[Law] Charge down from kick from in goal & out side goal

[crossref]

It's the only meaning that makes sense .. what do you understand by it ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's the only meaning that makes sense .. what do you understand by it ?

Well an “attacking player” is, by clear inference, a member of the “attacking team”. The “attacking team” is defined thus:
Definitions:
Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.
So applying that understanding the law in question
RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)
11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player

Can clear be read as:

RESTART KICKS FOLLOWING A TOUCH-DOWN (22-METRE DROP-OUT)
11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player (who is by definition a member of the team in the opposition half.)

The bog standard explanation seems to fit perfectly.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I fail to see why you need t ocomplicate the matter. In this case the attacker does cause the ball to go forwards but the definition is not about that.

What an attacking player does does not define him as an attacking player. Where he is does that.

 

[OB..]

I fail to see why you need t ocomplicate the matter. In this case the attacker does cause the ball to go forwards but the definition is not about that.

What an attacking player does does not define him as an attacking player. Where he is does that.

Everyday usage is often different. If a player with the ball makes a break inside his own 22, he is attacking. Mike Brown is often described as an "attacking full back".

The law only defines the terms in order to cover situations such as "defending side throw in".

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The Laws of the game are using "attacking" in context of the laws. so the (rugby) legal definition is important here. Whilst supporters may "confuse" with everyday usage, we need to read in the context of the law book. After all it is the law we need to make sense of.

Further the point in discussion is Crossref's claim that the law is defining "attacking player" differently in law 12.11 to the rest of the law book. Clearly it is not.

 

[Camquin]

So the issues are "and made dead by a defender" should be "and made dead other than a try or the ball held up"
And the fact that the "attacking player" could have been in his own half and thus a defendign player.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So the issues are "and made dead by a defender" should be "and made dead other than a try or the ball held up"
And the fact that the "attacking player" could have been in his own half and thus a defendign player.

The second paragraph show why a little common sense is required. The scenario is Red kicks (in open paly from his 22 into Blue's half) To repeat he definition of the "attacking side":


Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.


Where is play taking place? It is taking place in BLUE's half so RED are the attacking side. It is very simple if we:

1: read in context with regards to the Laws of RUGBY union. Day-to-day "lay person" definitions are not relevant to the discussion.

2: Read the definitions. It is clear that the law says the question centres arouns where play is taking place.

When red kicked it he was one of the defending side once the ball crossed half way he is one of the attacking side. Taking OB's point about Mike Brown being an "attacking" fullback muddies the water and does not help with the understanding of this law at all.

2017's definition of the attacking side was :
Attacking team: The opponents of the defending team in whose half of the ground play is taking place.
Different wording but same point.

 

[crossref]

Marc -
12.11 says

[LAWS]12.11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.
[/LAWS]

If 'attacking' is understood strictly as meaning : in their opponent's half, then 22.11 would not apply when a defending team (ie in their own half) sends the ball into the opponent's in goal.

which would be odd

I think that 22.11 is supposed to apply whenever a team sends the ball into their opponent's in-goal, irrespective of whether they do that from their own half (defending) or the opponent's half (attacking)

I conclude that the Law writers in 22.11 forgot about the official definition of attacking, and used the word in a more colloquial sense

It's not the only example of WR using the word 'attacking' in the casual way.

Plus we know that 22.11 is drafted sloppily - obviously they didn't mean to write "by an opponent" ... it should have said just "made dead" like the equivalent Law did in 2017 and every previous Law Book

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Marc -
12.11 says

[LAWS]12.11. Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out.
[/LAWS]

If 'attacking' is understood strictly as meaning : in their opponent's half, then 22.11 would not apply when a defending team (ie in their own half) sends the ball into the opponent's in goal.

which would be odd

I think that 22.11 is supposed to apply whenever a team sends the ball into their opponent's in-goal, irrespective of whether they do that from their own half (defending) or the opponent's half (attacking)

I conclude that the Law writers in 22.11 forgot about the official definition of attacking, and used the word in a more colloquial sense

It's not the only example of WR using the word 'attacking' in the casual way.

Plus we know that 22.11 is drafted sloppily - obviously they didn't mean to write "by an opponent" ... it should have said just "made dead" like the equivalent Law did in 2017 and every previous Law Book

Please read the definition of the attacking and defending sides. ( Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.)It depends on where the play is (in both 2017 AND 2018 - NO CHNANGE!!!!!!!!!!) If I kick the ball into your half then YOUR team is the defending team and Mine is the attacking team. It really is very simple.

 

[crossref]

Well no, if you are kicking the ball inside your own half, then technically speaking you are the defending team.

(Although colloquially, of course, most people would describe you as attacking)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well no, if you are kicking the ball inside your own half, then technically speaking you are the defending team.

(Although colloquially, of course, most people would describe you as attacking)

Byut when the ball moves into the other half play is not taking place there. So according to the definition the team in who's half play is in are the defenders.

Please understand you defend the goal line in your half only. So, the defending side must by any reasonalble logic be the one which the ball is nearest to, Come on. I really don;t see why you are tryung to be obtuse on this. Perhaps it is to fit with your credo that the laws have been changed in some way.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Let's use an example from the games history to explain it.

1973 BaaBaas V New Zealand The Gareth Edwards try.

Wen Phil bennet collected the ball in The BaaBaa 22 the Baabaas were the Defendign side and the All Bblacks were the attackign side. Because play was taking place in the Baa Baa half.

from the momebt that the Baabaas to the ball into the All Black hlaf the situation was reversed. THe Baabaas were now the attacking side and the allblacks were defending.

The sutuation was (and is) dynamic / it changes dependent on where the play is. So if I have the ball on my 10 mtr line I amd defending as soon as play moves into your half you are defending. That is the situation now. If you ridgedly apply the logic that because the kicker was in his own half when he kicked it so a ball he kick in to the opposition in goal was put there by the defenders the law bwcomes a farce. If I run wihth the ball in hand across the half way line towards the opposition goal line am I still a defender (according to the definition of the word in the rugby law book)? Of course not so the sme logic must apply to a kicker.

Take my line and the law is pretty straight forward to understand.

 

[OB..]

Let's use an example from the games history to explain it.

1973 BaaBaas V New Zealand The Gareth Edwards try.

Wen Phil bennet collected the ball in The BaaBaa 22 the Baabaas were the Defendign side and the All Bblacks were the attackign side. Because play was taking place in the Baa Baa half.

from the momebt that the Baabaas to the ball into the All Black hlaf the situation was reversed. THe Baabaas were now the attacking side and the allblacks were defending.

The sutuation was (and is) dynamic / it changes dependent on where the play is. So if I have the ball on my 10 mtr line I amd defending as soon as play moves into your half you are defending. That is the situation now. If you ridgedly apply the logic that because the kicker was in his own half when he kicked it so a ball he kick in to the opposition in goal was put there by the defenders the law bwcomes a farce. If I run wihth the ball in hand across the half way line towards the opposition goal line am I still a defender (according to the definition of the word in the rugby law book)? Of course not so the sme logic must apply to a kicker.

Take my line and the law is pretty straight forward to understand.

Your insistence on the legalistic approach is unhelpful because it often conflicts with ordinary usage. The definition is principally used as the reason of last resort for awarding the scrum throw-in in to a particular team.

A team that has driven the ball up from their 22 to near halfway might be puzzled if the referee awards a scrum to their opponents because "they are the attacking team". Being pedantic about it does not go down well.

If asked, "In cases of doubt, the law says the throw-in goes to the team playing in their opponents' half" is equally accurate and probably better than "attacking side scrum".

 

[Marc Wakeham]

In that case get the definition changed!

As it astand the laws says what the attacking / defending sides are. Much easier to stay with the law and educate people as to what the law is.

However That is not the point of Crossref's missinterpretation of the law.

 

[crossref]

? How am I misinterpreting the Law ?

 

[thepercy]

? How am I misinterpreting the Law ?

By insisting that the kickers team remains the defending team, after a ball kicked from their side of the field crosses into the non-kicking teams half, and enters into their in-goal.

 

[crossref]

By insisting that the kickers team remains the defending team, after a ball kicked from their side of the field crosses into the non-kicking teams half, and enters into their in-goal.

i think everyone interprets the Law the same way : ie If Red (from anywhere on the pitch) send the ball into the blue in goal, and blue touches it down then the restart is a 22m DO

Agreed?

Most often this would happen when Red are in the blue half, and are - in every sense of the word - the attacking team


But sometimes Red might send the ball into the Blue in goal all they way from their own half.
That would be an attacking move, and I am quite happy to call them the attacking team : it's Marc who is insisting that if you are in your own half you must be referred to as the defending team (albeit he is saying that by the time the ball arrives in the blue in goal Red have then become the attacking team)

 

[OB..]

In that case get the definition changed!

Please be serious.

As it astand the laws says what the attacking / defending sides are. Much easier to stay with the law and educate people as to what the law is.

Unrealistic. As a referee all you need to do is be aware of a potential problem and avoid it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Cross ref please read the law properly it is not where the player is it is whereplay is taking place. That surely is determined by where the ball is NOT the player.

One final repeat of the definition for you:

Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.

and NOT

The Team in the oppositions half.


It does make a difference. NOT my call But World rugby's!

 

[crossref]

Cross ref please read the law properly it is not where the player is it is whereplay is taking place. That surely is determined by where the ball is NOT the player.

One final repeat of the definition for you:

Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.

and NOT

The Team in the oppositions half.


It does make a difference. NOT my call But World rugby's!

I understand what you are saying : you are saying that if the defending team (in their own half) kick the the ball into their opponents' half then when the ball crosses the line they become the attacking team.

I think you you may be technically correct but using the words in that sense (and that sense alone) is misleading. Not even WR do that