The widespread relief that has greeted last week's sanctioning of certain experimental law changes hardly seems justified, writes Gerry Thornley

DIFFERENT RULES for different folks? Well, different laws for, in theory anyway, the same game. Not any more is it the same game. It's incredible to think that with the vast majority of people in the Northern Hemisphere, the reaction to the sanctioning for a year's global trialling of 13 of the 24 Experimental Law Variations at last week's IRB Council meeting was one of relief.

It could have been so much worse. At least two of the more extreme proposals were rejected, namely, the legalising of handling in rucks and the downgrading of most penalties to free-kicks.

Put together, those proposals were a cheats' charter as well as neutering the scrum.

Another nonsense was the utterly baffling proposal to establish a new offside line at the point of every tackle, after which retreating defenders could only become "active" if the attacking ball-carrier either ran five metres with the ball or kicked it.

Nevertheless, in the ensuing wheeling, dealing and politicking, the 28-man Council of the International Rugby Board have come up with a bewildering array of compromises, which effectively means that between now and next season rugby union will be played under four variations of their own laws. Staggering really.

As things stand, a number of ELVs will continue to be trialled in the Super 14, while a few more still will be trialled this year and next in South Africa's Vodacom Cup, before the game reverts to the existing rules for the forthcoming end-of-season international tours.

Whereupon, the 13 ELVs passed by the Council for a year's trial will come into operation globally from August 1st, in time for the Tri-Nations and thereafter for all Northern Hemisphere rugby.

Confused? You certainly will be.

Those that will come into operation include revising the roles of touch judges and corner flags, no gaining of ground from kicks directly into touch if the ball has been passed back into the 22, and permitting quick throws to be crooked; though the evidence of the Super 14 suggests defending teams will be no more inclined to run the ball back.

More controversially, there will be no restriction on numbers at lineouts, which has yet to be trialled in the Super 14 and will likely lead to some laughable sights, while preventing the side throwing in from dictating the terms under which they want to attack.

Gripping a jumper before the ball is thrown in will be permitted (it happens anyway).

Players can bring a maul down legally provided they "tackle" above the hips. Yet to be trialled in the Super 14, this change has the potential to cause all manner of injuries.

The introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the scrum is to be welcomed and, on the evidence of the Super 14, will free up space for number eights and scrumhalves to attack off the base while reviving back-line moves off scrums.

Okay, so that's one set of rules for the Super 14 and Southern Hemisphere competitions, another for the forthcoming summer tours and another again for next season.

But it doesn't stop there, for there are another bunch of ELVs to be trialled in "an elite Northern Hemisphere competition". This experiment may, happily, be confined to the EDF Anglo-Welsh Cup, because it receives more television exposure than, say, the European Challenge Cup, even though that is played across four of the Six Nations.

This includes the vexed free-kick laboratory, currently under trial in the Super 14, whereby all offences other than offside, not entering through the gate, and foul play, are downgraded to a free-kick.

Furthermore, if the ball becomes unplayable at the breakdown, the defending side will be awarded an (infernal) free-kick: yet another reward for preventing release of the ball.

Likewise if a maul becomes unplayable the defending team win a free-kick.

Those aforementioned ELVs not passed for trial have not gone away. Rather, they will be referred back for "further analysis and possible experimentation" along with some other beauties such as incorrect throws being punished with a free-kick rather than a scrum. (Punishing an inaccurate throw with the same sanction used for, say, not rolling away after the tackle is hardly fitting the sentence to the crime.)

Similarly, incorrect kick-offs or restarts will lead to a free-kick for the opposition, which will hardly encourage risk-taking.

All in all, you cannot but feel this is to justify the IRB's initiative and expenditure in creating the Laws Project Group, as well as softening the blow to their collective egos.

Set up in the wake of the 2003 World Cup, and given added momentum by the knee-jerk reaction to the latter stages of the 2007 World Cup (which overlooked the many classics before the semi-finals and that New Zealand and France both lost their attacking nerve), the LPG is chaired by Scotland's Bill Nolan and features such luminaries as Rod Macqueen, Ian McIntosh, Pierre Villepreux, Graham Mourie, Richie Dixon and the IRB's referees' manager, Paddy O'Brien.

There are many former coaches there, but significantly none are current or even recent.

The one great peg upon which they sought to hang the ELVs was that they would increase ball-in-play time. They haven't, and had they done so the IRB proponents would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

IRB personnel seemed ultimately to be taking the ELVs far too personally. It's also staggering to behold how politics, and personal or national agendas, have appeared to drive proceedings.

For example, just because Bernard Lappaset becomes the IRB chairman, does that mean the two French federation delegates have to vote in favour of the ELVs, without their clubs seemingly having any input?

Surely what's in the best interests of the game should be uppermost in the council's deliberations, not personalities and politics.

Even Southern Hemisphere imports to Europe can scarcely stomach watching the free-kick-fest that is the present Super 14, where the game has lost much of its structure and many of the basic tenets that distinguish rugby union from other games, not least rugby league, with its uniformity of body shapes and sizes (where hookers and scrumhalves, or locks and centres, are often interchangeable).

Owen Doyle, who heads up the IRFU's Laws Technical group, expressed overall satisfaction with last week's outcome and made the point that "any law changes to the game represent a significant undertaking in terms of education of referees, coaches and most importantly players".

He might have added fans, pundits and everyone else to the mix.

And to think the ELVs have to be introduced from grassroots up in 120 countries is bewildering.

All will be reviewed in November 2009. Until then, it should be some mess. And these people are the ultimate arbiters of the game?

gthornley@irish-times.ie