AB v AUS - 2nd AB Try

[Account Deleted]

It was a try for me.

What will the WRU do? I can't see them demanding anything. But I think the 5m line is the best interpretation.

 

[PaulDG]

And, dare I ask, will the WRFU be demanding the English QT '5m line' or just go with the flow?

Chopper,

The "English QT 5m line" is "going with the flow" if we're to believe what we're told. We're told that's what the IRB intended the ELV wording to imply.

Haven't we got enough conspiracy theories around the ELVs already without you inventing another?

 

[chopper15]

It was a try for me.

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds
the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in ingoal.
‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm
or arms. No downward pressure is required.

Don't think so, ATTR!

And, Paul;(mine in-bold)

The "English QT 5m line" is "going with the flow" if we're to believe what we're told. We're told that's what the IRB intended the ELV wording to imply.

Haven't we got enough conspiracy theories around the ELVs already without you inventing another?

Is this the way grass roots are 'controlled' . . . by insidious inuendo? I think this could be RFU's prob'!

I agree, to have a datum reference is justification for clarification, tho' I do think the players will lose out! But why all the aggro, weasel words and obfuscation? I'm asking from the terraces?

eg. I ask what I thought a simple ques. ' Are the trams allowed for a ELVs QT in the Tri-Nats'. Nobody knows!

 

[PaulDG]

I agree, to have a datum reference is justification for clarification, tho' I do think the players will lose out!

The "justification" is that it's a clarification and is, we're told, what those who drafted the Experimental Law intended to say.

The fact it makes things easier to referee (in most circumstances) is a bonus.

But why all the aggro, weasel words and obfuscation? I'm asking from the terraces?

And you've been given the answer many, many times. The governing body of the sport in England tells us a particular interpretation was intended. So that's what we'll try to referee. (Subject to there actually being lines on the pitch, us being able to see them on the day and us being in a position to judge, of course.)

eg. I ask what I thought a simple ques. ' Are the trams allowed for a ELVs QT in the Tri-Nats'. Nobody knows!

Nobody here knows because there are exactly no registered posters from the pool of referees and other interested parties from the Tri Nations events contributing to this board.

Now why it is that rugby appears to be unique among all sports that I'm aware of where detailed clarification of the Laws of the Particular Game being played aren't available for everyone playing and spectating is something I don't really understand but I expect it's got more to do with its amateur past and relative inexperience of professional global sport than anything else.

(i.e. incompetence, not conspiracy.)

 

[Dixie]

PS Are there any guidelines on the use of the exclamation mark?

More than one indicates mental instability; three is a guarantee of insanity. I wonder if this applies also to emoticons?:chin: :chin: :chin:

 

[Account Deleted]

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds
the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in ingoal.
‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm
or arms. No downward pressure is required.

Don't think so, ATTR!

In my opinion and that of the TMO and other I saw it with it complied with the Laws.

 

[Account Deleted]

At an ELV night in our region I was told by Nigel Owens that the only aspect of the QT that has change is there is no longer a requirement for the ball to be thrown straight. The law regarding the ball traveling 5 metres has not changed!

 

[OB..]

The law regarding the ball traveling 5 metres has not changed!

Standard version:
Law 19.2 (e)

At a quick throw-in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight so that
it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it touches the
ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the
ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team
chooses to throw-in at either a line-out where the quick throw-in was
attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too
throw-in the ball incorrectly at the line-out, a scrum is formed on the 15-
metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the​

scrum.

ELV (as quoted by the IRB):

At a quick throw in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s
goal line or if the ball does not travel at least five metres along or behind the line of
touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of
play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is disallowed. The opposing
team chooses to throw in at either a lineout where the quick throw in was attempted, or a scrum on
the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the lineout, a scrum is
formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.​

As you can see, the law relating to 5 metres at a QT HAS been changed.

 

[Simon Thomas]

As you can see, the law relating to 5 metres at a QT HAS been changed.

No the Law itself hasn't changed but a new ELV has added the backwards throw option.

5m debate covered elsewhere - it is vital to conside the intent of the ELV and how players and referees will practically apply them, not pick holes in the actual words IBB has used, which are continuing to change, and will continue to do so as we go through the experimental process.

I suspect that we will see an update to QT ELV from IRB before long that states the 5m line or similar, and then we will all start debating again as not every pitch has a visible 5m line marked on it !

 

[OB..]

No the Law itself hasn't changed but a new ELV has added the backwards throw option.

I don't understand. The bits in red in my previous post cover the 5 metre aspect, and the wording has changed. You cannot quote the "standard" law to justify using the 5 metre line because that bit of the laws HAS been changed.

 

[PaulDG]

I don't understand. The bits in red in my previous post cover the 5 metre aspect, and the wording has changed. You cannot quote the "standard" law to justify using the 5 metre line because that bit of the laws HAS been changed.

OB.

The "Justification" is that the wording is, quite simply, wrong.

That's it. That's all there is.

The IRB meant to say "must cross the 5m" but they made a drafting error.

They meant to use language that did not change existing law except in that it permitted the throw to be backwards. The intention all along was not to change any other part of the Law.

OK?

 

[Simon Thomas]

PaulDG - 'meatloafed' - "you took the words right out of my mouth" !

"You cannot quote the "standard" law to justify using the 5 metre line because that bit of the laws HAS been changed" - OB I just did so, as did AM (a mutual Scottish friend of ours), and assorted other RFU staffers.

Our Society Referees and assessors/advisers/coaches will be told to use the 5m line (if it is ever necessary, which many doubt it ever will be). As far as I am concerned, that is RFU line and that is what we will do - end of story.

It has been explained to me a number of times to read the Law Book, then apply any ELVs (which are exactly that experimental and not full Law as yet ). As PaulDG says it is a drafting issue. The IRB intent is clear and has been communicated as such to the RFU. Just because someone at IRB didn't take basic geometry into account, we don't need to rigidly apply it at the experimental stages.

And RFU have made it very clear to us all it is the 5m line, as it appears has Nigel Owens, who echoed what I was told by Ashley Rowden on Saturday too - 5m line it is. And they are IRB Refs !

 

[chopper15]

At an ELV night in our region I was told by Nigel Owens that the only aspect of the QT that has change is there is no longer a requirement for the ball to be thrown straight. The law regarding the ball traveling 5 metres has not changed!

And ,of course, what Mr Owens said is correct.

The refs' established interpretation of 'over the 5m line' didn't violate the law's wording 'travel at least 5m' for a straight throw and the latter is still there in the ELVs.

But it does violate the wording now with the ELVs' backwards throw, as you will remove the 'along the trams' throw option, which, I might add, may or may not be the IRB's intention, hence my query.

The problem thro'out this correspondence, I believe, is:

We're TOLD. TELLS us. Was TOLD.

Typical example, along with the above (Welsh this time!) is SimonT's;

'At last night's ELV session in Hampshire, we were categoricaly told by RFU representatives, including the RFU Referee Training Manager . . .'

'categorically TOLD us 'the ball must cross 5m for QT even if thrown at an angle'.

If he had said 'the 5m line' then you would all know what he had been told.

Instead he shied away from that positive statement! And why wasn't he asked?

It's about time the RFU put the written word where their mouth is!

 

[PaulDG]

The problem thro'out this correspondence, I believe, is:

No chopper, the problem is you appear to believe you are corresponding with people who have the authority to achieve what you want to see - either a ruling the ELV is to be followed to the letter or a ruling the ELV is wrong and new wording delivered.

We're not those people - if you want to talk to those people, go right ahead (I imagine if you dig hard enough on the IRB website you'll find phone numbers, email addresses & postal addresses of the correct departments). Eventually you may even get a reply.

But stop asking us, please? We have shared every piece of information we have with you and have told you what our instructions are and the interpretations we are ordered to use are.

We have nothing more to give you.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Typical example, along with the above (Welsh this time!) is SimonT's;

'At last night's ELV session in Hampshire, we were categoricaly told by RFU representatives, including the RFU Referee Training Manager . . .'

'categorically TOLD us 'the ball must cross 5m for QT even if thrown at an angle'.

If he had said 'the 5m line' then you would all know what he had been told.

Instead he shied away from that positive statement! And why wasn't he asked?

It's about time the RFU put the written word where their mouth is!

My omission of THE and or LINE - sorry typing this full of a head cold but did say 'cross' which implies the line, and at an airport gate surrounded by chattering foreigners, so losing concentration. That is exactly what he said, and heard by numerous other contributors on here. I have amended above posting in bold (with explanation).

Apologies for any confusion caused.

 

[chopper15]

I suspect that we will see an update to QT ELV from IRB before long that states the 5m line or similar, and then we will all start debating again as not every pitch has a visible 5m line marked on it !

Do you know yet, Simon, if the RFU, or any other Unions have formally asked the IRB. I would guess not, on the basis, 'if it was so I would have told thee'!

And regarding the pitch marking, there's a few more datum lines refs will have to judge with the ELVs, so it shouldn't be a prob!

 

[chopper15]

No chopper, the problem is you appear to believe you are corresponding with people who have the authority to achieve what you want to see - either a ruling the ELV is to be followed to the letter or a ruling the ELV is wrong and new wording delivered.

We're not those people - if you want to talk to those people, go right ahead (I imagine if you dig hard enough on the IRB website you'll find phone numbers, email addresses & postal addresses of the correct departments). Eventually you may even get a reply.

But stop asking us, please? We have shared every piece of information we have with you and have told you what our instructions are and the interpretations we are ordered to use are.

We have nothing more to give you.

Understood, Paul, and grateful for the manner in which you replied!

PS. Have you been ordered to use 'cross the 5m line' for the ELV/QT by the written word or 'trickle down'?

 

[PaulDG]

PS. Have you been ordered to use 'cross the 5m line' for the ELV/QT by the written word or 'trickle down'?

My society holds its training session on the 18th (with a repeat in September for those on holiday that day) so I haven't been told anything yet. (Though I'm doing a 7s tournament this weekend...)

Friends at my club have attended a regional RFU session where the RDO for the region said "the ball must cross the line" (or words to that effect).

 

[Simon Thomas]

Yes Chopper - the email and telephone lines between Twickenham and Dublin have been red hot in last month across lots of ELV issues (after all we do have over 50% of the world's playing population in England).

Also I know Chris Cuthbertson has made a number of formal requests to IRB, as well as indicating that the IRB's Christmas deadline for ELV feedback is impractical and will not be long enought to measure impact of for example Maul pull down on injuries (I am so very concerned about this one especially).

And I know for sure that Irish RFU has got major issues still too, and that IRFU, clubs and players may well be uninsured as things stand currently.

But as yet only the one change (pull down an opponent) has come out of IRB. Maybe they have all jumped into the Liffey ?

 

[Simon Thomas]

It's about time the RFU put the written word where their mouth is!

Chopper - I am told they will do once all the current discussion and clarification is done and hopefully some more tightening up by IRB comes back. For once it isn't the RFU at fault but it is the IRB.

RFU will want to do it only once and not go through an iterative process of updates - the ELVs are a massive resource drain and costly excercise already.