"I think we would all agree it is better for games to be decided by tries than penalties but by chickening out of taking stronger action Joubert did nobody any favours." John Taylor delivers his latest verdict

Over the last three weekends we have seen three terrific games of rugby. The sheer pace and power of the Tri-Nations games has made the north v south games that preceded them pale by comparison.

That is hardly surprising. After a long hard season that included a World Cup the last thing the six nations needed were tough trips (they were not even tours where there was room for improvement) down south with squads ravaged by injury and fatigue.

That is just part of the modern rugby calendar so no complaints - except on behalf the loyal fans who were yet again short changed. These were not 'tests' in the true sense of the word; they were low key warm-ups for the main event of the southern hemisphere winter and so far it has been compelling.

This year the Tri-Nations is even more important than usual because it gives us our first chance to see the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) in operation at the highest level.

Before they had been trialled in international matches the reaction from British pundits was almost universally hostile. The IRB were accused of fixing things that weren't broken and bowing to southern hemisphere pressure to make the game even more like Rugby League.

When members of the press met the Laws Project Group at the Lensbury Conference Centre at the end of April for a forum on the proposed changes most had already decided this was a stitch-up.

Despite assurances that they were indeed 'experimental' and the trials would decide whether or not the ELVs should be adopted permanently some were incandescent with rage. As far as they were concerned these were changes that had already been decided and were going to be railroaded through, whatever.

I was almost alone in welcoming the full trial in the northern hemisphere which begins next month so that we can make an informed judgement. I do not agree with all of them but some make sense

Those who claim the game 'ain't broke' are burying their heads in the sand. We currently have a situation where the referee has to manage the game by ignoring certain offences to keep it flowing.

At every breakdown he could make a diametrically opposed decision (i.e. penalise the other side) and still be correct in law. He is constantly weighing up which side is committing the more serious offences and ignoring the other ones - clearly ludicrous.

That is not to say I endorse every ELV unequivocally.

One of the main tenets of those sanctions-related laws being used specifically by Sanzar, is the downgrading of certain offences. Basically, free kicks will now be awarded for technical offences with full (kickable) penalties reserved for off-side - still the main scourge if you enjoy running rugby - and foul play.

Critics rightly pointed out that this could lead to a 'cheats charter' with teams deliberately killing the ball because they were happy to stop a movement by conceding a free-kick.

In fact the northern hemisphere Unions are so worried about this they are retaining the full penalty - there will be no downgrading to free-kicks in their trial period.

The free kick supporters argue that deliberately killing the ball constitutes foul play so the referee can still award penalties but Sydney proved what a minefield this is.

Craig Joubert, the young and relatively inexperienced South African referee, awarded a stream of free-kicks for not rolling away after making the tackle but was very reluctant to give penalties although, to me, it was clearly a deliberate tactic to slow down possession and give the defence a chance to regroup.

It would be interesting to see how Alain Rolland or Chris White would react in a similar situation.

The antis will leap on this example for another reason as well.

Another of the objectives was to take away as much subjective judgement by the referee as possible.

It was a major issue in the 2003 World Cup Final, for example, because Andre Watson flew in the face of all rugby logic and penalised the England scrum instead of the palpably weaker Wallaby pack at the set pieces. Rolland took the opposite view in the 2007 quarter-final (rightly in my opinion) and the Wallabies were dead.

I think we would all agree it is better for games to be decided by tries than penalties but by chickening out of taking stronger action Joubert did nobody any favours.

Interestingly, some of the other dire predictions have so far proved unfounded.

The free kick option was seen by some as a way to reduce the importance of the scrum but South Africa have used their power very effectively so far and Australia - who were seen as the sponsors of any move to paper over their deficiencies in that department - look stronger now than for many a year.

Even the dragging down of the maul has had little effect so far but we shall not be able to gauge the full effect of any of this until we see what effect it has on the European countries who base their game on a strong scrum and maul - which is why I can't wait for the full trial.

The original 24 ELVs have already been paired down to 13 so those who claim there is no flexibility have already been proved wrong and there are plans to accelerate the evaluation process so that we should have a progress report early next year.

I for one still have an open mind and, judging by what I've seen so far, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Click here to review the ELV programme that will be implemented worldwide on August 1

The Tri-Nations is being played under those ELVs trialled in this year's Super 14 plus two others