[In-goal] Advantage from knock on into in goal

[crossref]

". I also think that by diverting attention from the errors in the new book, YOU and any others like you are the ones slowing up the discovery and correction of those errors.

".

How on earth can you say that I have diverted attention from the errors in the new book ? I have spent six months carefully highlighting them !

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Again you must read properly; ". I also think that by diverting attention from the errors in the new book, YOU and any others like you are the ones slowing up the discovery and correction of those errors." That is you focus on alleged change is boring people from dealing with the errors.

You are focusing on your bogus claims of changes when focus needs to be on correcting errors. Your paranoid insistence that some of these errors are changes is taking concentration away fro mthe need to get the errors corrected so that the book is accurate. So we have argued about this or that alleged change instead of how to word things better so they accurately reflect the 2017 lae in a simplified way.

People are turning away from the issue because they are bored with the argument you are having with myself and some other memnbers of this forum.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not dialed all the way to where you are.

WR have said no changes. OK.
The document they released has contradictions and lacunae.
Crossref has done a great job of highlighting them.

I think these are issues that have to be cleared up. If they want a law book to have precedence, they have to tell us which one trumps the other, and then clear up the gaps.

That, they have signally failed to do.

Christ. That's twice in two weeks I've ridden to the side of Crossref!

Agreed the 2018 book is an abject failure. Howver, banging on about changes when we have been told there are none takes focus from the issue that there are errors tht need re-writing. Why? well if the are changes then there is nothing to correct.

Why has WR failed to get it right? Because we are arguing about "change" and not focusing on the errors. YOu hve to approach the issue from the mantra "No Change" ask yourself does the book accurately achieve clarifcation without anappearence of change? If not what needs to be done to make the book reflect actual intended law. Banging on about this law has changed slow that process down.

So we need to WR "why have you written X when you mean Y?" And then implore them to revisit the job.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Gosh, I seem to have persuaded someone!

I feel like Andy Dufresne when he got his first load of books .. from now on I will post on the subject every day ! :wink:

No you have not. Notice the wording:

] In the unlikely and rare scenario where advantage is gained while still in-goal, or the defense is under no pressure and still in-goal, and they still want to kick the ball dead, or touch down, instead of keeping possession then I think you can be justified in awarding a 22DO. I don't think many players would choose this option though, making it even more unlikely and rare.

We are in a different scenario.

ADVANTAGE has accrued BEFORE the touch down.

In the immediate touch down scenario

ADVANTAGE has NOT accrued BEFORE the touch down.

Very different.

 

[Rich_NL]

Again you must read properly; ". I also think that by diverting attention from the errors in the new book, YOU and any others like you are the ones slowing up the discovery and correction of those errors." That is you focus on alleged change is boring people from dealing with the errors.

You are focusing on your bogus claims of changes when focus needs to be on correcting errors. Your paranoid insistence that some of these errors are changes is taking concentration away fro mthe need to get the errors corrected so that the book is accurate. So we have argued about this or that alleged change instead of how to word things better so they accurately reflect the 2017 lae in a simplified way.

People are turning away from the issue because they are bored with the argument you are having with myself and some other memnbers of this forum.

This seems like a very personal feeling extrapolated to "people" in general.

I think crossref has done a great job in collating the errors/omissions/unclarity of the 2018 rules. I just hope something can be done about getting the information to someone who can do something useful with it. Given the speed at which WR works, the sooner the better!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

People have posted to indicate they are out of the discussion.

YES CR has done some very good work on the errors. BUT, there is a danger of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Yes we need FAST action. Exactly why we need clarity and FOCUS on the issue. Not invention. The debate over changes or not have contributed to no progress made on here. Not that we are an official channel.

We need to take our views back to our socities. and ask questions.

 

[crossref]

Marc, clarity and focus is delivered (to the best of my ability ) by my table of differences, not (of course) from the discussions on rugbyrefs.com

In my table I have tried to carefully and accurately .m and neutrally , analyse all the differences I can find.
The deliberate ones as well as the accidental ones , as who can be sure which are which .

Tbh I don't know why the construction of the table has met with so much hostility !

A couple of people spent a while last night making suggestions and comments . Thanks for that, i will process them tonight. I am sure the document can be improved

By the way your post #62 , with all its name calling and rudeness is quite out of order

 

[ChuckieB]

This post TL;DR. As a less experienced ref I am coming to a a broadly revised understanding of the application of the 2017 laws which is different to my original interpretation.

Advantage law is to be seen in the context of trying to promote continuity in play. A ball being run dead or played dead from a knock-on into in-goal is not consistent with this principle. However, a ball played from such a situation by a kick, with the intent but not necessarily the desired outcome, is consistent with trying to achieve continuity in play while allowing a team to play the ball as they wish.

Now to head into the 2018 laws to check how my current thinking is challenged.

WR. You do me no favours!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Marc, clarity and focus is delivered (to the best of my ability ) by my table of differences, not (of course) from the discussions on rugbyrefs.com

In my table I have tried to carefully and accurately .m and neutrally , analyse all the differences I can find.
The deliberate ones as well as the accidental ones , as who can be sure which are which .

Tbh I don't know why the construction of the table has met with so much hostility !

A couple of people spent a while last night making suggestions and comments . Thanks for that, i will process them tonight. I am sure the document can be improved

By the way your post #62 , with all its name calling and rudeness is quite out of order

Not when you muddy the water with claims of Law changes it does not

And please stop telling lies! I did not indulge in name calling oin post 62!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This post TL;DR. As a less experienced ref I am coming to a a broadly revised understanding of the application of the 2017 laws which is different to my original interpretation.

Advantage law is to be seen in the context of trying to promote continuity in play. A ball being run dead or played dead from a knock-on into in-goal is not consistent with this principle. However, a ball played from such a situation by a kick, with the intent but not necessarily the desired outcome, is consistent with trying to achieve continuity in play while allowing a team to play the ball as they wish.

Now to head into the 2018 laws to check how my current thinking is challenged.

WR. You do me no favours!

Indeed WR have done referees no favours. But when was it any different.

I understand your point about a kick to touch on the KO into ingoal scenario. But, there are crucial differences:

1: The kicker has, by skill, obtained a teritorial advantage. By merely grounding the ball, with no particular skill involved, has made a gain in ground of 22 metres (17 allowing for the scrum coming in 5 ) which is "too much" to gain without being earned.

2: The kick may be a two option kick. There is the possibility of a chaser from the kicking side regaining possession and then running and then developing an attack.

3: The kick to touch / upfiled involved risk. A counter attack from a ball prevented from getting to touch / a QTI or a best lost possession.

Where as simply dabbing the ball down is "risk free". So the law makers have cosidered the situation and said "no, that is too much unearned advantage". If you think of it as unearned rather than simply too much advantage. It makes more sense.

Move the knock on up field and "dab down and gain ground" option is not there. So there is a sense to make it so here too.

We also come back the the principle . The ball goes dead (if indeed it does at all) AFTER the kick and not at the moment of the kick adnd the advanteade (gain in ground) exists before the ball arrives in touch (becomes dead). where as the ball is dead the moment it is dabbed down so no advantage is now possible

 

[crossref]

Of course if red carry the ball into blue in goal and drop it without it going forward, then blue can tap it down risk free and the restart is a 22m ..

If red carry it into blue in goal and knock it on when they drop it ... well refer to the Law Book and make up your own mind

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Why? The law has not changed. do what you would have done on 31/12/2017. Scrum down no advantage possible. It is not complicated.

 

[Camquin]

The problem is that an outsider wants to know the laws.
So they look in the Law Book - foolishly thinking this is a definitive statement
And they find an incomprehensible mess
So they ask a referee and he say, well you look back in the previous law book, no longer available on the RFU site.
Then you apply a memo that was circulated to those referees who were society members.
And if that fails you look in a newpaper clipping from 1948.

And they decide they cannot be bothered and take up American Football.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No question about that. It's always been the case with directives and clarifications issued with the lawbook not reflecting those.

That is why we need to cut the the "change" nonsense and lobby WR to change the wording, and soon.

 

[crossref]

Being realistic , WR just issued a new edition of the 2018 Law Book (with the adoption of the GLT) and as far as I can tell no other changes were made.

So I don't think they will be making any corrections until 2019

Realistically, what do we expect from the 2019 Law Book.?
I have a feeling it will be

1 Corrections of some accidental changes, again unhighlighted in the Law Book with the same mantra about nothing changing

2 but for the majority of changes (or textual differences if you prefer) l fully expect WR will say nothing and the 2019 Law Book will be exactly the same as 2018 .

Does anyone really expect different?

If it plays out like that it will leave those still clinging to the 2017 book in an uncomfortable position

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Being realistic , WR just issued a new edition of the 2018 Law Book (with the adoption of the GLT) and as far as I can tell no other changes were made.

So I don't think they will be making any corrections until 2019

Realistically, what do we expect from the 2019 Law Book.?
I have a feeling it will be

1 Corrections of some accidental changes, again unhighlighted in the Law Book with the same mantra about nothing changing

2 but for the majority of changes (or textual differences if you prefer) l fully expect WR will say nothing and the 2019 Law Book will be exactly the same as 2018 .

Does anyone really expect different?

If it plays out like that it will leave those still clinging to the 2017 book in an uncomfortable position

So:

(with the adoption of the GLT) . - So just updating the already made changes no new chages then (accidental nor deliberate)

as far as I can tell no other changes were made - NO changes then you agree.

for the majority of changes (or textual differences if you prefer) - Oh no there are changes after all!


Make up your mind.

 

[crossref]

Sorry if it wasn't clear , I was comparing 2018 v2 (just issued) with 2018 v1 (January)

The only changes from v1 to v2 was the GLT , sadly they didn't take the opportunity to correct errors in 2018 v1. I had hoped they would . Now I don't expect any further editions of the Law Book until 2019

 

[didds]

By which time they will have a swathe of new laws and variations and trials to fit in and forget the needed corrections and iuntroduce more cock ups and we will be back to where were were before.

didds

 

[VM75]

Realistically, what do we expect from the 2019 Law Book.?

Does anyone really expect different?

I [sadly] expect it to look more like this

http://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules