Rugby Focused Law Changes - May 9th

[didds]

Similarly, we have the instruction that “Teams form the lineout without delay” - so by implication the QTI has to be taken “without delay”?

Nope.

It means the QTI is always on UNTIL the lineout is formed.

The lineout must be formed without delay. but its clear that without delay is actually a long time in reality

 

[didds]

Fart-arse around and ball becomes bereft of life, I whistle and it’s a lineout.

then you'd be wrong.
If one side is FAing about that is whatever the penalty is for not forming a lineout without delay. Not just deeming the ball deader than a dead thing.

 

[Mipper]

"Will deem" and "may deem" are two very different things, and your brief seems to have them confused.

This has all the hallmarks of London Society making up their own shit about uncontested scrums (not allowing a 8 pick up) way back when.

Perhaps its because it is monday morning but Simon, if your response to my post was intended for me, I really have no idea what you are talking about?

 

[Dickie E]

Perhaps its because it is monday morning but Simon, if your response to my post was intended for me, I really have no idea what you are talking about?

Yes, it was intended for you and explains:

'"May” is a modal auxiliary verb that clarifies the main verb of a sentence. When preceding a verb, it suggests the possibility of something happening, but it does not guarantee it as a certainty. In the sentence "I will pick up dinner on my way home," the auxiliary verb “will” implies certainty.'

But I've already hasta la vista-ed

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Perhaps its because it is monday morning but Simon, if your response to my post was intended for me, I really have no idea what you are talking about?

He's saying that there is a big difference in the meaning of the words "may" and "will".

 

[Mipper]

Yes, it was intended for you and explains:

'"May” is a modal auxiliary verb that clarifies the main verb of a sentence. When preceding a verb, it suggests the possibility of something happening, but it does not guarantee it as a certainty. In the sentence "I will pick up dinner on my way home," the auxiliary verb “will” implies certainty.'

But I've already hasta la vista-ed

The London bit? Maybe the Span-glish bit too?

To be clear though, English is my native tongue so I understand quite well how grammar works, even if sometimes I don't use it well enough for some. My uncertainty was not around the difference between 'may' and 'will', but how it is relevant to my post in which I disagree with you.

 

[Mipper]

He's saying that there is a big difference in the meaning of the words "may" and "will".

Yes, but how is that relevant? The bit about London refs????

 

[jdeagro]

My uncertainty was not around the difference between 'may' and 'will', but how it is relevant to my post in which I disagree with you.

You originally stated (emphasis mine):

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

What Dickie and the other repliers are trying to convey is that it is not up to us when the ball is dead in touch because the verb "will" is used in the the laws (not "may"). "Will" implies that the referee must deem the ball dead when it is in touch. It has to happen with certainty.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes, but how is that relevant? The bit about London refs????

Clearly it is a reference to them Not allowingthe 8to pick up from an unconteste scrum. Incidentally a policy we have in Wales too.

 

[SimonSmith]

Oh boy.

The "will" vs "may" thing was well explained by Dickie.

The London Society thing was kinda explained by Marc.

Mipper's explanation of how that Society is briefing seems to me to be fundamentally flawed by misapplication of basic English. THat in turn - in other words, a Society making shit up as it goes along - is reminiscent of London Soc MSUing about uncontested scrums,

 

[Mipper]

Oh boy.

The "will" vs "may" thing was well explained by Dickie.

The London Society thing was kinda explained by Marc.

Mipper's explanation of how that Society is briefing seems to me to be fundamentally flawed by misapplication of basic English. THat in turn - in other words, a Society making shit up as it goes along - is reminiscent of London Soc MSUing about uncontested scrums,

Oh you guys

I did not introduce the concept of 'may' by the way, so whilst some may be impressed by finding some internet grammatical explanation, its not relevant.

I'm not making anything up, nor misunderstanding English. I don't believe that I have mentioned any societys briefings (Simon?), and certainly have nothing to do with London. Though I did used to work in London, and still visit from time to time.

I am familiar however with No8's not being able to pick up from uncontested scrums - although its not something I have ever been involved with.

At the risk of irritating the pedants some more, the relevance of the ramblings over grammar, and some London society issue is non-existant.

Lastly, and genuinely, I am sorry that I have caused so much apparent upset over simply - and politely - disagreeing.

 

[SimonSmith]

Oh you guys

I did not introduce the concept of 'may' by the way, so whilst some may be impressed by finding some internet grammatical explanation, its not relevant.

I'm not making anything up, nor misunderstanding English. I don't believe that I have mentioned any societys briefings (Simon?), and certainly have nothing to do with London. Though I did used to work in London, and still visit from time to time.

I am familiar however with No8's not being able to pick up from uncontested scrums - although its not something I have ever been involved with.

At the risk of irritating the pedants some more, the relevance of the ramblings over grammar, and some London society issue is non-existant.

Lastly, and genuinely, I am sorry that I have caused so much apparent upset over simply - and politely - disagreeing.

Sorry Dickie, but I don't agree that this is a contradiction.

It says that the referee will deem the ball to be dead when the ball is in touch.

The salient point here is that 'the referee will deem', so its up to us when the ball is dead in touch. I like the screenshot from Durham refs, that Flish posted.

With respect, you did introduce it.

You posit that "will" afford the referee flexibility in deciding when the ball is dead. A plain reading of the text, using "will" as I suggested and Dickie defined, makes it clear that there is in fact no flexibility at all. When the ball is in touch, it is dead. There is no manoeuvering around that.

 

[jdeagro]

Lastly, and genuinely, I am sorry that I have caused so much apparent upset over simply - and politely - disagreeing.

FWIW, I'm not upset, even if we disagree on the interpretation of the laws.