowed to move forward at the set-piece.
Two South African players spoke out against the variations this week. The Springboks' captain, John Smit, who spent last season in France, said that the game was not broken and did not need fixing, while the wing Bryan Habana, who played in this year's Super 14, said an effect of the elvs was to strip rugby union of its essence. What was wrong, he asked, with games being stop-start: if anyone, player or spectator, wanted constant movement, turn to rugby league.
The Wellington Test proved his point to an extent. It was cluttered with kicks downfield, many aimless, yet in many ways it was an old-fashioned, absorbing match which proved that union does not need a glut of tries to be compelling, and Daniel Carter was back to his best. Only two tries were scored, with New Zealand having another ruled out after Stuart Dickinson made a wrong off-side call following a chip to the line.
A few hours later, Australia were awarded a try from a kick-ahead despite the receiver looking suspiciously off-side. When calls are close, why not use the television match official? Like the experimental law variations, it is a system riddled with contradictions.
