about arguments on forums...

[Ian_Cook]

You make a good point about how the forward pass will continue to be refereed in practice, Ian_Cook. Wayne Barnes would agree with you about outlier ideas!

I was thinking more of those who advise other referees to interpret the Laws in such a way that the outcome fits their personal agenda.

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in, who then argue that the referee should play advantage as a subterfuge then call it over to award the defending team a 22DO instead. This is the type of advice that young/new referees could frankly, do without

As for Barnes, well his blind spot when it comes to his understanding (or rather lack thereof) of what constitutes a forward pass is out there for all to see.

 

[crossref]

I was thinking more of those who advise other referees to interpret the Laws in such a way that the outcome fits their personal agenda.

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in.

Or those that just can't let an argument lie without bringing it up in multiple posts in last twenty four hours , with a little bit of name calling.
And Ian you are being disingenuous, you know very well that a knock on INTO the ingoal is covered explicitly in the Law. Our long discussion was about whether the same law should apply to a knock on INSIDE the in goal.
But really there is no need to have the argument again, there are no new facts to bring in

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm really more concerned with making sure that we don't give bad advice to young, new referees who come here looking for guidance.

Whether or not you can prove that you are right in your clever reading of the Laws and your outlier ideas on interpretation, is inconsequential to me. However, if you are giving referees advice to rule AGAINST normal practice so that you can show people what a clever wordsmith you are, then at best, you are confusing the person seeking advice, and at worse you are taking them down a path that will not only lead to them making errors on the field, it could even affect their assesments.

Either way, you are doing them no favours.

 

[crossref]

Well, on that argument(do we have to have it again) it was you who is wordsmithing the advantage law, to try and show that you can't get an advantage by kicking the ball out for a 22DO.
Anyway new refs are perfectly capable of reading the discussion and making up their mind, and this is such an obscure event and ambiguois law that no assessor is going to get too upset about a mistake made by a novice ref.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I wasn't the one advising departure from normal practice!!

 

[crossref]

We don't disagree on normal practice and i have said many times the normal practice is to give the scrum. We were arguing about whether that is supported by Law

 

[Camquin]

22.7(b) and 22.13 make it clear that an attacking knock on into or in the in-goal lead to a scrum restart.
But because the laws are a random stream of consciousness with no real structure or cross referencing, it is possible to miss this.

You could possibly still argue about a knock on into TIG or over the DBL, as if there was a knock on into touch you would now offer options - and it is not totally clear if you should do this in-goal.
If I ever meet an attacker who is enough of a klutz to do this, I may decide the ball went backwards and therefore give the drop out.

The TJ keeping his flag up if the thrower steps into the field of play is 6.B.5 Exception 1.
Though this does not cover starting in the field of play. I manage this by asking them to step back and they do.

 

[crossref]

Ians argument was actually based on Law 8

 

[Ian_Cook]

We don't disagree on normal practice and i have said many times the normal practice is to give the scrum. We were arguing about whether that is supported by Law

Good. Just as long as you don't advise people otherwise. If it is normal practice, I don't really care if it is supported by Law or not

- We allow the acting scrum half to pick up/dig for the ball while it is still in a ruck/scrum
- We allow the line-out thrower to have his feet on the touchline
- We PK a player who enters the side of the tackle even if he does not play or attempt to play the ball

None of these are supported in Law.

 

[L'irlandais]

Is it not ironic that a discussion about reducing the number of arguments on these forums, for the sake of public image, should end in an off-topic argument?
:shrug: WTF?

 

[Dickie E]

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in, who then argue that the referee should play advantage as a subterfuge then call it over to award the defending team a 22DO instead. This is the type of advice that young/new referees could frankly, do without

Went to a ref's dinner on Wednesday night last week and Craig J and Nigel O were special guests.

They were asked, if they could change one law, what would it be.

Interestingly both said they'd change the law about a knock on into in goal not being a 22 drop out outcome.

Nigel also said he'd restrict subs to 20 minute mark, half time and 60 minute mark but that's a different topic.

 

[L'irlandais]

Isn't it like 3am in your part of the world?

Extract from OP linked discussion

...Avoiding interminable arguments is an important social engineering problem we’re really bad at. Part of it is that we need a way to distinguish the baby from the bathwater. What does it mean to seek out productive discussion while avoiding interminable arguments?

The crux of the matter (topic of this discussion thread, that is) is that discussions on RRF have become counterproductive, if viewed in the light of Robbie's "raison d'être" for these forums.