'Walk Ten' option.

[chopper15]

Since I haven't got much time to post at the moment. I'll quickly put my 2p in.

The law says advance 10m, the dictionary definition of advance is to move forward. If the law said advancement or advantage of 10m then I think you might have a point but as it stands you are failing to understand the basics of the English language.

I can guarantee that if I went to my boss and said "I've made some real advances today" he ain't gonna be too chuffed if I then show him data that's moved us sideways!

Moving sideways, DrS, is not advancement.

I attempted to explain how the wording of the LoG can be interpreted to allow advancement diagonally in previous posts


10.4 . . . and advances the mark for the penalty kick 10 metres.

'Advances'; pacing ten any way on a plane but back or sideways.

'in front of' need not necessarily imply 'immediately in front of', ie., a player can be offside should he be 'in front of' the ball-carrier on the other side of the FoP.

 

[andyscott]

EXACTLY, andy. :clap: Hence the wording of my opening query, 'What is the equitable equivalent for the 'walk ten' sanction when it's not a practical option? My point being, if there isn't one get rid of it.

I rarely walk anyone 10m, if they have done something its usually cynical or play on!! so cynical, they can have a rest.

 

[chopper15]

It appears no ref is prepared to set up a poll. Is an 'outsider' such as myself permitted to do it? If so, could someone experienced in the peculiar phrasing required provide me with a draft, please?. . . I would very much like to start the New Year with a little triumph. My default win against didds wasn't particularly satisfying I'm sorry to say.

PS. three choices: A. Walk ten to the posts. B. Parallel to the TL. C. Scrap it.

 

[DrSTU]

Holy crap, did you just read the bit that fitted what you wanted to advance what you said.

I said he would NOT be chuffed/happy if I showed SIDEWAYS advances as they ARE NOT advances.

Moving sideways, DrS, is not advancement.

I attempted to explain how the wording of the LoG can be interpreted to allow advancement diagonally in previous posts


10.4 . . . and advances the mark for the penalty kick 10 metres.

'Advances'; pacing ten any way on a plane but back or sideways.

'in front of' need not necessarily imply 'immediately in front of', ie., a player can be offside should he be 'in front of' the ball-carrier on the other side of the FoP.

 

[chopper15]

If I misinterpreted your comments, DrS, I apologise.

PS. would you prefer A, B or C should there be a poll?

 

[Robert Burns]

Yeah, I'm game, I'll set it up for you Chopper.

 

[Davet]

Perhaps the 2nd mark could be anywhere within 10m of the original at the discretion of the taking side. Along with a change allowing the tap to be taken as soon as they are at the selected Mark.

So the dialogue might be:

<peep> (offence descriptor). Where do you want it?

Here, Sir!

Go!

Opposition would be required to retreat a further 10m from original Mark regardless of where the 2nd Mark actually is. Potentially giving 20m of space to work in if a 2nd tap was taken.

 

[OB..]

Perhaps the 2nd mark could be anywhere within 10m of the original at the discretion of the taking side.

This caters nicely for the case where the original penalty is on the 5m line near the corner.

Along with a change allowing the tap to be taken as soon as they are at the selected Mark.

So the dialogue might be:

<peep> (offence descriptor). Where do you want it?

Here, Sir!

Go!

The referee's permission is essential to prevent players cheating.

This procedure could result in the second tap being taken more quickly than is possible at present, and with less control by the referee. Currently we argue that if the referee can get to the new mark, the defenders can get back ten. That seems a useful feature which may get lost. Perhaps the referee should be required to get to the new mark to validate it?

Opposition would be required to retreat a further 10m from original Mark regardless of where the 2nd Mark actually is. Potentially giving 20m of space to work in if a 2nd tap was taken.

At top level this would be marked by the ARs, but at lower levels I suspect the distances are getting too uncertain.

The simplest change would seem to be to have the referee move 10m towards the posts for the second mark and leave the rest as it is.

 

[Account Deleted]

Welcome to Chopperville

You'll Never Leave

I did! Use the "Ignore" facility It is wonderful. Sadly you still see the nonsense Chopper posts if someone quotes him. Somehow that's not so bad.

 

[chopper15]

I did! Use the "Ignore" facility It is wonderful. Sadly you still see the nonsense Chopper posts if someone quotes him. Somehow that's not so bad.

Happy and a successful New Year to you, ATTR.

PS. I still think you're bluffing . . all thirteen of you.

 

[chopper15]

Yeah, I'm game, I'll set it up for you Chopper.

Many thanks, Robert. . . . . but which one do I tick for 'directly towards the posts', please? And will other pollers be sure which is which? . . . . you appear to have broadened the choice of directions and omitted the 'scrap it' choice as there doesn't seem to be an equitable alternative when there's no space left.

If this is preferred it won't be recogised in 'A new different option'.

 

[OB..]

BTW I am strongly opposed to have different laws for penalties inside or outside the 22. I have seen too many soccer arguments as to whether or not a foul was inside the penalty area.

 

[ddjamo]

it's a nice idea - but impractical. only way I think it could work is if you declared shot at goal prior to marching it off towards the sticks. that quick tap stuff would be a mess.

 

[Robert Burns]

Many thanks, Robert. . . . . but which one do I tick for 'directly towards the posts', please? And will other pollers be sure which is which? . . . . you appear to have broadened the choice of directions and omitted the 'scrap it' choice as there doesn't seem to be an equitable alternative when there's no space left.

If this is preferred it won't be recogised in 'A new different option'.

That would be option 3, basically. (Don't go into the Maths).

 

[chopper15]

That would be option 3, basically. (Don't go into the Maths).

Thanks, but I prefer that option within an option now. Good thinking, Robert. :clap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

"To be able to offer a sideways 10m towards the posts or towards to Goal Line"

I think this idea has a lot of merit, but I would simply make it anywhere on the field, and the team could take their 10m in any direction.

I see two main possibilities where teams could use this to their advantage.

At a PK, wide out on attack
A 10m advance is of little use to a team who receives a PK near the touchline while inside the opposition's 22m. If they were allowed to take their 10m advance infieild it would lessen the angle for the shot at goal.

At FK just inside their own 22m.
A 10m advance actually disvantages the non-infringing team because they lose the "gain in ground". If they were allowed to take the ball 10m infield instead, not only would they keep the gain in ground, they would also increase the angle of the touchfinder, allowing them the potential of a greater gain.

At the very least, for scenario 2 above, I would like to see teams be allowed to decline the 10m advance (as per NFL, where the Offensive Team will often decline a penalty when they already made the First Down in the play under the flag) if they feel it will disadvantage them.

this is total poppycock and a complete waste of time.

Pacing any direction for an extra 10m in anything but parallel to touch is not going to happen at any level of rugby - forget it.

With respect Simon, the Laws of the Game already have a long established tradition of bringing the mark for certain types infringements infield from where the infringement occurred, or where the ball would next come into play.

For example, Laws 10.2 (c), 10.4 , 10.4 (o), 12.1 (b), 19.15 (a) through (d) and 22.17 (a) all require the mark to be made 15 metres in from touch even if the offence was committed closer to the touch line, or over it.

 

[OB..]

I would have no objection to all penalties being at least 15m from touch in the first place.

 

[Pinky]

I agree with OB. It seems daft for eg a penalty for a high tackle near the touchline to be near the touchline whereas if the high tackle took place just after the ball carrier had put a foot in touch, then the penalty would be 15m in from the touchline.

 

[chopper15]

Should the poll stay at 8:6:2:1 will that be accepted that the majority favour a change?

 

[Robert Burns]

A majority of 17 people out of the couple of thousand that are eligible to vote on it? Yes, if you like.

I don't think it means much.

EDIT: Majority Gone!