simplified Laws - mode of play

[menace]

It's a New Zealand thing..they're easily wound up. epper:
It's cause thyre sick of playing poor cousin to Australia.:biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

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

Ian, see attachment. It appears to have moved on from draft.

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.

I agree with this. It appears to me that the new laws get rid of the one man hit up as illegal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, see attachment. It appears to have moved on from draft.

Dickie. Using Adobe Acrobat, I have done a PDF comparison between the Draft and the 2018 "Final" version posted by PhilE. The ONLY difference between them is the inclusion of Diagrams (which is signalled in the text of the draft), and some graphics boxes around the headings. The wording in the body of all the Laws in the document is identical from one to the other.

NONE of my earlier points is invalid simply because I was quoting from the Draft instead of the Final document... the wording is identical, and the points are still valid.

I agree with this. It appears to me that the new laws get rid of the one man hit up as illegal.

Read the Law carefully

[LAWS]Copied and pasted from 2017 Laws

‘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]

IMO, this is just a very badly worded Law that was never, ever about one player receiving the ball and charging alone.

If it was, then who are "These attacking players"?
If it was, they why have referees not penalised whenever a player takes a tap-kick and passes the ball to a running team-mate?

A Cavalry Charge (by definition) requires multiple players otherwise the whole ploy would be pointless. The reason the Cavalry Charge was outlawed was not about player safety, it was because it was considered to be an unfair tactic due to the fact that there was no possible legal defence... the defending team is put in the position of having to commit penalty infringements to defend against it.

The player safety aspect relates to the Flying Wedge, which is dangerous for defenders for obvious reasons. From discussions I see on this board (and others) these two are often confused with each other and talked about as the same thing... they are not.

I do not believe that this is a change in the Law, its a clarification/correction of a poorly worded document (colour me surprised). The "single player" phrasing was a wording change in the 2010 Laws. The 2009 Laws did not include this phrase

[LAWS]2009
‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Cavalry Charge’ usually happens near the
goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. Attacking players
form a line across the field some distance behind the kicker.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]2010
‘Cavalry Charge’. The type of attack known 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.[/LAWS]

The important factor here is that ALL official, IRB/WR approved changes to the Laws are ALWAYS marked in the newer edition by placing the new or changed law in a light-green, round cornered text box to indicate where the differ from the previous edition..e.g.

Law 3.12 (a) Exception 2, and 3.12 (b) are official, approved Law Chages (2010 Laws)

There was no such indication in the 2010 Laws relating to the Cavalry Charge. That means it wasn't a Law change at all... IMO, it was someone unofficially rewording the Law.

 

[crossref]

That seems like a lot of words and a lot of anger to get to the same result as I did yesterday .

This must be a deliberate change -- the idea of a one man Cavalry Charge was always a bit odd, go with the 2018 version

 

[Ian_Cook]

That seems like a lot of words and a lot of anger to get to the same result as I did yesterday .

No anger, just facts.

 

[crossref]

so, correct me if I am wrong: your argument is that while the one-man cavalry charge has been specifically outlawed since 2010, because the green shading was omitted in the 2010 Lawbook, that Law never counted ?

 

[menace]

I thought the point about adding a single player to the calvary charge defintion was to outlaw that single player that has had and opportunity to get speed and momentum (especially if to the big fat prop) up before the tap is taken. Yet the defending side can't counter this until the ball is tapped. This gives the attacking team and unfair advantage that defence cannot meet the 'charger' early. This can also be dangerous to the defence.

It looks to me that the law has been changed. Is there another law that doesnt permit an attacking player to advance forward (but still behind the ball) until the tap is taken??

Ps..Ian I am not buying this: "That means it wasn't a Law change at all... IMO, it was someone unofficially rewording the Law.". You cant genuinely believe that a a change to law wording was just snuck in and then left there for anotherr 7 years by a rogue emoloyee. I dont care whether it was a law change or just a clarification to the law. I certainly have not been allowing one man cavalry charges since 2010
...and as you have repeatedly said, the simpler laws have not changed the 2017 laws so looks like we still need to outlaw the one man charge! Or do we??

 

[ChrisR]

Of all the things to leave in 2018 are "Flying Wedge" and "Cavalry Charge".

Prohibit pre-binding on the BC before contact and the Flying Wedge goes away.

Prohibit players moving forward that receive the ball at a tap PK/FK and the Cavalry Charge goes away.

 

[Ian_Cook]

so, correct me if I am wrong: your argument is that while the one-man cavalry charge has been specifically outlawed since 2010, because the green shading was omitted in the 2010 Lawbook, that Law never counted ?

I have kept track of every Law change since the advent of downloadable PDFs from the IRB/WR site... 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. I can provide you links to all these Laws books if you like so that you can check this for yourself....all, repeat all changes to the Laws of the Game have been marked with a light green box (If you look at Page 1 of the Law book under "Key to text and diagrams" you will see where it tells you this). Prior to PDFs, the changes were marked with a vertical bar down the left margin of the book next to the changed Law. All these Law changes can be traced back to decisions of the IRB/WR (the Rugby Committee) to change the Laws.

In the 2010 Law book changes were made to the following Laws. All of these changes were approved by the IRB Board when it met in May (to ratify the ELVs) and again in November 2009,

Law 3
3.4 Players nominated as substitutes
3.12 (a) and 3.12 (b) Substituted players rejoining the match
3.14 Union Specific Variations

Law 5 Time
5.7 (e) Time expires when the ball is not dead

Law 8
8.3 (f) No advantage when the ball is dead

Law 10
10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without
the ball
10.4 (h) Charging into a ruck or maul

Law 16
16.2 (b) Players joining a ruck
16.4 (d) Handing the ball in a ruck
16.5 (c) Players joining or rejoining a ruck

Law 22
22.3 (b) Simultaneous grounding

Law 20 (U19 Variations)
20.1 (f) Scrum formation and player numbers

Law 5 (Sevens Variations)
5.3 Half time
5.6 Extra time

Law 6 (Sevens Variations)
6.B.8 (d) Signalling goals

Note that there was no mention of any change to Law 10.4 (p). The "change" to add the phrase "Either a single player stands some distance behind the kicker, or" to the description of a Cavalry Charge is not marked as a change in the Law book in which it first appeared (2010), nor is there any record of a decision by the IRB/WR or the Rugby Committee, to change this Law.

Ergo, its addition was either unauthorised, or a mistake by someone doing the typing.


Merry Christmas!

 

[menace]

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 ?

Law 9.15 says...
15.
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.

Therefore presumably if you are not in a scrum, ruck or maul and opposition is in posession of the ball then you can hold, push, charge and obstruct them?...which is effectively the old mode of play???

 

[Ian_Cook]

Law 9.15 says...
15.
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.

Therefore presumably if you are not in a scrum, ruck or maul and opposition is in posession of the ball then you can hold, push, charge and obstruct them?...which is effectively the old mode of play???

Yep. I've already posted that (post #15)... but it fell on deaf ears.

There is no need for more than one Law to allow/disallow an action... the whole stated rationale of this revised Law book is to make it smaller and to remove repetition. That aspect of 2017 Law 7 is unnecessary because it is already covered by another Law. Unfortunately, some here haven't given this much thought, so they think its a "change" to the Laws, that pushing would be no longer allowed in 2018.

 

[menace]

So you did....i knew I didnt think of it myself! Lol.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So you did....i knew I didnt think of it myself! Lol.

There is a such a thing as independent discovery! :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

Yep. I've already posted that (post #15)... but it fell on deaf ears.

No, I actually did update my comparison table yesterday to reference it.
Its then a second case of something that is clearly stated in the 2017 Laws , but in the 2018 Simplified Laws has to be inferred .

I would surmise that they hadn't thought through the implications of removing that text , but have been fortunately saved.
Hopefully the clear text will come back in 2019

NOTE that while 9.15 does imply that you can push the ball carriers , it also implies that you are allowed to obstruct and charge a ball carrier ...
Charge ?
This is obviously is not the law writers inention

 

[menace]

I guess the point of the simplification is to remove superfluous words and and duplication. There's a million things that you have to imply as a compliment/opposite to the laws that are written.

Tackling is technically a charge with collision. As long as there is a grasp I see no issues with the use...but I can see how others might.

 

[crossref]

well, except that see 9.16

[LAWS]9.15. 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.

9.16 A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.[/LAWS]


the intention of 9.15 is to prohibit certain actions, it's not written with the purpose of defining what you can do (although obviosuly it has that implication).

It's odd to say that players are allowed to charge and obstruct ball the ball carrier - it's not how we usually understand/use those terms.

I often hear coaches and spectators implore their team to tackle the ball carrier -- I have never heard cries of 'obstruct him!' or 'charge him!'

 

[crossref]

-----------

 

[menace]

So 916 also says/means that you can charge or knock down an opponent provided you attempt to grasp the player.

So charging and knocking down a player is permitted (with a condition).

So the laws say you can do anything unless it's prohibited by law?? The laws are predicated primarily on the things you cannot do. The laws cannot possibly write in all the things youre permitted to do? Im sure it does not say "a player can, walk, trot, jog, run, skip....in any direction"..but we know that a player can do those things. We dont need a law to tell players they may do it.

If coaches wanted to use those charge and obstruct terms then they can...they just might sound stupid or rough. Just like they use the term "hit him"...they dont literally mean punch the guy they mean tackle him (even though the law says you cant hit a player).
All symantics.

 

[crossref]

All true, but in a Law book semantics matter.

Next week if someone pushed a ball carrier into touch I would allow it, but if challenge in the bar for a law reference would go to the 2017 book ..

 

[Balones]

If it is okay for the ball carrier to push the defender away (hand off) then it must be okay for the defender to to push the ball carrier I would have thought. As long as it os done within the constraints of what is considered to be legal, which can be down to interpretation by the referee.