The variations of the IRB's Experimental Law Variations selected for use in the 2008 Super 14 tournament represent an evolution rather than a revolution in the quest to work out the true laws of rugby union.

The three most radical of the ELVs have not been adopted. Players still cannot use their hands once a ruck has formed. Defending sides still have to match-up numbers in the lineouts. And rolling mauls still cannot legally be dragged down.

The use of hands in the ruck is a problematical change at best and SANZAR is probably right not to endorse it as this stage. Counter-rucking has become such a feature of the game recently (but not unfortunately by the Wallabies) that it should stay in the game to accentuate the distinctive physical contact element of rugby.

The changes that have been made to the ruck laws tidy up an untidy part of rugby, anyway, by ensuring that player must "come through the gate," that is directly behind the ball. A full penalty will be awarded against players coming in from the side, and for offside play anywhere else on the field.

This is the correct approach because off-side play destroys open rugby. But illegal hands in a ruck, an area where there is often a dispute over the facts, will be - correctly - a short-arm penalty only.

Aside from its physical contact element, the core ethic of rugby is that it is an anarchic and free-spirited game. The lineout numbering system restricts many clever, anarchical options. And in an era where modern sports has to be a spectacle for viewers, it is a backward move to endorse a tactic, the rolling maul, where the ball is hidden while it is plodded slowly up the field.

Safety reasons were cited for rejecting the variation allowing the maul to be pulled down. This is a frequently made argument but I have never seen any evidence that it is a valid one. For instance, many mauls are illegally pulled down throughout a Super 14 season but I can't remember players being injured as a result of this.

As well as being antagonistic to rugby as a spectacle, the maul is also against the spirit of the laws of rugby in that it represents off-side play (the bound forwards in front of ball) being legalised. A properly formed maul, too, is virtually impossible to stop. Yet one of the best aspects of rugby as a game is that attacking and defensive options are generally well-balanced.

If mauls could be pulled down (and the IRB apparently is still studying this matter) it would change their nature from a slow plod advance by a tank-like formation to an exhilarating and unpredictable cavalry charge.

The seven major changes that have been brought in by SANZAR will open up play, which is a good thing. The ARU's high performance expert Pat Howard told a media conference on Tuesday that he expected the ball to be in play "for an additional four or five minutes." If this happens, the time the ball is in play will be increased by over 10 per cent, a terrific improvement.

The abolition of the full penalty for most offences means that there will be fewer time-consuming shots at goal. With the short-arm penalties teams will have the option of taking a tap penalty or putting down a scrum. Teams with strong scrums will have more opportunities to exploit their dominance.

Howard insisted, also, that under the new variations fit teams will score more tries towards the end of games when their opponents are tiring, and that the team scoring the most tries will generally win the game.

The evolution of the laws of rugby is a history of a kicking/handling/running game being turned over the last 180 years in a running/handling/kicking game. These latest variations take rugby into a new and exciting phase in this continuing quest.