Rich_NL
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,621
- Post Likes
- 499
How would you define the difference? I read excessive as exceeding the bounds of safety, rather than exceeding the minimum level required to accomplish an act.
2018 Laws .. hand offs
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
How would you define the difference? I read excessive as exceeding the bounds of safety, rather than exceeding the minimum level required to accomplish an act.
I can't conceive of something that is a hand off, but has excessive force
What is a hand off ?
It is
[LAWS]Hand-off: A permitted action, taken by a ball-carrier to fend off an opponent, using the palm
of the hand[/LAWS].
What is a hand off with excessive force ? I just don't know . Other posters have described a blow to the head ..yes thats a PK , but it's not a handoff with excessive force .. it's a blow to the head
What is a hand off ?
It is
[LAWS]Hand-off: A permitted action, taken by a ball-carrier to fend off an opponent, using the palm
of the hand[/LAWS].
What is a hand off with excessive force ? I just don't know . Other posters have described a blow to the head ..yes thats a PK , but it's not a handoff with excessive force .. it's a blow to the head
Why this obsession with trying to find a difference, just because the wording is different? That is not the way the laws work.
shnipvanwinkel
Referees in Denmark
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2018
- Messages
- 44
- Post Likes
- 9
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
I like to play a game where I read the text before I guess who the poster is. So far I'm 100% on you Crossie, ye wee contrarian ye :horse:
It's the other way round OB .. the Lawmakers have deliberately introduced a difference and I am interested to think why? what did they intend? and what impact it has, if any.
Last edited:
I do not believe they intended the difference to be seen as significant. That is simply not the way the Laws are constructed. When you get something like this this I see little point in trying to guess what difference was intended (if any). Just use common sense.
shnipvanwinkel
Referees in Denmark
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2018
- Messages
- 44
- Post Likes
- 9
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
He he, shnipvanwinkel, I do the same!
The second part of my game is to look at brand new members, who seem to know a lot about the board, and i try to guess what name they might have posted under previously
Out of interest, who do you think I am then?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,104
- Post Likes
- 2,365
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
He he, shnipvanwinkel, I do the same!
The second part of my game is to look at brand new members, who seem to know a lot about the board, and i try to guess what name they might have posted under previously
You have been asked by the Mod's to desist from this accusation and it has been shown to have no grounds.
Any further posts on this subject will be deleted without warning.
If you have a valid point and evidence to back it up please use the appropriate course of action by reporting it to the Mods.
MOD
I agree with OB on this. Once they had decided to remove law 7 (and I agree with him also about the renumbering) someone obviously decided they had to consider what of law 7 needed to be retained in the law book. Given that handoff was a relatively recent addition, I am not surprised that it was put in elsewhere, but equally I am happy that there is a specific sanction mentioned with it now of excessive force. As with much, it is up to the ref in the context of the game to decide what is excessive.
I tend to the opposite view .. they had the stated intention that the 2018 and 2017 Laws should be the same , but nevertheless they introduced a small number of changes that must be deliberate. This is one , the definition of a maul is another [there is another I could mention, but won't ! ]
(I can't believe those changes were accidental and went unnoticed and undiscussed ).
They must have been for a purpose .. bit in this case I can't really see what the purpose is, it doesn't seem to make any difference in how we will ref it , as the only example anyone can come up with is the jab, which we penalised anyway
Shrug. I am bored with this as well now !
](I can't believe those changes were accidental and went unnoticed and undiscussed ).
They must have been for a purpose .. bit in this case I can't really see what the purpose is, it doesn't seem to make any difference in how we will ref it , as the only example anyone can come up with is the jab, which we penalised anyway
Shrug. I am bored with this as well now !
Last edited:
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,072
- Post Likes
- 1,800
Whereas if that were the case it wound;t surprise me whatsoever.
WE here in these very forums have discussed for over a decade (or so!) on multiple occasions law changes, variations and trials and their dichotomies, ambiguities and confusions. ON many occasions the issues we have raised and discussed have frankly been obvious to anybody actively involved in the game. Which leads me to truly believe often these changes DO go ahead unnoticed and undiscussed.
didds
Over time , yes , but for the 2018 rewrite they must have had a big table with every sentence of the 2017 Laws listed, with next to it the 2018 equivalent , so that they can easily check consistency and completeness ... They must have done !
L'irlandais
, Promises to Referee in France
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 4,724
- Post Likes
- 325
Clearly WR have forgotten the second rule of making important decisions.
WR on the other hand appear to rewrite the LoTG while pissed, and don’t bother to look over their work once they have sobered up. That, or perhaps, they actually do take these decisions when sober and are messing things up the following day as they reconsider things while drunk.Herodotus said:
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,072
- Post Likes
- 1,800
well as we've been debating here in effect - they can't have. There are some glaring differences.
This all assumes they actually understand the game of course.
didds
Why?
One thing we know for certain: the laws of rugby are NOT written to legislative standards.
We also know that the laws as writtten are not always followed - hands in the ruck, straight throw into scrum.
I meant in the context of the 2018 rewrite , where they went carefully through the whole book with the deliberate purpose of making it all clearer (and did a good job)
There may be some accidental ambiguities (it's hard to avoid completely) BUT wherever a whole section were omitted , or a completely new section introduced it seems to me they aren't idiots and it must have been discussed and deliberate .
So I imagine they deliberately took the view that a one man cavalry charge makes no sense , so get rid of it, flankers never bind in the third row, so get rid of it, every bound on clump of ball carrier + team mate + oppo should make a maul, it doesn't matter precisely who is bound to who , etc etc .
All those changes seem to me to be deliberate and to improve the game. And so on ..