ELVs continue to divide rugby fans

Since the Experimental Law Variations were introduced back in August 2008, a ruck has formed between supporters of the new rules and their critics. Like so many breakdowns in the game these days, it is unclear how the referee - in this case the IRB - will call it when they decide on whether to implement the ELVs globally on 13th May.

Designed to create a faster, more flowing game, the ELVs seem only to have created angrier debate amongst fans. Some rules are sensible and should remain: the corner flags are no longer touch-in-goal if your body hits them while scoring a try; the ball can be passed backwards from a quick lineout; having the defence stand five metres back from a scrum has created more space for attacking play, even if it is not always easy to referee in games outside the professional sphere.

But some of the trial laws are more polemical, such as the legalisation of collapsing mauls. Some have supported it, arguing that the maul itself is merely an organised form of obstruction, and that there was no clear or legal way of halting its progress before the introduction of this rule. Critics have countered by saying that the whole point of the maul was that it drew in defenders to stop it moving, thus creating space out wide for attacking play - by legalising a collapse, fewer defenders are committing to mauls, and are now to be found littering the midfield area. The same goes for lineouts, now that the defending team can choose how many players to include.

Another point of dispute is the decision to prevent a gain in ground from kicks where the ball has been passed back into the 22. Some claim this has led to an increase in tactical kicking and up-and-unders from players unwilling to risk losing valuable field position - it certainly seemed that way in the Six Nations, with positional kicking battles clearly a safer option for the backs than attempting to run the ball back against today's watertight defences.

The breakdown remains a mess, an area which seems to depend entirely on a referee's understanding of how long a player can hold on to the ball once tackled. We regularly see defenders grappling for possession well before support players arrive, and their hands often remain on the ball to slow it down long after. These should be penalties for one side or the other, and yet it depends entirely on the referee's interpretation. Since most infringements are committed at the breakdown, clearer rules should have been proposed here to protect fair competition for the ball.

The southern hemisphere has - ridiculously - been told to trial an additional set of laws to those we have been experimenting with here. Some infringements are penalised with free kicks instead of penalties which, while leading to a faster game, have also allowed players to cheat with relative impunity.

Whether the ELVs have affected the game significantly at grass-roots level is rarely discussed - do any of you dirt-trackers out there feel the laws have made a difference to your game?