Talk:Experimental law variations

Deletion

I deleted the second sentence of this para, highlighted by italics:

Trials were also (and continue to be) held at Cambridge University in the first division of their inter-college league over several seasons. It was expected that the high intellect of the students would make the league an ideal testing ground for the new laws, since they would quickly discover and exploit any advantages that could be gained from the changes.

It was put in by an anonymous user, perhaps as a joke. I'm sure that many backs keep a copy of Plato's dialogues in the pocket of their shorts, along with a comb, but in the scrum, rugby's a game of rat cunning. Just who expected the notion expressed above, and on what grounds? There's no correlation between success at Cambridge entrance exams and ability to discover and exploit advantages in the rules. You could say that many would expect the opposite to hold, though there's no evidence for that either. Rexparry sydney 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I think this section drastically needs to be expanded. There have been a number of articles journalists and interviews with players, and coaches criticising the new rules. The article at the moment is not balanced. I'll look into over the next few days, but I've never edited a page, so help will probably be needed. Buceph Haelez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Sanctions

" The resistance to the rule changes is based on a belief that by imposing a lesser sanction for infringements at the breakdown, the defending team is encouraged to kill the ball and reduce the game's continuity. " Isnt this saying that the resistance is because they believe defenders are encouraged to kill the ball? You havent said whether they think that is good or bad. Also, I think the base of the resistance is more that they see the whole game going in a particular direction rather than this specific problem. But I could be wrong - maybe your point is something totally different. Can you just outline here what you mean and I'll help you write out your point in a clearer way. Mdw0 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Complete the Story

The ELV trial period is now over, and this article should be updated to finish the story. I'm no expert, but most of the ELVs have been adopted into law, but not all. This article is still written as though the ELVs are still proposed. The changes have been in place for more than a year now. Shane (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesnt present them only as proposed changes - it details application and reaction. However, the article should be edited to show the the Stellenbosch Laws place in sporting history. That would finish it off nicely. However, it is not appropriate to add a banner which indicates that the material that IS here is somehow not accurate. The material is not inaccurate, it just requires an addition and some grammar changes to improve the article's structure. Mdw0 (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, it is inaccurate. It still identifies the variations as "proposed" and they are no longer proposed. Some are in force, and some are not. Calling them proposed is now factually incorrect. Shane (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inaccurate to say the ELVs are proposed. At their inception they were proposed, and those that have not been adopted are still proposed by some. If you look at them as a whole, their total application hasnt happened, so as a whole they ARE still proposed, even though some have been adopted in an amended and piecemeal fashion. Mdw0 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Experimental law variations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]