KEY POINTS:
Rugby players are a prophetic bunch. They have talked for years about a game of two halves and that could soon become the sport's permanent state.
In one half of the world they will be playing multi-skilled, high tempo football where athleticism and mobility have to be in
the mix alongside an aggressive set piece.
In the other half, they will carry on lumbering around the field, kicking the leather off the ball and going giddy if a prop makes a pass.
Anyone daft enough to have watched much of last year's World Cup will be thinking that such a split between the hemispheres already exists.
But there is a real danger that, come November, New Zealand is going to be sat down like a sulky teenager and told by the IRB that the Super 14 has to end its affair with the new rules.
And that is going to be a problem. On the evidence so far, the new rules have breezed into town like a new sheriff and chased out most of the unsavoury characteristics.
There is space for backs to exploit, a greater need for forwards to be capable of playing with the ball and, best of all, the scrum isn't a restart option, it's the star of the show.
The breakdown's still a mess. It probably always will be, though, when you consider the logistics of 16 giant men hammering into each other. That aside, the new rules have made rugby a more complete contest.
The World Cup showed there was an obsession with winning the collision. That big donkey-types like Martin Corry, Nick Easter and Bakkies Botha could dominate games with nothing more in their armoury than blood-lust.
Of the semifinalists, none had bothered to develop a creative side. There was no need. They knew they wouldn't be pinged for pushing the offside line and it was all too easy to shut teams down and live off their mistakes.
What New Zealander could stomach the sight of the Poms and Boks plodding their way through the most excruciating 80 minutes of rugby in the World Cup final?
It was the most appalling advert for the game, incontrovertible proof that rugby had been taken hostage by meat-heads.
The thing is, though, the English and South Africans loved it. For them, style is irrelevant, winning is all that matters and so what that Ben Kay has more chance of catching an alligator in the Leicester Canal than he does a rugby ball, the man can hit 100 rucks a game.
Which is why it is almost certain the English - and probably the Scots and Irish too - have already seen enough from the Blues and Crusaders to be sure they don't want the ELVs rolled out worldwide.
All the increased running around, the greater emphasis on athleticism and mobility - well, that's too much up New Zealand's boulevard. Under the old rules, pesky backs like Dan Carter and Joe Rokocoko could be hounded out of business. Ali Williams and Richie McCaw could be buried at the bottom of endless rucks.
So when IRB vice-chairman Bill Beaumont said last week, "Europe is conservative with a small 'c' but the game moves on. There is more willingness to play open rugby in Europe now," it was more wishful thinking.
The view expressed by disgruntled Springbok Bryan Habana is likely to be more in line with prevalent thinking in Europe. "There's no stop-start, the essence of what rugby is, any more," reckoned the winger.
"There's something special about rugby ... your forwards pride themselves on the scrum and the lineout and your backs pride themselves on that contest against the opposition.
"The backs are running against the forwards now and the forwards are running against the backs, so it's a little bit of a mix-up at the moment."
Only the Welsh - and maybe the French who want to rekindle their Gallic flair under new coach Marc Lievremont - are likely to embrace the brave new world.
But that might not be enough. For the new rules to be adopted world-wide they need to gain a support level of 75 per cent at November's IRB meeting. England, South Africa, Scotland and Ireland have two votes each. And what then if it is goodnight Vienna for the new rules?
Sanzar, or at least New Zealand and Australia, will have built a vastly improved product that the paying punter is very much in love with and then, poom, it's back to being bored to death by the behemoths.
New Zealand Rugby Union development manager Neil Sorenson admits there is a risk this year that trials could be in vain.
"There has already been some comment from the Home Nations that we could be getting a jump on them with the new rules," Sorenson said.
"But we [Sanzar] were asked to trial them and we identified three objectives: to make the game easier to play, to make it easier to referee and to make it easier for people watching to understand.
"There is some really detailed video analysis being carried out during the Super 14 looking at the impact of the new laws. That research will look at things like where the first breakdown tends to occur after the scrum, which position makes the most tackles and have the requirements of certain positions changed.
"We will also interview players, coaches, referees, broadcasters, fans and sponsors to get their feedback and all that will be made available to the relevant parties ahead of the IRB's November meeting."
It feels as if the NZRU is gambling on other nations sharing their desire for more open rugby, that they will swoon and vote for more.
It's a risk all right.
The Home Nations have had 140 years to buy into expansive rugby and, with the exception of Wales, haven't fancied it.
