[Law] England v France - 24/4/2921

[Camquin]

In my 2014 law book 21.3
a Anu player may take a penalty or free kick with any type of kick ...
b bouncing the ball off the knee is not taking a kick
Sanction Any infringement by the kickers team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team to throw in.
c: The kicker must use the ball in play, unless the referee declares it defective
Sanction Any infringement by the kickers team results in a scrum at the mark.

21.2 is about where the kick is taken. a: covers normal penalties, b is in goal. There is a sanction of a scrum, but due to the way it is worded, it appears the scrum is always 5m from the goal line in line with the mark. c permits for a quickly taken kick from the wrong place to be brought back and taken again - that is marked in green as being a change.

So I do not believe the sanction was added in 2021, it was incorrectly removed in 2020 (or perhaps earlier)

 

[Jz558]

Interestingly Crossref recorded the change in his spreadsheet of the differences between the laws pre/post 2017 rewrite.

 

[crossref]

In the old days they always highlighted the changes from year to year. Wish they would do that now.

I don't think the scrum sanction was removed accidentally in 2017, as it was removed so thoroughly and carefully - - it doesn't appear in 19.1 in the list of scrum scenarios. it was deliberate.

Next I think the scrum sanction was added back in 2021 by someone who hadn't thought about what they were doing, because they forgot to add it to the table in 19.1 .
I imagine it was added back by someone who thought he was correcting an error.

Also the sanction looks like it applies to all of 20.5 to 20.11 - which cannot really be the case.


So I would surmise it was a careful disambiguation in 2017 (to clear up the situation where some refs did a scrum and some take it again), carelessly changed in 2021.

sigh.. but from now on, scrum it is

(for those refs who have managed to spot the unannounced change... otherwise take it again. We are right back to 2016 !)

 

[Jz558]

The danger here is that by sneaking changes back in that may or may not have been intentional in 2017 we risk a scenario where you look a proper Charlie having made a decision during a game, confident that it is in line with the law book, only to be confronted by an angry coach afterwards, showing you the law book with wording you've never seen before.

 

[crossref]

it's been a pattern ever since 2017 - each year since 2018 (and sometimes mid year) changes to the text have been smuggled in, unannounced.

EVERY change should be highlighted regardless of whether it was thought to be an error correction, or a new thing.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It is high time that WR admits the massive cock up the simplification of 2018 was. They need to go back to the 2017 book and compare it to the current book and come up with a definitive version.

 

[crossref]

It is high time that WR admits the massive cock up the simplification of 2018 was. They need to go back to the 2017 book and compare it to the current book and come up with a definitive version.

I could help with that - I constructed a useful table that does exactly that comparison, highlighting the differences

and - gosh - what hostility and abuse that I endured for constructing that table!

This messenger was well and truly hanged drawn and quartered ... before being shot...

However : it was only a cock up if changes were unintentional. Some changes did indeed seem to be so, but others I am certain were deliberate. And of course every ambiguity cleaned up represented a change for some, but not so for others.

 

[thepercy]

Tap taken without ball being released from hands. Peep. "You took the PK in the wrong spot. Also make sure to take the kick correctly, or else I'll have to call for a scrum." Wink.

 

[crossref]

Tap taken without ball being released from hands. Peep. "You took the PK in the wrong spot. Also make sure to take the kick correctly, or else I'll have to call for a scrum." Wink.

I think that's exactly why they changed the Law to be take it again
Shame it's gone back to being a scrum again

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I could help with that - I constructed a useful table that does exactly that comparison, highlighting the differences

and - gosh - what hostility and abuse that I endured for constructing that table!

This messenger was well and truly hanged drawn and quartered ... before being shot...

However : it was only a cock up if changes were unintentional. Some changes did indeed seem to be so, but others I am certain were deliberate. And of course every ambiguity cleaned up represented a change for some, but not so for others.

You were not hung drawn and quartered for that. The point was, and still is, that WR said there were no changes just clarifications. Now you may say they lied. That is your perogtive. But no one critisized you showing the mess. We disagreed on how to deal with the mess.

The laws need a proper tidy up because they are too ambiguous and too open to individual interpretation. That tidy up needs to start at redifining what the laws actully are meant to mean. We then need to APPLY the laws as intended for a few seasons to actually find out IF they work. Only then should we be making changes.

 

[didds]

spot on marc.

allied then to any proposed changes being actually tested somewhere instead of just globally applied - to then learn the laws of unintended consequences AGAIN. Fair enough trials do occur more often in the past.

So that wont happen then!

Others mileage may vary.

 

[Phil E]

You were not hung drawn and quartered for that. The point was, and still is, that WR said there were no changes just clarifications.

Quite correct, we were repeatedly told there were no changes to any laws in the simplified version of the law book (2018).

However as has been pointed out there were unintended consequences, and I thought we all agreed on that. Obviously we are now 3 or 4 years down the line and new referees are not able to easily access the 2017 law book or are aware of the no change notice.

So WR have completely buggered it up. God knows what happened in the meetings to simplify the law book :wtf:

 

[Jz558]

I dont really understand why, at the time of the rewrite, World Rugby needed to insist that there were no changes. Who would have cared if they'd said we've abreviated the law book and there are some minor changes as a result? What was obvious to everyone only served to undermine the credibility of WR and the new lawbook. Not content with the first balls up however, they now seem intent on compounding the problem by quietly retweaking the laws, hoping no one will notice.

Mind you, who cares about the minor laws of the game? It's not as if during the six nations the two most well respected refs in the game couldn't agree on what constituted a knock-on!!

 

[crossref]

I have never said anyone lied ! But there was lots of confusion

Indeed one of the authors was quoted in an interview as saying that - while the brief was to make no changes - they did actually make changes (discussed here before)

But - here's the thing - despite what you read in the press release about no changes : actually reading the text showed that they DID make changes. It was plain as daylight!

- - - Updated - - -

I dont really understand why, at the time of the rewrite, World Rugby needed to insist that there were no changes. Who would have cared if they'd said we've abreviated the law book and there are some minor changes as a result? What was obvious to everyone only served to undermine the credibility of WR and the new lawbook. Not content with the first balls up however, they now seem intent on compounding the problem by quietly retweaking the laws, hoping no one will notice.

Exactly

 

[crossref]

(plus every time they settled an ambiguity "it meant X" then all the people who had previously understood the Law Book to mean Y saw that as a change.
Of course if you thought all along that it meant X, you merely saw it as no change, but a vindication!)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I have never said anyone lied !

WR said NO changes.

You said there are deliberate changes.

If your statement is true, then WR clearly did not tell the truth or to put it simply: They lied.

So, yes you did say it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Quite correct, we were repeatedly told there were no changes to any laws in the simplified version of the law book (2018).

However as has been pointed out there were unintended consequences, and I thought we all agreed on that. Obviously we are now 3 or 4 years down the line and new referees are not able to easily access the 2017 law book or are aware of the no change notice.

So WR have completely buggered it up. God knows what happened in the meetings to simplify the law book :wtf:

I agree 100% but Crossref was, and is, claiming some changes were intentional. That implies something clearly sinsister.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont really understand why, at the time of the rewrite, World Rugby needed to insist that there were no changes. Who would have cared if they'd said we've abreviated the law book and there are some minor changes as a result? What was obvious to everyone only served to undermine the credibility of WR and the new lawbook. Not content with the first balls up however, they now seem intent on compounding the problem by quietly retweaking the laws, hoping no one will notice.

100% agree.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

(plus every time they settled an ambiguity "it meant X" then all the people who had previously understood the Law Book to mean Y saw that as a change.
Of course if you thought all along that it meant X, you merely saw it as no change, but a vindication!)

Missing the point beautifully (Intentionally?).

A clarification, by definition, will mean that things that are read by some one way will now be not so. That is not a change that is clearing things u pto correct the ambiguity. Not the same as a change at all.

 

[crossref]

I agree 100% but Crossref was, and is, claiming some changes were intentional. That implies something clearly sinsister.

- - - Updated - - -



100% agree.

of course it's not sinister.

it just means that WR's left hand didn't know what WR's right hand was doing. We never heard the authors saying nothing had changed (the reverse- Tappe Henning said on that podcast that things had changed). It was just the press relesse really


Let's take just a few example : the introduced some NEW things into the 2018 Law Book , that just weren't in the 2017 book

7.3 Advantage must not be applied and the referee must blow the whistle immediately when [...]
e. A quick throw, free-kick or penalty is taken incorrectly

Law 9 Foul Play
9.24 A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used
Sanction PK

14.11 The tackle ends when :
a. A ruck is formed.
b. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves
away or passes or kicks the ball.
c. The ball leaves the tackle area.
d. The ball is unplayable

How does brand new text get introduced accidentally?

for details of these any many other changes -- our old friend
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UzYvtcl03eG7xN13VCwboOyfC0yATNdxgQ7_N1slxEc/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Phil E]

:deadhorse: