2018 Law Exam (warning ..Spoilers )

[crossref]

here's the committee -

The Law Simplification Group consisted of:

Mark Harrington (World Rugby Head of Technical Services and club head coach),
Tappe Henning (Scottish Rugby Union Referee Manager and former international referee),
Dr Ross Tucker (sports scientist),
Rod Hill (former New Zealand Rugby Referee Manager),
Chris Cuthbertson (Chairman RFU Laws Committee),
James Fitzgerald (former World Rugby Media Manager and former international referee),
Adam Pearson (web designer/illustrator)

 

[didds]

so in the months that this committee sat how long do we think they could actually have spent reviewing what they came up with?

over a coffee?

didds

 

[menace]

Here's another (perhaps each one should have its own thread ?)

[LAWS]6 A defender carrying the ball is tackled near the goal-line. The ball is released and rolls back into in-goal. Another defender lying on the ground reaches out and grounds the ball. What should the referee rule?
5 metre scrum, attacking team throw-in
5 metre scrum, defending team throw-in[/LAWS]
Answer A

I think that was correct in 2017 but in 2018 the answer should be PK to attackers because of the new law in 2018
[LAWS]A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.[/LAWS]

There is no way in effin hell that Id PK any player lying down in in goal touching down the ball!!!
Not last year, not this year ...not ever!

 

[didds]

so do we think this in-goal to score a try scenario was considered by the esteemed panel of high ranking referees et al?

didds

 

[crossref]

There is no way in effin hell that Id PK any player lying down in in goal touching down the ball!!!
Not last year, not this year ...not ever!

It doesn't say that the player is in goal only the ball.

But either way ... the Law is now as clear as it possiblity could be. How can you ignore it ?

 

[crossref]

so do we think this in-goal to score a try scenario was considered by the esteemed panel of high ranking referees et al?

didds

Didds the new text inserted is

[LAWS]A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
[/LAWS]
I am certain that the panel would have discussed that and inserted it deliberately , on grounds that surely that was what the existing Law really meant, didn't it ?

Lots of people here maintained very strongly that that was what the old Law meant

I argued here , equally strongly
1 it wasn't what the Law meant
2 if the Law was interpreted to mean that , then undesirable outcomes wound arise .

The game would have been much better if the person on the ground was exactly the same as the person going to ground

I still think I was right (!), but I completely accept that the Law is now what it says in the 2018 Law Book

 

[DocY]

It doesn't say that the player is in goal only the ball.

But either way ... the Law is now as clear as it possiblity could be. How can you ignore it ?

Well I'd question whether they really thought it through properly. It may be clear, but that doesn't mean it's what they were thinking!

The lawbook is also clear that a PT must be accompanied by a YC, but we're told it doesn't really mean that.

But maybe the TMO in the England-Wales game had read the new law book and that was why he didn't award Wales their try. After all, he was on the ground when he pressed down on the ball. But I can't imagine they were really trying to outlaw that sort of situation.

 

[crossref]

He went to ground to get the ball
Which is .. it's now clear anyway .. different from happening to be on the ground

 

[menace]

It doesn't say that the player is in goal only the ball.

But either way ... the Law is now as clear as it possiblity could be. How can you ignore it ?

Easy...watch me. (Equally law 13 which you quote indicates 'in open play'. Im sure the law makers dont expect the ball in goal to be 'open play'l)


So ball is bouncing in goal with defender and attacker chasing and both players fall over as ball bobbles away from them...defender while off feet reaches out and grounds it. Are you seriously going to PK him for being off feet!?!. Good luck with the lynching.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I've got the words ready in my head. "No penalty! the law says play the ball : "grounding" the ball to make it dead is not the same as "playing" the ball" ?
does that help anyone ?

 

[crossref]

Menace I don't know

- I spent a long time here on this forum bringing up examples like that where, clearly, it seemed to me, no one would give a PK

- I posted up examples from TV game where players on the ground had played the ball without a PK

And a small and vocal group kept telling me players off their feet are out of the game

That's not what the law book says , I would say

But now it IS what the Law Book says , so I give in . When it's new, and crystal clear , how can you ignore it

 

[OB..]

I've got the words ready in my head. "No penalty! the law says play the ball : "grounding" the ball to make it dead is not the same as "playing" the ball" ?
does that help anyone ?

[LAWS]2018 Definitions
Played: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player.[/FONT][/LAWS]

 

[DocY]

I've got the words ready in my head. "No penalty! the law says play the ball : "grounding" the ball to make it dead is not the same as "playing" the ball" ?
does that help anyone ?

TBH, I don't think an explanation would be needed here.

In general, though, try to keep them shorter than that. Players stop listening after about 10 words (if that).

 

[ChuckieB]

Easy...watch me. (Equally law 13 which you quote indicates 'in open play'. Im sure the law makers dont expect the ball in goal to be 'open play'l)


So ball is bouncing in goal with defender and attacker chasing and both players fall over as ball bobbles away from them...defender while off feet reaches out and grounds it. Are you seriously going to PK him for being off feet!?!. Good luck with the lynching.

Or equally by application of the letter of the law, they are both then scrabbling to regain their feet to play the ball legally.

In a dynamic situation what might that look like? How do you determine who was first to properly regain their feet?

The goal line all bets are off, within reason, just seems so much more practical.

 

[menace]

Menace I don't know

- I spent a long time here on this forum bringing up examples like that where, clearly, it seemed to me, no one would give a PK

- I posted up examples from TV game where players on the ground had played the ball without a PK

And a small and vocal group kept telling me players off their feet are out of the game

That's not what the law book says , I would say

But now it IS what the Law Book says , so I give in . When it's new, and crystal clear , how can you ignore it

I certainly agree for it in general play BUT ingoal has to be an exception. Players have to be able to prevent a team from scoring or for a team to.score by grounding the ball...if they can do it while in touch they must be able to do it while off their feet.

 

[Phil E]

I certainly agree for it in general play BUT ingoal has to be an exception. Players have to be able to prevent a team from scoring or for a team to.score by grounding the ball...if they can do it while in touch they must be able to do it while off their feet.

There are a lot of laws that don't apply in-goal. :chin:

 

[Phil E]

There's a question about the put in at a failed maul following a kick off.
So that answers the question for people who thought it had changed.....it hasn't.

The new Advanced Laws of the Game is interesting....although not that difficult.

 

[crossref]

There's a question about the put in at a failed maul following a kick off.
So that answers the question for people who thought it had changed.....it hasn't.

.

The quiz overrides the Law Book ???

 

[Phil E]

The quiz overrides the Law Book ???

No, but it clarifies it.

 

[crossref]

No, but it clarifies it.

I didn't get that question, and there doesnt seem to be a way to reset and start again

What did it say ? And what Law Ref did it give ?