Incorrect – You answered A. The correct answer is a. !

[Rob M W]

Incorrect – You answered A. The correct answer is a. !

 

[chopper15]

When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?

Where is the ball and/or the player relative to the 22? Is the ball moving or stationary? You can't answer until they're known, so what's the point?

Eg., with reference to the last sentence of 19.1b. If the ball has already rolled there of course he can.

 

[Robert Burns]

Yeah, I'm aware of this but as I'm in NZ I cannot fix it.

Thanks for reporting it though.

 

[didds]

When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?

Where is the ball and/or the player relative to the 22? Is the ball moving or stationary? You can't answer until they're known, so what's the point?

???

the defending player is outside the 22. he plays the ball - the ball thus must have been outside of the 22. they are BOTH outside of the 22.

It doesn;t matter if the player and/or ball is stationary or moving.

??

didds

 

[chopper15]

The wording taken from the law can be interpreted as the ball is outside the 22, didds, not necessarily the player. Then you would want to know if it was static or moving when he 'played' it.

Same applies to the last sentence of 19.1b. Agree?

 

[The Fat]

The wording taken from the law can be interpreted as the ball is outside the 22, didds, not necessarily the player. Then you would want to know if it was static or moving when he 'played' it.

Same applies to the last sentence of 19.1b. Agree?

What are you smoking Chopper?
It's a straight forward question with only one answer and not a myriad of possible alternate scenarios. The only problem is that the quiz incorrectly tells the quizee that he/she has given the wrong answer. It's not a trick question.

 

[OB..]

The question quotes the law and is simply seeking to find out if the responder knows how it finishes.

 

[didds]

The question quotes the law and is simply seeking to find out if the responder knows how it finishes.

yup. clearly and obviously.

didds

 

[chopper15]

19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball (coming) from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

If he's standing within his 22 and deflects the ball down onto the 22 and it's then kicked direct into touch it'll be a gain in ground . . . that is, of course, if the opp's were last to touch it.

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?:chin:

How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points? :sad:

 

[didds]

because as has been already explained to you the wording is a direct quote from the laws. It is testing the reader's knowledge of the laws as written. That is all. As already explained.

No doubt there is another question being devised about what happens when a herd of mad elephants arrives led by an ex-Albanian international that now lives in samoa, eating a energy bar containing EPO, speaking a non-English native language, on a Tuesday, wearing leggings that is levitating above the 22m line etc.

When that one gets published we'll discuss what it means. In the meantime we'll look at the words in that question, the words in the law it directly refers to and add the three words the quote left out.

To whit

GAIN IN GROUND.

as OB said somewhere... End Of.

didds

 

[Phil E]

If he's standing within his 22 and deflects the ball down onto the 22 and it's then kicked direct into touch it'll be a gain in ground . . . that is, of course, if the opp's were last to touch it.

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?:chin:

How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points? :sad:

Chopper, clearly being Cornish, you can't read English. RTFQ......Read the F'in Question.

[LAWS]When a defending player, plays the ball from outside the 22.[/LAWS]

So the first defender was outside the 22 and played the ball.

[LAWS]and it goes into that players 22[/LAWS]

So we know he played it from outside the 22......into the 22 (played back).

Which bit of that are you finding hard to understand.......because it is crystal clear, but then English is my first language.

 

[chopper15]

I think the problem with you experienced refs is, as soon as you see a reference to a particular law, accepted interpretation immediately gives you the answer without having to read it.

So perhaps it would help the 'less-informed' if Ques.7 simply read: 'When a defending player outside the 22 plays the ball and it goes into that player's 22 . . . ', the pertinent law could then accompany the answer.

I don't think I would have any trouble in deciphering and answering that one correctly then.:hap:

Chopper, clearly being Cornish, you can't read English. RTFQ......Read the F'in Question.

'Fraid not, Phil. Please translate.:sad:

 

[didds]

I really don't know how to say this any other way Chopper.

the questions is not about "when this hapopens and that happens and the martian space craft hovers above the 22m line" etc..

Its a direct quote from the laws requesting the answerer to insert the missing words.

It is NOT a scenario question. Its a direct LAW question.

If you can't understand that then there is no point continuing this thread because you have had the honest answer whether you like it or not. I am beginning to understand why so many others on this forum clearly think you are an idiot.

And I'm not a ref. experienced or otherwise.

didds

 

[chopper15]

am beginning to understand why so many others on this forum clearly think you are an idiot. didds

Why so unpleasant, didds? Not necessary to belittle someone just because they may lack in the mental ability and learning that you apparently have been blessed with . . . I was just offering an opinion and tried to give an explanation for it that's all.:sad:


Petulant-adjective ORIGIN1590–1600; < L petulant- (s. of petulāns) impudent, akin to petere to seek, head for.

1. moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance: a petulant toss of the head.[/B]


Idiot-noun ORIGIN1250–1300; ME < L idiōta< Gk idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise.

1 an utterly foolish or senseless person.

2 Psychol.a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


Crass- -adjective, -er, -est. ORIGIN1535–45; (< MF) < L crassus thick, dense, fat, heavy

1 without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

2 Archaic. thick; coarse.



. . . . having looked up the noun 'Idiot' I don't honestly think I qualify.:hap:

 

[OB..]

Chopper – here is a summary. You first asked:

When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?

Posts 6, 7, and 8 pointed out that the question was simply checking if the responder knew the wording of the law. It is a perfectly valid type of question.

You replied with

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?
How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points?

Which suggested you had not read or not understood the previous answers, thus provoking posts 12 and 13 into making the point again.

Your next reply attacked us as referees

I think the problem with you experienced refs is, as soon as you see a reference to a particular law, accepted interpretation immediately gives you the answer without having to read it.

So perhaps it would help the 'less-informed' if Ques.7 simply read: 'When a defending player outside the 22 plays the ball and it goes into that player's 22 . . . ', the pertinent law could then accompany the answer.

again missing the point. The answer is not "accepted interpretation". It is the exact letter of the law. Useful for a referee to know.

You want the question rephrased as a scenario. That would make a different (also valid) question but that does not mean we ought to ditch this one. This is now the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] effort to get that point across. You show no signs of understanding it. Do you wonder people get irritated?

 

[Rushforth]

Gentlemen,

I refer you to the post topic, which some seem not to have noticed:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-answered-A.-The-correct-answer-is-a.-!/page2

A or a?

Please stop arguing at cross purposes.

 

[dave_clark]

not at all - post 3 is by the site owner saying that he'll sort it once back from holiday. and we'll argue at all those purposes, cross or otherwise :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

Rob answered this in post 3.

He says he will fix it when he can.

Arguing at cross purposes is what Chopper does. Though why when he says that he is not well equipped mentally he should be upset when referred to as an idiot when that represents his own assessment of himself, I cannot understand.

 

[chopper15]

19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' would've been omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO was the law's intent. I thought it would be helpful to query this ambiguity, that was all.

And, OB, you mention it was explained to me. With respect, have another read of those you identified and endorsed along with those silly irrelevant comments . . . . thread #11 being a particularly good example.:hap:

 

[didds]

I give up.

didds