Yes it does. Thanks.
The problem here is that CJ has used this terminology in other instances (including the same game) and other circumstances. It surely can't be poor wording every time?
He clearly says ' you can't swing around' and that's what he is awarding the PK for in this case and in others.
Same ref, same ruling, same wording, differing circumstances. No one is addressing this and instead keep focusing on other possible reasons for the one instance.
Fair point. But I would not say he is solely giving the PK for 'the swinging around' despite his poor wording. I suspect it's for something else, because as you say there is not such law that says 'you can't swing around'. As far as I know CJ is the only one that is using this term, and a few of us have said that it is poor terminology and he should stick to law terminology for the benefit of all. I too am surprised he hasn't been picked up by the IRB referee assessors and told to change.
You say that if a player remains bound and swings around to kick the ball you would 'probably let that go as legal'. Either it is legal or it isn't. Saying 'probably let that go' implies that you see something wrong in it yet can't explain what that wrong may be.
All I have been asking is for anyone here to point me to the Law or directive that says that 'swinging around the ruck' is, by itself, not allowed.
I thought I was quite clear saying that IMO 'swinging around' can be done legally, so I don't think the action itself is illegal. I can't categorically say that if I see it I will PK it, because it's the precursor actions to it that will dictate if it's legal or not (in my mind anyway).
You are right that there is no specific law that says 'you can't swing around the ruck', but there is a law that says you need to enter the ruck correctly and (remain) bound in the ruck to ruck the ball with your feet (and also come from hindmost feet to be onside). Sometimes there not specific law to cover every precise action, but it is actually covered under another law.
For eg, There is also no specific law that says you can't spit on another player, but you know we will penalise it (or worse) and say to the player 'you can't spit on someone', but what we are really doing is penalising under law 10 foul play.
As no one can do so I will crawl back into my hole, reaffirming my concept that referees sometimes pull Laws out of their arses and players and public just have to live with that.
I think that's a little unfair assessment. I would say that sometimes terminology and signals may be pulled out of their arses and it causes confusion but at the elite level such as CJ, he won't be inventing his own laws. You don't get to be a test level referee by being a rogue law maker of your own.
Like my example above, sometimes a term is used that is not found in the laws, but comes under the umbrella of a law.
SA Refs site have already stated that they can't find the illegality but their sample size is one instance. I have pointed out the others to them and asked the Duty Ref for an opinion. Hopefully they can expand further or even get CJ himself to explain.
I too hope that they can get an explanation from CJ so we can bury this one and perhaps appease you in some small way with what CJ really meant.
