Thank goodness for Mike Catt, now the London Irish assistant coach, and once a creative player blessed with an abundance of running and handling skills. And thank goodness too for his views on the experimental laws which have been introduced to Rugby Union this season and which have been castigated by a number of prominent coaches and journalists, many of whom decry their introduction and impact to suit their own agenda. The ELVs have been attacked because they are supposed to have emasculated the forwards in their work in the line-outs and the once all conquering rolling maul; and are believed to have made for endless, aimless kicking to and fro between two teams.

As a result of such changes of approach and style we are all led to believe that running and handling at the top flight will now be at a premium this season. Thank goodness then for ex England centre, Mike Catt, who insists, "Of course you can play rugby. It's important that teams play rugby. It's been dreadful this season and there is no need for it to be like that. You have got to have players willing to play like that”.  How right he is to assert that the priority of the players should be to play attacking, running rugby and not serve up the deadly negative, rugby which sends the spectators back into the bars long before the final whistle. Whatever the laws and any experiments with them, how one plays and adapts to them is in the state of the mind. It is far too easy to condemn any experiment by making excuses for not being able to come to terms mentally with them.

In 1965/66 (oh, where have all the years gone?) when I had the pleasure of winning four trophies including the Challenge Cup and the Championship Trophy with St.Helens in Rugby League, we played under the then unlimited tackle law whereby a team could retain possession until they created an offence - a law which particularly suited the make up of the St.Helens team. At the end of the season the 13 a side code's lawmakers introduced a four tackle ruling (later amended in 1972 to the current 6 tackle law) - much to the consternation of we Saints' players. We argued strongly against its introduction and tried to resist it as much as we could. It is little wonder then that we had a moderate season because mentally we were constantly blaming the introduction of the new law for our failings, and were not brave enough to come to terms with what had to be done to be successful in the limited tackle era. Once the right mental approach had been mastered then St.Helens were back on the trophy hunting trail and placing more silverware in their trophy cabinet.

Those teams and coaches who are wailing and shrieking at the experimental laws would be better employed coming to terms with them for the remainder of the season, and seeing just whether they might have something to offer those who approach them in the right frame of mind and with a fresh, open outlook.

No moaning from me then? Well, yes, but a moan about an old law surrounding the putting in of the ball at the scrum. Did not the RFU ask their referees at all levels to insist on a straight feed of the ball between the two packs from the scrum half? You could have fooled me. Or I need to visit Specsavers! 

Ray French (October 2008)