simplified Laws - mode of play

[crossref]

The old Law 7 , mode of play, is gone. I can see why, it didn't say much, but one thing it did say was
[LAWS]
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/LAWS]

That omission is quite significant, as people often claimed that pushing a ball carrier was illegal, to which we would refer them to that phrase.

So -- from 2018 onwards, is it now illegal to push a ball carrier ?

 

[Phil E]

The old Law 7 , mode of play, is gone. I can see why, it didn't say much, but one thing it did say was
[LAWS]
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/LAWS]

That omission is quite significant, as people often claimed that pushing a ball carrier was illegal, to which we would refer them to that phrase.

So -- from 2018 onwards, is it now illegal to push a ball carrier ?

NO, because the 2017 law book is still in force....alongside the 2018.

 

[crossref]

NO, because the 2017 law book is still in force....alongside the 2018.

Is there anything written down that explains how that works ?

 

[didds]

the theory that the 2018 is NOT a change of law but a simplifications of the same laws.

See posts and threads passim though - LOL.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

NO, because the 2017 law book is still in force....alongside the 2018.

So what we now do is look in 2018 book, can't find it or doesn't make sense, so go and look in 2017 book.

Once you've done this a few times, you don't bother with the 2018 book and go straight to 2017.

 

[crossref]

The 2018 book must take precedence over the 2017 book surely

 

[Dickie E]

The 2018 book must take precedence over the 2017 book surely

but if there is no change to law intent, shouldn't make any difference.

 

[crossref]

But if the two books are actually different then you have to choose one or the other

 

[Dickie E]

But if the two books are actually different then you have to choose one or the other

then I'll have to choose the one that makes the most sense and that I am familiar with

 

[crossref]

So in the example of the cavalry charge, which one is that ? (for me 2018)

 

[Pegleg]

You can't have two law books running at the same time. This is nonsense. Crossref has done some great work on the differences. How can you referee both law books side by side. We are going to end up with some refs using 2017 and sone using 2018 and other trying to make them agree.

Of course had WR used refs to proof it we may not have this nonsense.

Ican see legal challenges to things if sides miss out on titles / cup because of which law book they or the ref thinks is the right one.

Eg last minute of a cup final Ball carrier pushed into touch Ref awards a PK (using 2018 - he can't use both as they contradict) PK is kicked to with the final 14-13 Losing side argue that 2017 laws allow you to push the BC into touch. Lawyers say "Thank you very much boys". And before people say it wil not happen French sides are not above challenging DC punishments.

 

[SimonSmith]

So in the example of the cavalry charge, which one is that ? (for me 2018)

You're OK with a single player on the charge? Because that's the 2018 version

 

[crossref]

You're OK with a single player on the charge? Because that's the 2018 version

Yes .. because they have rewritten the definition to allow it . It seems to me it that must be a deliberate change. Do you think it's accidental change ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

But if the two books are actually different then you have to choose one or the other

They are the same; it's only your interpretations that might be different, but that's your problem not the book's, WR's or anyone else's here or elsewhere.

You would do yourself (and everyone else here) a really big favour if you stopped trying to look for things that aren't there. It was stated in the original release news item on the WR website that the two books would operate side by side in the coming year. This is because the 2018 book is only a draft. This fact has been repeated several times on this forum so I'm not going to bother wasting any time and effort finding it for you.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But to answer you question, just because it doesn't SAY in the Law book that you can push an opponent carrying the ball doesn't mean that you can't

[LAWS]Draft Law 9.5
e. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball
must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the
ball.[/LAWS]
ergo, if the opponent IS in possession of the ball, you CAN push him. The removal of that aspect in Mode of Play is the removal of repetition NOT a change in the Law.

As I said, stop looking for things that aren't there.

OK?

 

[crossref]

Keep up Ian , Phil E posted the FINAL version

 

[Ian_Cook]

Keep up Ian , Phil E posted the FINAL version

But you are quoting from this

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3660&d=1513159224

...its NOT a final version, its a draft...have a look at the top of every page underneath where it says "Simplified Law Book"

As for your assertion that the Cavalry charge definition has changed, it hasn't

[LAWS]2017 Law 10.4 (o)
‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as as a ‘Cavalry Charge’ usually happens near
the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Either a single
player stands some distance behind the kicker, or attacking players form a line across the
field some distance behind the kicker.
These attacking players are usually a metre or two apart. At a signal from the kicker, they
charge forward. When they get near, the kicker tap-kicks the ball and passes to a player who
had started some distance behind the kicker.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]2018 Draft laws General Definitons
Cavalry charge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. At a signal from the kicker, a line of attacking
players charge forward from a distance. When they get near, the kicker taps the ball and
passes to a player.[/LAWS]

The wording is different but the meaning is identical

The Cavalry Charge has always been about one person receiving the ball. The Cavalry Charge is illegal because there are several players charging but only one receives the ball, and the opponents are put in a position of having to risk being penalised for tackling opponent without the ball. So long as a player is on his own and not in a line-up of charging players, he is allowed to revieve a pass from a tap kick while he's running towards the opposition.

 

[crossref]

Seriously Ian Keep up
Here's the final version , thanks to Phil
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20665-World-Rugby-Simplified-Law-Book-2018

 

[Ian_Cook]

Seriously Ian Keep up
Here's the final version , thanks to Phil
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20665-World-Rugby-Simplified-Law-Book-2018

Seriously crossref WAKE UP!!!!

This is the wording in the draft

[LAWS]Cavalry charge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. At a signal from the kicker, a line of attacking
players charge forward from a distance. When they get near, the kicker taps the ball and
passes to a player.[/LAWS]

This is the wording in the 2018 Law Book

Cavalry charge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. At a signal from the kicker, a line of attacking
players charge forward from a distance. When they get near, the kicker taps the ball and
passes to a player.

ITS WORD FOR WORD EXACTLY THE BLOODY SAME!!

The LAWS regarding the Cavalry Charge HAVE NOT CHANGED

There is nothing in the 2018 Law book which changes the meaning of any of the Laws as written in the 2017 Laws.

 

[crossref]

Great , we have established this is not a question of draft laws

Now then, sigh, In the 2017 laws a single chaarging player constitutes a cavalry charge. in the 2018 version they have omitted that, and it's a line of players.

I really don't understand why you have got yourself all worked up about this