The equivocal reception to the Experimental Law Variations in the southern hemisphere, the region supposedly most sympathetic to 'running' rugby, suggests the more traditional northern hemisphere unions will easily dismiss this experiment as another attempt to turn union into boofball.

Certainly, the opening weekend of Super 14 matches for 2008 provided little clear evidence that the experimental law changes are the answer to the defence-oriented, anally-retentive style of rugby that so dominated at last year's World Cup.

On the forums of the Silverfern and elsewhere, there is common agreement that the Blues-Chiefs and Crusaders-Brumbies games were the best of the opening matches. But how much of that was due to the ELVs and how much merely reflected the skills and fitness levels of the teams involved?

According to one view, the changes risk robbing the game of its structure, leaving a sevens-style morass that pleases no-one. According to another, the experimental laws, particularly the new five-metre rule, reassert the supremacy of the setpiece and provide the space for imaginative attack.

For now, it seems plain that each camp - traditionalists on the one hand and experimentalists on the other - will talk their book and condemn or praise the changes to suit their prejudices.

A middle ground of opinion - and one that sits right with this observer - is that it is just too early to judge. The players themselves are still feeling their way with the changes. And, it being the start of the season, many have yet to reach the fitness levels required to showcase the laws in their best light.

So let's give them a chance before rushing to judgement.

In the meantime, though, listen out for the sound of knives being sharpened in the dark, smoke-filled rooms of the northern hemisphere. A cynic might suggest the law changes have been adopted as a sop to the southern hemisphere. And many to our north might be wishing for their failure, so they can turn around and say 'we told you so'.

But who would be so cynical?