Laws/Rules

[TNT88]

I know it seems like fun to correct everyone who refers to rugby's "laws" as "rules". But can we all just chill out a little when it comes to this?

There is nothing more annoying than when someone; either in a general discussion about refereeing, or in the middle of a referee's meeting is trying to make a point about something, only to be cut-off mid sentence by some smart-arse who thinks the conversation can't continue unless we establish the correct terminology of "laws/rules" at that exact point in time.

The truth is that the words are virtually interchangeable when discussing rugby laws. If I said: "the offside rule was hard to enforce in that game", everyone in that room will know exactly what I was referring to. But if there was genuine confusion, it would take more than 0.5 seconds to establish anyway so there is just no excuse to interrupt someone using those terms.

I don't know what the general feeling is around here, but my point simply is that in general conversation the two words are perfectly interchangeable. And if you are someone who prefers for the sake of consistency that we all stick to 1 usage, then the best time to discuss that with someone is in a quiet word after the conversation is over. Not rudely in the middle of the conversation.

thoughts?

 

[crossref]

when you say 'general discussion about refereeing' don't you mean general conversation?
I note you use the right word elsewhere in the post.

 

[TNT88]

haha well played.

 

[Dixie]

I know it seems like fun to correct everyone who refers to rugby's "laws" as "rules". But can we all just chill out a little when it comes to this?
thoughts?

I think you need to chill out and lighten up a bit! :biggrin:

Of course, the "laws v rules" brigade is winding you up. They know, and you know, that there is no practical difference. They just like to make the point that in a game where the referee applies detailed and complex provisions governing the game, then the referee should be aware of the correct terminology. It's a trivial piece of points scoring - but surely the whole point of the game is to score more points that the opposition?

 

[Davet]

I have very little concern about this, but would simply reflect that jargon, and the correct use of it, often enables others to assess a speaker's own knowledge - and they then take note of opinions accordingly. If someone uses the correct jargon in the right place then they provide fewer reasons for having their views sidelined. This is common across all trades, professions, etc.

Any corrections provided are therefore made out of a desire to help.

You are of course right, that doesn't have to happen immediately and in public.

 

[crossref]

indeed.

if one of the U13s asked me a question about the "rules", I certainly wouldn't correct him. I'd answer his question.

if his father told me that I "didn't even know the rules" .. I probably wouldn't be listening very hard.

 

[TNT88]

I think you need to chill out and lighten up a bit! :biggrin:

True, it is a pretty trivial complaint.

They just like to make the point that in a game where the referee applies detailed and complex provisions governing the game, then the referee should be aware of the correct terminology.

If someone uses the correct jargon in the right place then they provide fewer reasons for having their views sidelined. This is common across all trades, professions, etc.

All good points. Hopefully those who are looking for this standard do so respectfully.

 

[crossref]

So, TNT88,
...come and sit down over here
...there there
...would you like a tissue?
...see that's better
...now, was one of the nasty referees nasty to you? :wink:

 

[TNT88]

Not me personally, but I suppose it just gets on my nerves when interesting conversations about rugby are completely sidetracked by this semantic argument. Substituting words such as "laws/rules/requirement...ect" is just normal human behavior. I'm a uni student so I practically live on "thesaurus.com".

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I'm a uni student so I practically live on "thesaurus.com".

I lived on Vaux Double Maxim when I was a student.

 

[Dixie]

I'm a uni student so I practically live on "thesaurus.com".

And here lies half of the problem. In our day, uni was reserved for those students who could actually speak the language, and hence had no need of a thesaurus. It's the dumbing down that gets to us - such as substituting Rules for Laws. :wink:

 

[TNT88]

The internet thinks for us now. If you really want the holy grail of getting computers to do your homework for you, check out http://www.wolframalpha.com/

 

[OB..]

The first draft of the 1871 Rules/Laws was drawn up by a lawyer, LJ Maton. He had the misfortune to break his leg playing rugby, so he offered to do it provided the other members of the RFU sub-committee kept him in tobacco.

Although it says "Laws" on the title page, throughout he refers to "Rules". It was in the 1890s that it became standard to refer to Laws rather than Rules.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I put "a levee of the sixth" in google and out came some (relevant) tosh about Rugby School - 3 cheers for Tim Berners-Lee

 

[OB..]

I put "a levee of the sixth" in google and out came some (relevant) tosh about Rugby School - 3 cheers for Tim Berners-Lee

I put "lineout" into wolframalpha and it said 'Interpreting "lineout" as "linecut" '
and produced some useless rubbish.

 

[Phil E]

Mornington Crescent! :clap:

 

[SimonSmith]

Not me personally, but I suppose it just gets on my nerves when interesting conversations about rugby are completely sidetracked by this semantic argument. Substituting words such as "laws/rules/requirement...ect" is just normal human behavior. I'm a uni student so I practically live on "thesaurus.com".

If you're looking for the correct use of et cetera you might struggle a bit.

 

[Bryan]

I'm a uni student so I practically live on "thesaurus.com".

Why? I thought uni students these days lived on pot noodle/ramen, and spent their time surfing for porno and getting lost on youtube cat videos?

While we're on the subject of that laws thing, what's the rule on the quick lineout? Like, if there's a guy in the tram lines, can he block the guy from passing the ball to another guy if we're into injury time? How much injury time does the rule let us play if there's a guy in the penalty box?

Oh, and if there's a caution given, how come sometimes it comes with a yellow, but a warning doesnt? What's up with that?

If the scrumhalf is in the hooker's channel at the lineout, how can there by another scrumhalf behind the forwards? I thought we couldnt have more than one scrumhalf at the throw-in? Why arent the TJs telling this to the referees? Crazy...

These rules really need fixin'.

 

[andyscott]

Why? I thought uni students these days lived on pot noodle/ramen, and spent their time surfing for porno and getting lost on youtube cat videos?

Like this one

 

[Robert Burns]

How's it going TNT.

I have never, since I've been refereeing decent grade rugby, pulled anyone up on saying rules instead of laws, I agree with you that it just makes the person asking the question think "What an arse!".

However, in general referee conversations, i.e. where we have a group of referees talking to each other, I play a little game in my head, when someone says rules, I count to 5, waiting for someone who can't help themselves to add the correction in. Sometimes, if I'm board, I'll even say rules myself just to wind the pedants up.

See you on Thurs at the Test match Function?