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

[ChrisR]

For a 'held up' I'd have to believe that a stalemate with no likely immediate change. Players on their feet, moving, is not a stalemate.

 

[chbg]

"There are no changes in Law" (how the game is to be played).

There are changes in wording between 2017 LOTG and 2018 LOTG.

Ergo the precise wording is not as important as understanding, which is achieved through a combination of reading, watching, instructions and discussions.

I'm not losing too much sleep.

 

[leaguerefaus]

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.

The biggest failure since New Coke.

 

[Dickie E]

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.

I think that is the rationale being used by ARU to not take some apparent changes too literally. Eg:

[LAWS]18.7. If the mark of touch is outside the 22, the defending team may take the quick throw inside the 22 but is deemed to have taken the ball into the 22. [/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

I think that is the rationale being used by ARU to not take some apparent changes too literally. Eg:

[LAWS]18.7. If the mark of touch is outside the 22, the defending team may take the quick throw inside the 22 but is deemed to have taken the ball into the 22. [/LAWS]

That one must have the authors of the 2018 Law Book completely steaming

.. there was a small ambiguity in the scenario where the ball rolls in touch past the 22

.. the 2018 Laws conclusivley settle the ambiguity

.. the ARU find they are on the wrong side of the ambiguity

.. the ARU persist with theie interpretation on the grounds that nothing has changed, the 2018 Law book can't be taken literally

Face slap

But Phil, Marc, do you support the ARU in this approach

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That one must have the authors of the 2018 Law Book completely steaming

.. there was a small ambiguity in the scenario where the ball rolls in touch past the 22

.. the 2018 Laws conclusivley settle the ambiguity

.. the ARU find they are on the wrong side of the ambiguity

.. the ARU persist with theie interpretation on the grounds that nothing has changed, the 2018 Law book can't be taken literally

Face slap

But Phil, Marc, do you support the ARU in this approach

Two things:

1:

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

I might answer your question when you stop running away from questions posed to you. Not that ARU's views are soverign over us as already iindicated by Phil E. Phi l (AND YOU) is governed by the RFU and I am governed by the WRU. Not the Aussies and certainly not the Saffers.

Which leads me, nicely, on to point 2!

2:
Phil E has indicated that he no longer wishes to discuss the matter with you.

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

Perhaps you could have the manners to respect his lack of interest in this futile exercise / waste of his time.

Clearly the RFU (YOUR "BOSS" / And the ARU and the WRU) have take the view that WR say "there are no changes in law!" You are not happy with that and wish to twist words to fit your argument. Try following your union's position and read 2018 with that basic premiss in mind and you might understand what the writers were trying to achieve. Since their brief was "there are no changes we only want clarifications." I would guess they will not be happy to see that their word was an abject failure and that many have exposed the poor piece of crap they produced. They failed to write a document that was fit for purpose. That does not mean, however, that the law has changed.

I have sympathy with your frustration with a terrible piece of work. But please attacking from the correct angle. Don't go from the wrong base. Talk to YOUR union and seek THEIR instructions. And YES, lobby them and WR to remove the piece of detrirus that the 2018 book is.

It's not a difficult point to grasp.

 

[crossref]

Marc ,
There you go, getting all rude again

But it did give my reasons see. post 44 above

I noticed you never answered my question in post 46

It doesn't really matter how often you say there are no changes .. the thing is : There are !

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Firstly, if you think that reply is rude I do worry for you on the field of play.


To answer your delaying tactics . AGAIN!


Nope it does not answer it here is your post 44. Please enlighten me as to where it states why you've not spoken to your society / the RFU. ypur evasive nature suggests you have something to hid. I'm sorry if your behaviour leads me to an inaccurate conclusion but there it is.

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....l=1#post344125

Here is the response I was given by my Union (As posted in post 47!) THe position is clearly stated.

"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 answers from a different union to the one under who's guidance you operate and to which you answer?!

 

[didds]

It doesn't really matter how often you say there are no changes .. the thing is : There are !

Indeed there are.

The problem is that

* we don't know whether they are deliberate or accidental
* particularly in the context of WR maintaining the "there are no changes" stance.
* WR doesn't seem to have proofed or sanity checked 2018


So its another buggers muddle from the WR laws committee basically.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Indeed there are.

The problem is that

* we don't know whether they are deliberate or accidental
* particularly in the context of WR maintaining the "there are no changes" stance.
* WR doesn't seem to have proofed or sanity checked 2018


So its another buggers muddle from the WR laws committee basically.

didds

We have to assume that any "changes" are not intended (accidental) because thart is the baseline position)

THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN LAW!

The problem is your third point. WR have created a mess. Even if you ignore the directive

THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN LAW!

The law book is a mess as a stand alone product. so to make any sense we have to go back to the original advise. We also need to lobby for the mess to be recinded and re-written again.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

"There are no changes in Law" (how the game is to be played).

There are changes in wording between 2017 LOTG and 2018 LOTG.

Ergo the precise wording is not as important as understanding, which is achieved through a combination of reading, watching, instructions and discussions.

I'm not losing too much sleep.

How many times should this post be repeated. Succinct and to the point. Simple!

and

I agree it would be a shame to waste all that hard work.

For me, the point of raising these differences when we are told there aren't any actual changes in law, just in the way it is expressed, is to get WR to resolve the apparent problems.

2018 does have some significant improvements such as the tables in various laws - so much easier to follow than just words.

WELL SAID!

 

[Dixpat]

It is all well and good saying that there is no change in law between the 2017 & 2018 rules but what about the 15 year old starting out ref’ing who has no knowledge of the 2017 wording.

All he/she can do is ref to how the 2018 book is written & it is not helpful an assessor trying to tell him though that is how it is written we actually ref it a different way

 

[Marc Wakeham]

And that is why it needs to be sorted out. The first place to start is your society and work up from there.

 

[crossref]

And that is why it needs to be sorted out. The first place to start is your society and work up from there.

Is it though ?
You and Phil have raised it with your societies and by your own account they haven't wanted to engage with the problem, merely repeating the mindless mantra that nothing has changed.
So a dead end , by the sound of it ?

 

[Rich_NL]

It's the societies that have to implement any changes, and I suspect WR listen more to societies than anonymous internet forums.

 

[crossref]

I am not sure Societies are very interested in pursuing this ?
(Would be lovely to learn differently)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Is it though ?
You and Phil have raised it with your societies and by your own account they haven't wanted to engage with the problem, merely repeating the mindless mantra that nothing has changed.
So a dead end , by the sound of it ?

And still you refuse to say why you've not asked your society leadership. I'm starting to wonder if you are a real referee or if you are and have been upseting its management.

I smell a rat here.

Cue accusations of being rude!

I am not sure Societies are very interested in pursuing this ?
(Would be lovely to learn differently)

Try asking yours!

It's the societies that have to implement any changes, and I suspect WR listen more to societies than anonymous internet forums.

Well said!

 

[crossref]

Marc . See post 44 and the post that it links to .. you clicked on the link right ? I think it's pretty clear

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Marc . See post 44 and the post that it links to .. you clicked on the link right ? I think it's pretty clear

It does not say why you have not spoken to your society at all.

I don't want to invite the same response by raising it with any powers that be. They shoot messengers, don't they ?

That just says I don't want to ask because they will not give the response I want. That is no reason at all.