2017 v 2018 Definition of Charge Down

[DocY]

As such it cannot be implied that the the definition has changed nor should people be looking to make such an inference.

This is the problem, though. We don't know why something is/isn't changed from the old lawbook.

All we're being told is "nothing has changed", when that patently isn't the case.
As an example, the 22m line extension question came up in a society meeting a couple of seasons ago and we were told that we were to give the gain in ground. The new lawbook explicitly contradicts that. Okay, not everyone played to that law, but for us it was a change.

And the question of mandatory YCs for PTs. That's explicitly stated in the new lawbook, but we're told it doesn't apply.

It's no use having a lawbook that doesn't contain all the laws, and saying "it's in the old book" is not the solution.

 

[crossref]

Exactly
When the new book is merely unclear (eg options following ko into touch) then I think it's acceptable to say .. see the old book

But where the new Law Book is clearly different , and in some cases clearly even deliberately different .. I just don't see how we can simply ignore it.

 

[didds]

Exactly
When the new book is merely unclear (eg options following ko into touch) then I think it's acceptable to say .. see the old book

But for how long?

Unless of course the 2019 book sorts all the omissions. As opposed to taking the 2018 book and changing any NEW differences to it (ie the standard approach of updating from the previous book).

didds

 

[crossref]

I think that the start of next season (northern hemisphere) is a bit of an issue .. will we have new Law Trials , when the current law trials aren't even in the Law book ..

 

[Marc Wakeham]

We managed with out specific reference to hand offs for many years so we can do so again with this.

 

[crossref]

I am interested in how you decide that the change on mandatory YC was deliberate, so you will follow that one, but other changes are accidental so you will ignore them
How do you tell the difference ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

They are, ingenerl not changes. The PT one is the chargedown not. So, I've not said that at all.

The ommision of the definition does not change the existence of a charge down. CONTEXT (a very important word) indicates that the reference in the KO law is to the difference between a knock on (scrum) and a chargedown of a kick (Play on). The reference to the Mandatory card after PT ihas been taken an put in a different law. There is no reference to intentional offending. Before WR stated the CONTEXT of the wording being in the "Intentional offending" section meant that you had to read it in the context of that law. They have moved it away and specifically put it in a PT section Again CONTEXT means we are talking about PT as a whole and not specifically intentional ones.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think that the start of next season (northern hemisphere) is a bit of an issue .. will we have new Law Trials , when the current law trials aren't even in the Law book ..

Not really. All we need is a list of applicable law trials (we have that now in bot hthe 2017 book and in WR releases). They don't have to be in the book. It would be easier if they were but there you go.

You really seem to want to make issues where they are none.

 

[ChuckieB]

As with anything that relates to officiating in the sporting arena, much of what is asked for revolves around a demand for consistency.

WR have thrown that one out of the window.

Two valid law books, one incorporating half a series of GLT's, the other omitting mention of them altogether.

 

[crossref]

And only one app .. without the trials

 

[crossref]

They are, ingenerl not changes. The PT one is the chargedown not. So, I've not said that at all.

The ommision of the definition does not change the existence of a charge down. CONTEXT (a very important word) indicates that the reference in the KO law is to the difference between a knock on (scrum) and a chargedown of a kick (Play on). The reference to the Mandatory card after PT ihas been taken an put in a different law. There is no reference to intentional offending. Before WR stated the CONTEXT of the wording being in the "Intentional offending" section meant that you had to read it in the context of that law. They have moved it away and specifically put it in a PT section Again CONTEXT means we are talking about PT as a whole and not specifically intentional ones.

But the clarification specifically asked .. is the definition of a charge down in the knock on law also the same definition we use in the context of the 10m law ..


and the answer was yes

And now they have changed the definition in the knock on Law

 

[DocY]

I am interested in how you decide that the change on mandatory YC was deliberate, so you will follow that one, but other changes are accidental so you will ignore them
How do you tell the difference ?

We discuss them in society meetings as and when people notice them.

 

[crossref]

We discuss them in society meetings as and when people notice them.

I am hoping that my table will help people to notice them, and any differences that turn out to have been made inadvertently can be reversed in the 2019 Law Book.
Conversely any change that persist into 2019 we will then know is deliberate

But even having a table of differences is surprisingly upsetting for some !

 

[DocY]

Conversely any change that persist into 2019 we will then know is deliberate

I think you're overly optimistic!

 

[crossref]

Meanwhile let's take the example of a maul following a restart kick, where the maul is unswccessful.
This is not that rare, could happen tomorrow
Red kick off, Blue catch, Maul is choked up
2017 Law Book .. scrum Red
2018 Law Book .. scrum Blue

Surely everyone, tomorrow, would give a scrum Blue. It's clear as day in the Laws ..

.. or do you need an email from your Society to confirm that you should follow the Law Book

 

[Pedro]

They are, ingenerl not changes. The PT one is the chargedown not. So, I've not said that at all.

The ommision of the definition does not change the existence of a charge down. CONTEXT (a very important word) indicates that the reference in the KO law is to the difference between a knock on (scrum) and a chargedown of a kick (Play on). The reference to the Mandatory card after PT ihas been taken an put in a different law. There is no reference to intentional offending. Before WR stated the CONTEXT of the wording being in the "Intentional offending" section meant that you had to read it in the context of that law. They have moved it away and specifically put it in a PT section Again CONTEXT means we are talking about PT as a whole and not specifically intentional ones.

But what if that was a mistake, and the writers just thought "everyone knows this is just for intentional offenses - its in last years book"?

 

[crossref]

Really, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not.
What is written in the Law Book is, um, the actual Law

There isn't another, hidden, master Law Book which we can refer to to check if the Law Book is 'correct'

 

[Phil E]

Meanwhile let's take the example of a maul following a restart kick, where the maul is unswccessful.
This is not that rare, could happen tomorrow
Red kick off, Blue catch, Maul is choked up
2017 Law Book .. scrum Red
2018 Law Book .. scrum Blue

Surely everyone, tomorrow, would give a scrum Blue. It's clear as day in the Laws ..

No its a scrum to Red becasue it was not caught from a kick made in open play. But then you knew that, you just like to play with words. I agree the wording isn't great, but then we all know there are no law changes between 2017 and 2018 because we have all been told so....including you.

[LAWS]Sanction: Scrum.
18. If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in
open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of
the ball catcher.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

But what if that was a mistake, and the writers just thought "everyone knows this is just for intentional offenses - its in last years book"?

well frankly that's not good enough.

what about a ref starting this season? is he expected to have an inate knowledge of last year's book? if that is what the writers thought they are patently wrong.

didds

 

[didds]

Really, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake or not.
What is written in the Law Book is, um, the actual Law

There isn't another, hidden, master Law Book which we can refer to to check if the Law Book is 'correct'

Quite.

AIUI, currently BOTH law books are current - is that correct?

If it is then there are demonstrably different outcomes for stuff depending on which book you choose to use given they are both current.

If instead ONLY the 2018 book is current, 2017 book is in the bin. Only the 2018 book can be used.

Either way its a bloody mess.

And some refs wonder why some players don't know the laws!

didds