[Law] Quiz #6 - short lineouts

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
In fact it is brand new , and was added to the Law book a month ago . Does that alter your perspective on it ?

No. Cause you're not correct. The same blocking wording was in the 2017 book under 19.10 (h).
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,624
Post Likes
3,026
No. Cause you're not correct. The same blocking wording was in the 2017 book under 19.10 (h).

Well, the whole point is that in the old days it said player , the new law says opponent
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Well, the whole point is that in the old days it said player , the new law says opponent

And???

Opponents are players too...it just made more sense to indicate that the offence would not be by their own team mate. Teams have zero incentive to block their own thrower??

But in a way that's irrelevant...my argument is I would not apply a different sanction for the same offence. I think choose one and apply it consistently.
I choose FK every time (more based on the old law wording AND the QT law wording on the same action). I may well be wrong...but at least I'm consistent in the application.
You changing the sanction based on the team throwing just does not make sense to me.

Im also happy to agree to disagree. Which is the point I am at.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
... But in a way that's irrelevant...my argument is I would not apply a different sanction for the same offence. ...
You changing the sanction based on the team throwing just does not make sense to me.
Which was exactly Dickie's point a few years ago.

It makes no sense to have different sanctions for the exact same offence.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,624
Post Likes
3,026
Which was exactly Dickie's point a few years ago.

It makes no sense to have different sanctions for the exact same offence.

I agree it makes no sense .
(I was always in the FK 'em all camp)

But now they have written it into the Laws..
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I agree it makes no sense .
(I was always in the FK 'em all camp)

But now they have written it into the Laws..

I will readily concede that the old wording of blocking law contained an 'or' clause about preventing the ball reaching the 5m line. I was comfortable distinguishing the two as different but results in a FK for "not 5m".
So it is interesting that in the new rewrite laws that theyve dealt with blocking in isolation. But i guess this is WR method to simplifying wording be removing (nested) OR and AND clauses that were confusing people.
What that actually means with intent of isolating "blocking" then I dont know???
 
Top