[In-goal] Doubt about who took ball into in-goal ?

[Phil E]

Cool , good idea
.. Phil do have an email or something, where someone asked about the differences and was told there weren't any ?

In the spirit of sharing Here's what I got from SA Refs when I asked them

No, this was and continues to be covered at Society meetings.

I am not bothered what SA Rugby says as they have no jurisdiction over where I referee.

 

[crossref]

No, this was and continues to be covered at Society meetings.

I am not bothered what SA Rugby says as they have no jurisdiction over where I referee.

Well on that basis no one would care what other societies say, and we wouldn't bother with exchanges either

Anyway you invited us to share any guidance we had seen, i was assuming you meant any of it, not just what you wanted to hear

Also .. I don't think SARU are exactly going out on a limb when they say the 2018 Law Book is correct. Indeed i would be fascinated to see any definitive
guidance to the contrary .. anyone got any ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Any reason you have gone to SA Refs for your guidance as a LSRFUR? I'd have thought that would be your first point of contact and then the RFU. What am I missing here?

Regarding your asking for emails at society meeeting people tend to use word of mouth rather than email. So I would guess that Phil will not havr an email detailing a society meeting.

 

[crossref]

Two reasons, Marc

1 Because they publish the duty ref question and the answer online, which gives it more authority , and makes it more citable than a private email (I am hoping the next Duty Ref column will contain it)

2 and, to be frank, see my answer to Balones in the other thread
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...rent-from-2017&p=344125&viewfull=1#post344125

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nope I still fail to see why you have not spoke to your society or the RFU. An online presence gives no more authority. In fact, online sources need to be treated with great care.

 

[crossref]

So , be as accurate as you can : what was the actual question you asked at your society , and what was the authoritarive non online word of mouth response ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

"There are no changes! as pre WR's stated position"



Why you are not willing to discuss with your society / unionn yet you'll seek answeres from a different union to the one under who's guidance you operate and to which you answer?

 

[Balones]

Quote from RFU Laws department communication in an email to me:-

In relation to the revised law book, WR have been clear in their assertion: the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played.

 

[crossref]

The thing is, it all depend on what question you ask, doesn't it ? If you asked whether 6.9f should be ignored, because it wasn't in the 2017 book , I am sure your society would say of course not, you should apply it

 

[Phil E]

The thing is, it all depend on what question you ask, doesn't it ? If you asked whether 6.9f should be ignored, because it wasn't in the 2017 book , I am sure your society would say of course not, you should apply it

[LAWS]THE BALL BECOMES DEAD
9. The referee will deem the ball to be dead when:
f. The ball hits anything above the playing area.[/LAWS]

Whether it was specifically listed in pre 2018 law books or not, that law has always been applied. I remember being told this on my ELRA course some 15+ years ago in regards to a ball hitting an overhanging tree branch.

It's not a new law, it's just something that has never been listed before, like handoffs before the 2017 law book.

 

[crossref]

It's not a new law, it's just something that has never been listed before, like handoffs before.

That's funny

Anyway here is where we discussed it before ..

The general agreement was a ball hitting a tree branch was in touch , so line out
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21-Here-s-another-interesting-one&highlight=Branch
But now it's a scrum

 

[Phil E]

I'm out.
You can have the last word....as usual.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Quote from RFU Laws department communication in an email to me:-

In relation to the revised law book, WR have been clear in their assertion: the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played.

THank God for that!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The thing is, it all depend on what question you ask, doesn't it ? If you asked whether 6.9f should be ignored, because it wasn't in the 2017 book , I am sure your society would say of course not, you should apply it

What has YOUR society told you about the new book? Have you asked them for guidance? Come on it is not a dificult question. Why will you not answer it?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That's funny

Anyway here is where we discussed it before ..

The general agreement was a ball hitting a tree branch was in touch , so line out
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21-Here-s-another-interesting-one&highlight=Branch
But now it's a scrum

Reading through that thread I'd say the consensus was scrum. I guess that answer does not fit with your agenda though.

 

[thepercy]

Well on that basis no one would care what other societies say, and we wouldn't bother with exchanges either

Anyway you invited us to share any guidance we had seen, i was assuming you meant any of it, not just what you wanted to hear

Also .. I don't think SARU are exactly going out on a limb when they say the 2018 Law Book is correct. Indeed i would be fascinated to see any definitive
guidance to the contrary .. anyone got any ?

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/299688?lang=en

"Approved at the November World Rugby Council meeting, the simplified law book is designed to make the laws easier to understand while not altering the meaning of them or how the game is played."

 

[crossref]

What has YOUR society told you about the new book? Have you asked them for guidance? Come on it is not a dificult question. Why will you not answer it?

I haven't asked, I thought I'd made that pretty clear

 

[Pinky]

For me the notion that it is a “held up in in-goal” scenario, can be dismissed as folly. For me “held up2 clearly implies an end to a dynamic situation and the advent of a static situation. We really don’t have that here. So sorry “Pinky” I can’t support your view.

Marc, law says that play like a maul in goal is held up. Doesn't specify that it has to have stopped, but also a ref is not supposed to allow prolonged wrestling for the ball that is unplayable in a maul. All of this, IMO supports a fairly quick whistle for held up. If you do that, it does not really matter who took the ball into in goal. If the players were skirting with the tig line, I might draw breath and see what happened, but as I said above, I would most likely blow quickly for held up, and if I was coaching a new ref I would recommend that action to him too in the OP scenario rather than letting him or herself feel that they were having to make a difficult decision about the restart.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nothing in the OP say there was an undue delay. Sorry I disagree with you.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I haven't asked, I thought I'd made that pretty clear

So why have you not acke the Society / union that you answer to as a referee?