Making it up

[OB..]

Missinterpretation bercause he is / was too literal in his interpretation.

The difference wit hthe dropping of the ball is that a drop goal would be impossible without doing so. Indeed almost all kicks that go towards the opposition line would be impossible if the ball had to be released backwards. Therefore, by simple inference, dropping the ball forward is an acceptable thing in the act of making a kick.

Exactly. My whole point is that if anyone insists on a literal interpretation of the laws (as chopper15 was famous for doing) you can end up in a fantasy world which does indeed make a nonsense of the game. Therefore beware of being literal - the laws are just not written with that in mind.

Comments like "Apply the laws" and "Law reference for that?" can be unhelpful.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

none of these examples of making the laws work are "making it up" though. They are universally accepted conventions and blind eyes. they could of course be incorporated into the laws but nobody seems that bothered. The bottom line is that it is accepted that scrum halves handle in the ruck to dig the ball out, kickers release the ball forwards, those that handed off historically were actually playing somebody without the ball etc.

"making it up-" are the one off individual quirks consciously and unilaterally decided upon. ie as opposed to ignorance of the laws!

didds

Yes Didds you are correct in the present state in regard to these examples. I'm not sure, however, these were always the case. At one point in time each of these became accepted practice despite being addressed in law. I believe the term is "tacit approval".

The fend off may well have been considered a breach of ettiquite, some where in some competition a ref "made up law" accepted it, and it blossomed into the norm. Kind of an emporer's new clothes type of thing. Before you know it the IRB/WR changes law to make it justified. Lots of examples can be found, another occurring to me is "supporting in L/O" then became lifting.

The whole thing, morphing of law, is really kind of assuming as we stray from original game. For the sake of the RU game, i do not think I've seen a ruck lately where players remain on their feet. The whole not engage at the ruck by defenders make teammates of B/c look foolish standing over the ball.

 

[Pegleg]

Exactly. My whole point is that if anyone insists on a literal interpretation of the laws (as chopper15 was famous for doing) you can end up in a fantasy world which does indeed make a nonsense of the game. Therefore beware of being literal - the laws are just not written with that in mind.

Comments like "Apply the laws" and "Law reference for that?" can be unhelpful.

Going in Circles now.

Your point re kicks does not contribute to the debate as we all know dropping the ball to kick it is legal when down within the definitions of a drop kick / kick to gain ground etc.

To simplify:

You can't take a drop at goal without dropping the ball to the floor forwards. That the Laws award you points for doing so clearly the law says this is OK.


There is a logic, albeit a misplaced one, to say the ball has nort gone "THROUGH THE POSTS" is it has gone above them.


The first is not about literal interpretation the second is.

 

[OB..]

My final attempt to get the point across:

You have to accept that in kicking the ball the kicker will often release the ball forwards.

There is nothing specific in the laws to say that this is an exception to Law 12.

We therefore have a contradiction in the fact that the law both allows a kick at the same time as disallowing (on a literal interpretation) the technique for making it. The law against releasing the ball forward is explicit; the law allowing a kick does not specifically allow an exception so we have to rely on inference. Usually a specific statement will over-ride an inference. I use this to illustrate that some literal interpretations can lead to nonsense.

 

[didds]

And as an accepted interpretation by universally all in the game, its not an example of "making it up".

didds

 

[OB..]

And as an accepted interpretation by universally all in the game, its not an example of "making it up".

didds

Agreed. It was intended to illustrate the danger of a simplistic mantra like "apply the law".

 

[RobLev]

My final attempt to get the point across:

You have to accept that in kicking the ball the kicker will often release the ball forwards.

There is nothing specific in the laws to say that this is an exception to Law 12.

We therefore have a contradiction in the fact that the law both allows a kick at the same time as disallowing (on a literal interpretation) the technique for making it. The law against releasing the ball forward is explicit; the law allowing a kick does not specifically allow an exception so we have to rely on inference. Usually a specific statement will over-ride an inference. I use this to illustrate that some literal interpretations can lead to nonsense.

That discussion can get into very deep water; but the very first question is of course whether the kicker, in releasing the ball to make the kick, "loses possession" within the meaning of Law 12. I would argue not, which is why tackling a player in the act of kicking is not "playing a player without the ball". So releasing the ball forwards in order to kick it is not an infringement of law 12 literally interpreted.

On SH digging, I'm with you.


...but I can be pedantic about 6.B.5 if you want....

 

[Dixie]

That discussion can get into very deep water; but the very first question is of course whether the kicker, in releasing the ball to make the kick, "loses possession" within the meaning of Law 12.

RobLev, do try to keep up. Definition of a throw forward makes no mention of possession:

[LAWS]DEFINITION: THROW FORWARD
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.[/LAWS]

By deliberately throwing the ball a few centimetres forward in order to kick it, the kicker violates Law 12.1(f):

[LAWS]12.1(f) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally ... throw forward.
Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.[/LAWS]

 

[RobLev]

RobLev, do try to keep up. Definition of a throw forward makes no mention of possession:

[LAWS]DEFINITION: THROW FORWARD
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.[/LAWS]

By deliberately throwing the ball a few centimetres forward in order to kick it, the kicker violates Law 12.1(f):

[LAWS]12.1(f) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally ... throw forward.
Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.[/LAWS]

Oops...:biggrin: :redface:

 

[Pegleg]

My final attempt to get the point across:

You have to accept that in kicking the ball the kicker will often release the ball forwards.

There is nothing specific in the laws to say that this is an exception to Law 12.

We therefore have a contradiction in the fact that the law both allows a kick at the same time as disallowing (on a literal interpretation) the technique for making it. The law against releasing the ball forward is explicit; the law allowing a kick does not specifically allow an exception so we have to rely on inference. Usually a specific statement will over-ride an inference. I use this to illustrate that some literal interpretations can lead to nonsense.

And my final word.

Since you cannot kick a DG or virtually any kick towards the opposition line without releasing the ball in front and forwards and the laws expressly sanction kicking, the law clearly accepts that it is an exception. Granted that it is a tacit acceptencet but it is completely obvious.

Therefore to keep bring this old one out is really pointless.

It was intended to illustrate the danger of a simplistic mantra like "apply the law".

You APPLY the law that ALLOWS kicking!

 

[OB..]

And my final word.

Since you cannot kick a DG or virtually any kick towards the opposition line without releasing the ball in front and forwards and the laws expressly sanction kicking, the law clearly accepts that it is an exception. Granted that it is a tacit acceptencet but it is completely obvious.

Therefore to keep bring this old one out is really pointless.



You APPLY the law that ALLOWS kicking!

I despair. But enough is enough.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Now that everyone has put in each final word. Allow to put an end to this thread as often my thoughts fall flat on this audience

But you nannaies, the whole damn thing is based on making it up. Every law could a a nations name attached to it or a a player who made it possible.

WWE (perhaps a myth) made it up. Eventually it became the norm. Every rule we argue about started as an embryo and morph into a law or an action permitted by law.

We can only sit back and watch the humans f it up or make it beautiful. We are just in a over regulated over officiated stage. It is painful, but mere bloggers and those who had aspirations can do nothing.

The game will dissolve eventuallu and we will be able to look back and point out where it went wrong. Just like the collapse of Britian and the fall of the USA (liberalism the source)

 

[OB..]

WWE (perhaps a myth) made it up.

(Can't resist the history challenge.)
WWE was genuine but the evidence is that he had nothing to do with the development of the running game from a kicking game.

The incident was supposed to have occurred in 1823. He left Rugby School in 1825. The story came from an unknown source in 1876. In the 1890s the Old Rugbeian Society decided to research the origins of the game and wrote to as many of those they could find who were at Rugby School in the 1820s and 30s. The only one who had ever heard of WWE had left the school in 1828 and asserted that running with the ball was not allowed in his day. It appears to have become popular gradually during the 1830s before being formally recognised in 1841 when Thomas Hughes was Captain of Bigside.

There were no printed rules/laws until 1845, so the evidence comes from old men's memories. WWE may well have run with the ball; we have no way of telling if he was the first ever to do so; we do know that the practice did not catch on until after he had been forgotten.