Deans plays down ELVs controversy

AUSTRALIA head coach Robbie Deans believes the Experimental Law Variations were “adopted for good reason” and described the consequences of the controversial ‘sanctions regulation’ as minimal.

The global trial of the International Rugby Board’s 13 ELVs began on August 1 and a review will take place from March to decide whether the measures will be adopted permanently from August.

The ELVs have been met with a lukewarm response in the Northern Hemisphere, with many believing the Australian Rugby Union pushed for the trial in an effort to make the game more entertaining and stave off domestic competition from rugby league and Australian rules football.

The SANZAR unions — South Africa, New Zealand and Australia — have been playing under ELVs, which include the pulling down of mauls, adaptations to line-out laws on numbers and quick throw-ins and offside lines at scrums, in Super 14 and Tri-Nations competition since February.

SANZAR competitions have also incorporated the ‘sanctions regulation’ — where most penalties are replaced by free-kicks in an effort to speed up the game — which is not part of the global trial.

Deans believes the laws have little impact on players and coaches.

“The bulk of the law variations have been adopted and accepted for good reason, because they are essentially no-brainers,” he said. “Those of us who have experienced them don’t deem them to be controversial.”

The main contention surrounding the ELVs is over the sanctions regulation and the South African Rugby Union have declared they are prepared to break away from the stance of their Southern Hemisphere counterparts by ensuring the 2009 Tri-Nations and Super 14 competitions are played under the same laws as next summer’s Test series against the British and Irish Lions.

Deans, who is about to lead Australia into six autumn fixtures — the Bledisloe Cup contest with New Zealand in Hong Kong followed by matches in Europe against Italy, England, France, Wales and the Barbarians — believes the importance of the sanctions regulation is being overstated.

He added: “From a player’s perspective, the game doesn’t change; the same decisions are being made by the referee, it’s just the potential consequence that’s different.”