[Law] Law Change Proposal - Elminate accidental knock-ons

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Check out Dan (of this parish)’s grubber kick page
Then watch some attempts, the ball bounces in a not nearly so unpredictable way, as you might wish us to believe. First low along the ground, but as it loses momentum it tumbles on the flat ends and often «*stands up*» for the chasing winger to recover the ball at chest height. The ones where poor skill is employed are likely to be unpredictable, like the second row kicking left legged. A skilled scrum half, putting a well weighted kick in behind, not so much.

 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
indeed, the beautiful thing about our game is that -- with skill -- the shape of the ball can be overcome, and the some of the unpredictability eliminated.

We are so accustomed to the spin pass we take it for granted, but give a rugby ball to some novices who have never played before and you see it's actually difficult to throw it and catch it over any distance.

grubber kicks -- yes, it's amazing how skilful the professionals are. You only have to get out there on a pitch with a ball and you find it's far more difficult than it looks

What a great game we play.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I think we end up at the same result .. soccer balls are designed so as to make them as predictable as possible , in the air and on the ground . Rugby balls are designed to be unpredictable, especially when bouncing
I see no basis at all for believing that the oval design was deliberately chosen to make the bounce unpredictable. Where do you get that idea from?

It wasn't until 1892 that the size and shape of the ball featured in the laws. The shape was by then traditional, and in fact more oval than in the early days. It is likely that it was considered better for handling. I don't know that there was ever any discussion about making it spherical.

See http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/ball.htm
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Yes , I guess it's a chicken and egg ,isn't it ?
Was the game designed to suit to ball ? Or was the ball designed to suit the game

Whatever .. at the end of the day we have a game played with an unpredictable ball
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
My 2p.

The unpredictability is a side effect of the shape, not the reason for it.

didds
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Post hoc ergo propter hoc OB
Yes indeed - the well known logical fallacy.

Yes , I guess it's a chicken and egg ,isn't it ?
Was the game designed to suit to ball ? Or was the ball designed to suit the game
Nobody sat down and designed the game. It evolved until the RFU was set up to codify it so that everybody played to the same rules/laws. By that time the ball had become more oval than in the early days, and it was just accepted. As I pointed out earlier, the shape was not even addressed until 1892.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
As I pointed out earlier, the shape was not even addressed until 1892.

indeed, and when they addressed it they made it oval and unpredictable.

but as I said, chicken and egg. I am not arguing that it was solely the chicken. But at the same time it wasn't solely the egg.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
indeed, and when they addressed it they made it oval and unpredictable.
No they didn't. They simply defined the sort of ball everyone was already using.

but as I said, chicken and egg. I am not arguing that it was solely the chicken. But at the same time it wasn't solely the egg.
Dribbling was a significant part of the game until at least the 1950s, so why would anyone deliberately want to make it difficult? I don't see that your idea has any traction whatsoever.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I don't see that your idea has any traction whatsoever.

I am saying it's chicken and egg, right : in other words
- in part the game developed because of the shape of the ball
- but in part the shape of the ball was designed in order to meet the objectives of the game

So here's some examples of people who think the shape of the ball was designed to produce certain qualities. .. including - you'll see - a specific reference to making it oval so that it doesn't roll so far (ie more difficult to dribble)

Some people believe the more elongated shape developed because it was more suited to a game like rugby that involved running with the ball as well as kicking it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/rugby_union/features/newsid_3733000/3733304.stm

2 The distinctly shaped oval balls are deemed suited to the game of rugby as they are perfect to catch, hold and run with and don’t roll as far so don’t go out of play as often. It was also deemed important to ensure that rugby balls clearly differed from footballs.
https://www.intouchrugby.com/magazine/ten-facts-didnt-know-rugby-balls/

Over the years, the shape has changed slightly to make the ball more streamlined for passing and easier to hold.
https://www.howitworksdaily.com/question-of-the-day-why-are-rugby-balls-oval-not-round/

The RFU decided in 1892 to make it compulsory that all rugby balls are oval in shape and this is where the standardization in size and shape began. The new 4 panel design was developed to be sleek and streamline to aid in the quick passing of the ball and also the flight of the ball once kicked.
https://www.sportsballshop.co.uk/sportsballblog/1093-2/

NB - I am not saying it's one or the other. I am saying it's chicken and egg - a bit of both
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I am saying it's chicken and egg, right : in other words
- in part the game developed because of the shape of the ball
- but in part the shape of the ball was designed in order to meet the objectives of the game
You have carefully changed your original claim that the intention of the oval ball was to make dribbling difficult - presumably because none of your references actually support it.
So here's some examples of people who think the shape of the ball was designed to produce certain qualities. .. including - you'll see - a specific reference to making it oval so that it doesn't roll so far (ie more difficult to dribble)
The bit in brackets is your extended interpretation of a secondary thought in the original quotation. "Certain qualities" can, of course, include ease of handling, which I have already referred to.

NB - I am not saying it's one or the other. I am saying it's chicken and egg - a bit of both
And I am saying this is a distinctly chopperesque argument ie of no value even in your modified form. I'm too bored to bother any more.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
You have carefully changed your original claim=.

indeed, because I read what you wrote originally, thought you had a good point, and I changed my mind :) ,

having read what you wrote I think it's a chicken and egg thing: in part the game was determined by the shape of the ball in part the ball shape was designed to fit the game. The thread as whole contains a lot of evidence to support both sides of the process
 
Last edited:

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You have carefully changed your original claim that the intention of the oval ball was to make dribbling difficult - presumably because none of your references actually support it.
The bit in brackets is your extended interpretation of a secondary thought in the original quotation. "Certain qualities" can, of course, include ease of handling, which I have already referred to.

And I am saying this is a distinctly chopperesque argument ie of no value even in your modified form. I'm too bored to bother any more.

I love how "Chopper" STILL has a presence here...even though he's no longer.
Who would have thought the words of Chopper would have cut so deep to leave so many scars.
I kinda miss Chopper now.
 
Top