The IRB introduced new refereeing interpretations to encourage more attacking play. Super 14 introduced the new style in February 2010 for the Super 14, the Northern hemisphere did it in September 2010www.greenandgoldrugby.com/sanzar’s-guide-to-sexy-rugbyrl]

Basically, Australia and NZ RUs (and to some extent, the PI Unions) have always wanted to play and reward more expansive, ball in hand Rugby, much closer to RL. The NH powers resisted the trend for some time, favouring 10 man, forward dominated, percentages Rugby. The All Blacks are most balanced, the Australian Wallabies have played some exciting games this year (incidentally 9 current Wallabies have an RL background or experience), but lack power in the scrum, and the forwards are struggling in the collisions.

I'd agree with the contention that all goals should be two points. The penalty should be a punishment for play, but a an attempt at penalty goal is only one of four restart options (scrum, quick tap, kick for touch). The try should be the most valuable option, and IMO a) a penalty or drop goal should not be worth more than half the points value of a try and b) more than a conversion. There is the oft repeated fear that reducing the value of a goal would encourage more infringements. No, it would not, especially since RU has a sin-bin now, and that deters infringements most effectively.



The rlELVsrl were developed at Stellenbosch University in the Western Cape, South Africa, by an IRB panel. As per the Wikipedia link, they were trialled from Jan 2007 in S Africa, Scotland, Cambridge, England, then in the NSW Shute Shield (Sydney First Grade club Rugby) and the Australian Rugby Championship. They got a good reception in the Shute Shield/ARC that year. They were later trialled in Super 14 in 2008, and got a mixed reception - most of the negative press from the Northern Hemisphere. Some rules didn't work that well, e.g. pulling down the maul, but the free kick replacing penalty was good. However, the NH 6 Nations chose to not test that and other rules, and then voted to scrap most.



Actually, many Australians and NZers would argue that SH Rugby more closely resembles the way Rugby Union should be played - with ball in hand, encouraging the use of skilful handling, playmaking, inventive attacking lines and creative array of kicking to create tries.



Agreed, Super Rugby could do with different winners, and the new expanded NFL style conference (H&A with 'local' teams format may well provide that. The current S14 format with small finals series made early season momentum essential, put huge travel burdens on South African teams, and put league leaders and 2nd played teams in pole position to win. I could see the (KwaZulu-Natal) Sharks, the Stormers and Queensland Reds challenging next year.

I understand the arguments for & against dropping the value of penalty goals but I think that the pro is more convincing if the refs use the yellow card more effectively.
Both the welsh & scottish games last weekend would have improved IMV had the ref used the sin bin for persistent infringements.
A good game of RU is on a par with a good game of RL but a bad one is far worse.

I'd go along with that.

Looking forward to France v Australia next weekend.

Many observers saw the ELV's as a way for Southern Hemisphere teams (particularly Australia) to negate the strengths of us up North. They were seen clearly for what they were by the Home Unions and the French and they were not adopted. What really killed them was the catastrophic effect they had on the game in super 14. The aimless kicking of the ball - and not out of play - for the large majority of plays made it a grim game to watch and the spectators and the TV networks were not impressed.
It's a product at the end of the day, so the likes of Australia, NZ and SA had to go back to the old chestnut of the refereeing of the breakdown as a way to guarantee a World Cup win next time around. With the rules about coming in throught the tackle gate, you now can't simply pour more men into a ruck to win the ball as their just isn't the space. This suits the likes of NZ who can now simply have two guys in a ruck to win the ball cleanly and quickly, and on opposition ball 7's like McCaw (where the Southern Hemisphere perceive they have an advantage) can bridge over the ball and you can't move them off.

If you increased the value of the Penalty goal to say 5-6 points, you would see far less penalties being kicked as there would be less infringements. Decreasing the penalty goal would only further increase the number of kicks per game. Most teams defensive mindsets are better to let them have 3 points for a penalty than say 5-7 for a try and conversion, if you increase the Penalty goal then defensive are going to think twice about committing a transgression if a team is winning by a converted try 7 points it can afford to give away two penalty goals only 6 points and still win, if a Penalty is worth 5 points then by giving one away it brings the game closer if a team is winning by 7 points, 2 penalties and the team will win by 3 points.

This idea has already been trialled elsewhere, where the Penalty Goal was worth something ridiculous like 10 points, in the game that was played no penalty was given away by the defending team.