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

[chopper15]

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.

I did take into consideration that he probably didn't mean it, particularly when I knew it didn't apply.:horse: :hap:

 

[chopper15]

I give up.

didds

I do attempt to qualify my point, didds.:hap: what don't you accept in my explanation . . . it actually makes sense. . . . agree, OB?

 

[The Fat]

I do attempt to qualify my point, didds.:hap: what don't you accept in my explanation . . . it actually makes sense. . . . agree, OB?

This is a gee-up right?
You are sitting at your computer, chuckling to yourself and waiting for the next one of us to reply in sheer frustration right?
I'm with didds.

 

[OB..]

And, OB, you mention it was explained to me.

Yes. Several times. This is my last attempt.

The question is NOT about a scenario. You may think it ought to be, but it isn't.

It is PURELY about the actual wording of Law. The answer quotes Law 19.1 (b) and the point of the question is to see if you know how the sentence ends. The correct answer is simply regurgitating the words in the law book. There is no interpretation involved. You are not required to think about what the words mean. You are merely meant to know what the law book says.

Your comments about interpretation or scenario are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to this question.

 

[chopper15]

Yes. Several times. This is my last attempt.

The question is NOT about a scenario. You may think it ought to be, but it isn't.

It is PURELY about the actual wording of Law. The answer quotes Law 19.1 (b) and the point of the question is to see if you know how the sentence ends. The correct answer is simply regurgitating the words in the law book. There is no interpretation involved. You are not required to think about what the words mean. You are merely meant to know what the law book says.

Your comments about interpretation or scenario are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to this question.

Apologies gents. And OB, I understand and accept your explanations - the wise-cracks were entertaining, revealing and understandable - I realise I was discussing at cross-purposes as one of you mentioned . . but do appreciate your replies. Thanks.

At the time I didn't realise the objective of the quiz and thought that the wording of the law was simply used to give a scenario to prompt the question.

As my comments were at a cross purpose - in that I was attempting to answer it as a scenario and tried to establish where the player was standing - would appreciate any opinions you may care to give on my thread #19.:hap:

ie., 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.

 

[didds]

It took seven posts all saying exactly the same thing as OB finished with before it sunk in.

OB told you three times. I told you twice and confirmed in a third.

I can only conclude from that that you didn't actually read and inwardly digest the first six pieces of advice in this regard.

Infer from that what you will.

Thank God you understood before one of us died.

didds

 

[The Fat]

Apologies gents. And OB, I understand and accept your explanations - the wise-cracks were entertaining, revealing and understandable - I realise I was discussing at cross-purposes as one of you mentioned . . but do appreciate your replies. Thanks.

At the time I didn't realise the objective of the quiz and thought that the wording of the law was simply used to give a scenario to prompt the question.

As my comments were at a cross purpose - in that I was attempting to answer it as a scenario and tried to establish where the player was standing - would appreciate any opinions you may care to give on my thread #19.:hap:

ie., 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.

Not sure there is a need for your last question as it has all been covered many times before. A defender is standing inside his 22 and picks up a ball that is outside his 22 and then kicks directly to touch. As to the question of a gain in ground, it all depends on if the ball was moving or stationary when he picked it up. Again, there is no hidden path to enlightenment here. It is all straight forward and covered in LoTG in 19.1(c) & 19.1(e)

 

[chopper15]

It took seven posts all saying exactly the same thing as OB finished with before it sunk in.

OB told you three times. I told you twice and confirmed in a third.

I can only conclude from that that you didn't actually read and inwardly digest the first six pieces of advice in this regard.

Infer from that what you will.

Thank God you understood before one of us died.


didds

Didn't you read all of my last thread, didds?

I recognise now that I was pursuing a cross purpose and apologised for it . . . what else would you want from this dear old gent? :sad:

But surely you, and in particular the refs among you being the host members, could've addressed my cross-purpose observation. Should you care to think about it - and I do think you may - you're as guilty as I was in our over-sights.:hap:

. . . an opinion on my thread, please, didds?


PS. Thanks for commenting, TF. . . . but don't you recognise that the way the law's opening sentence is worded can be confusing for site members not familiar with refs' accepted interpretation?:hap:

 

[OB..]

chopper - may I suggest you start a new thread, beginning with a succinct statement of your question, assuming that nobody has seen it before (to ensure completeness and clarity).

 

[The Fat]

PS. Thanks for commenting, TF. . . . but don't you recognise that the way the law's opening sentence is worded can be confusing for site members not familiar with refs' accepted interpretation?:hap:

No.
It is basically a referees forum. Any visitors/non-refs would be encouraged to download a copy of the LoTG (as you obviously have), and read/study them if they don't understand what we are all on about.

 

[chopper15]

No.
It is basically a referees forum. Any visitors/non-refs would be encouraged to download a copy of the LoTG (as you obviously have), and read/study them if they don't understand what we are all on about.

Of, course I know what you lot are on about, I only wish you could recognise the ambiguity of the opening sentence of 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' should be omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO IS the law's intent. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:

 

[OB..]

Of, course I know what you lot are on about, I only wish you could recognise the ambiguity of the opening sentence of 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' should be omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO IS the law's intent. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:

IN this thread I do not care whether there is an ambiguity or not.

 

[Phil E]

I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:

I think you're the only one that thinks that.

 

[chopper15]

I think you're the only one that thinks that.

Phil is probably right, OB, I thought wrong.:sad:

 

[Dickie E]

I think you're the only one that thinks that.

I can see Chopper's logic. Might be dancing on pin head stuff but makes some sense nonetheless.

I would have to agree that an on-line exam may be better if it was scenario structured rather than law structured. The latter approach invites a simple look-up without the necessary thinking behind it.

But who am I to criticise? I didn't get off my bum and make it happen.

 

[OB..]

I would have to agree that an on-line exam may be better if it was scenario structured rather than law structured. The latter approach invites a simple look-up without the necessary thinking behind it.

The quiz contains both types of question. I reckon getting referees to read the law book is a Good Thing. If they don't know the laws reasonably well, how can they apply them properly? At the very least they ought to know their way round the law book so they can look things up.

In this particular case I would expect any qualified referee to recognise the scenario the law is describing and thus be able to identify the correct answer.