Not 10

[leaguerefaus]

Marius' view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQ6TToCSWQ

Obviously Marius knows the ball needs to travel 10m (unlike some referees on here). Whether he got that call right is debatable though. It looks like the ball traveled 10m but his view is better than the camera angle.

 

[Toby Warren]

Really? Is that something new?
[LAWS]

Law 13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES AND NOT PLAYED BY AN
OPPONENT
Sevens Variation: Amend
If the ball does not reach the opponents’ 10-metre line, a free kick is awarded to the nonoffending
team at the centre of the half way line.
Sanction: Free Kick at the centre of the half way line.[/LAWS]

Not seeing anythng in there about the ball bouncing before the 10m

Surely, if the grubber reaches the 10m or an opponent plays it first, play on!

It's an urban myth over here that it must go 10 in the air

 

[Darkstar]

It should be quite obvious. if the ball was picked up before the 10 line by the kicking team then it clearly hasnt gone 10 and the award is a free kick to the non kicking side..

 

[Toby Warren]

It should be quite obvious. if the ball was picked up before the 10 line by the kicking team then it clearly hasnt gone 10 and the award is a free kick to the non kicking side..

Darkstar - firstly welcome to RR.com

The point of my question was to highlight that we treat the 10m line differently to other lines (22, goal line and DBL) . You are right it 'should be quite obvious' but as with many laws in rugby it's not obvious and open to many views - just do a quick search on forward pass!

 

[leaguerefaus]

Darkstar - firstly welcome to RR.com

The point of my question was to highlight that we treat the 10m line differently to other lines (22, goal line and DBL) . You are right it 'should be quite obvious' but as with many laws in rugby it's not obvious and open to many views - just do a quick search on forward pass!

It's "treated differently" because we're worried about the ball going a prescribed distance.

I would think any decent referee would argue the forward pass law is not open to many views, just wrong ones! The fact someone tries to claim something doesn't necessarily mean it is open to many views.

 

[Browner]

22, Goal line & Touchlines are all ' Continuous lines ' as shown in Law 1, whereas 10m (5m 15m) is a broken line.

Q? is this significant re: foot over Line principal v ball travelled ?

 

[Toby Warren]

It's "treated differently" because we're worried about the ball going a prescribed distance.

I would think any decent referee would argue the forward pass law is not open to many views, just wrong ones! The fact someone tries to claim something doesn't necessarily mean it is open to many views.

The IRB (and RFU) has had to issue clarifications and there is even a video from the ARU!

 

[leaguerefaus]

The IRB (and RFU) has had to issue clarifications and there is even a video from the ARU!

If a teacher has to clarify to her class that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, that doesn't mean it's open to many points of view. I'm sure there's many videos explaining this too.

 

[Toby Warren]

If a teacher has to clarify to her class that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around, that doesn't mean it's open to many points of view. I'm sure there's many videos explaining this too.

This is a rather odd disagreement.

There is clearly only one CORRECT view that doesn't mean there aren't many views.

 

[leaguerefaus]

This is a rather odd disagreement.

There is clearly only one CORRECT view that doesn't mean there aren't many views.

There may be many views, but it is not OPEN TO MANY VIEWS, as you claim the forward pass law is / was.

 

[Ian_Cook]

22, Goal line & Touchlines are all ' Continuous lines ' as shown in Law 1, whereas 10m (5m 15m) is a broken line.

Q? is this significant re: foot over Line principal v ball travelled ?

Yes it is, and you have hit on the reason why it should be treated differently (refer the OP)

A foot touching a touchline, goal-line or the 22m line is easily spotted as touching. A foot between the dashes on the 10m line would require some visual extrapolation by the referee.

The fact is, the ball must reach the 10m line at kick off/restart. If the kicker, or a team mate catches the ball before it reaches the line, the restart is not valid, even if the catcher is beyond the line

This is similar to the Law regarding a ball thrown in from touch at a line out or quick throw in. It must reach the 5m line (as it happens, also not a solid line), except in this case no player is allowed to prevent it reaching the line, and even if that player was standing beyond the 5m line, it is not play on!

 

[Toby Warren]

There may be many views, but it is not OPEN TO MANY VIEWS, as you claim the forward pass law is / was.

Our odd disagreement continues don't know why but it's quite engaging.

Are you are assuming by being 'open to many views' implies that there is more than one correct view? Therefore as there is only one correct view on forward pass it can't be open to many views?

If so I disagree.

But for clarity as we broadly agree I think that there is only 1 correct view on the forward pass but other people think that this view is wrong therefore there is more than one view of what is a forward pass but only one correct one.

 

[crossref]

This is a rather odd disagreement.

There is clearly only one CORRECT view that doesn't mean there aren't many views.

there are plenty of lacunas in the Laws - scenarios where the Law is silent, so there might not a 'correct' answer, until the IRB make up a Law.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Our odd disagreement continues don't know why but it's quite engaging.

Are you are assuming by being 'open to many views' implies that there is more than one correct view? Therefore as there is only one correct view on forward pass it can't be open to many views?

If so I disagree.

But for clarity as we broadly agree I think that there is only 1 correct view on the forward pass but other people think that this view is wrong therefore there is more than one view of what is a forward pass but only one correct one.

By saying the law is 'open to many views', you're implying the law is not clear about what constitutes a forward pass - thus making it open to many views. I disagree.

Anyway, enough with the English argument, we both know what constitutes a forward pass, and we both know Rushforth is a blight to the game and a blight to this forum.

 

[crossref]

By saying the law is 'open to many views', you're implying the law is not clear about what constitutes a forward pass - thus making it open to many views. I disagree.

Anyway, enough with the English argument, we both know what constitutes a forward pass, and we both know Rushforth is a blight to the game and a blight to this forum.

now that's unfair to rushforth.

and to be honest he isn't entirely a lonely voice on the forward pass.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/rugby_union/article1357127.ece

 

[leaguerefaus]

now that's unfair to rushforth.

and to be honest he isn't entirely a lonely voice on the forward pass.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/rugby_union/article1357127.ece

There has been a clarification, just for those who had any doubt, and yet he refuses to follow it, therefore I believe calling him a blight on the game to be a fair assertion. Many people on here have also accused him of being a troll, as he seemingly tries to stir the pot and fire people up by talking absolute rubbish, therefore I believe calling him a blight on this forum to be a fair assertion.

 

[crossref]

There has been a clarification, just for those who had any doubt, and yet he refuses to follow it, therefore I believe calling him a blight on the game to be a fair assertion. Many people on here have also accused him of being a troll, as he seemingly tries to stir the pot and fire people up by talking absolute rubbish, therefore I believe calling him a blight on this forum to be a fair assertion.

there hasn't really been a proper clarification has there? The IRB, in their typical hamfisted way, released a rather obscure video - a video that isn't linked to from the IRBLAWS website, which you would go to as the first place to look if you want to understand the Laws.

Certainly no one could argue that the situation is completely clear to everyone...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/05/the-breakdown-rugby-union-forward-pass
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/jan/31/rugby-union-forward-pass-law-six-nations
http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/05/24/irb-law-12-the-forward-pass/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8648457/Laurie-Mains-irate-at-forward-pass-rulings
http://www.citypress.co.za/sport/rugby-thinking-on-forward-pass-is-all-backwards/
http://www.rugby365.com/article/53665-law-discussion-forward-passes
http://www.rugby-sidestep-central.com/controversy-corner.html

rushforth may be wrong in his position (he is) but let's face it: he's not an entirely lone voice.

'blight on the game' is just plain ridiculous. you don't know him. he's out there reffing each week
'blight on the forum' - that view you are entitled to. IMV a forum would be a dull place if we all agreed. IMO people only blight forums with bad behaviour, not bad opinions.

 

[Browner]

IMO people only blight forums with bad behaviour ......

Style/tone of communication also applies, especially to a moderator.

 

[john g]

[LAWS]13.7[/LAWS]
Going back to the op
It's only a FK if it isn't played by the opposition

 

[Ian_Cook]

Style/tone of communication also applies, especially to a moderator.

You just cannot help yourself can you Browner? Got to try to get a snipe or a dig in at every opportunity!