[Tackle] Going to ground to gather ball Vs. tackled

[Phil E]

Quite appropriate, but probably not in the way you intended.

My approach to rugby law is "If it doesn't say you can't then you can". Your quote would challenge this.

Exactly as I intended.

It doesn't say you can't drive a car onto the pitch, or use an offensive weapon, does that mean you can?.....sometimes you have to stop swimming against the tide!

 

[OB..]

My approach to rugby law is "If it doesn't say you can't then you can". Your quote would challenge this.

I don't believe that to be true. It is unrealistic to claim that the laws ought to cover every eventuality. There will be gaps. One other such is the lack of clarity over when the ball is in touch if played by a player in the air.

My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.

Sometimes these conventions are made law. The classic case is the hand-off. Before 2011 it was technically an offence because by definition you were playing an opponent who did not have the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

Exactly as I intended.

It doesn't say you can't drive a car onto the pitch, or use an offensive weapon, does that mean you can?.....sometimes you have to stop swimming against the tide!

I think 10.5(m) has those covered. The tide flows both ways.

 

[ChrisR]

I don't believe that to be true. It is unrealistic to claim that the laws ought to cover every eventuality. True, but it is a start. There will be gaps. One other such is the lack of clarity over when the ball is in touch if played by a player in the air.

My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.

Sometimes these conventions are made law. The classic case is the hand-off. Before 2011 it was technically an offence because by definition you were playing an opponent who did not have the ball.

I totally agree with the statement in Red.

Anyway, I thought you, Ian and Phil were over in the Leggings department looking for a fourth for bridge.

 

[OB..]

True, but it is a start.

So you agree that the laws do not cover everything.

I totally agree with the statement in Red. (My approach is that we should try to do what is best for the game of rugby and aim for consistency in refereeing on such conventions.).

You also agree conventions are needed.

As I mentioned earlier, we sometimes have different conventions arising in different countries. When it gets to international level, WR needs to step in. In this case I suspect they won't need to because top players will know it makes more sense to go for the ball.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I totally agree with the statement in Red.

Anyway, I thought you, Ian and Phil were over in the Leggings department looking for a fourth for bridge.

Canasta, I think a better close for the joke is Canasta. Just IMO

 

[Camquin]

Given how long theat thread has been going you could paint the Forth bridge

 

[didds]

Given how long theat thread has been going you could paint the Forth bridge

and the Fifth

didds

 

[OB..]

and the Fifth

didds

Are you claiming Victory?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think 10.5(m) has those covered. The tide flows both ways.

In my book, 10.5 only goes as far as (b)

 

[ChrisR]

In my book, 10.5 only goes as far as (b)

My mistake, 10.4(m)