simplified Laws - mode of play

[crossref]

I agree . But it's a shame that the 2018 book is less clear on this than the 2017 book

 

[Ian_Cook]

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 ..

Its not up to you to justify your decision. They are the ones making the claim (that you are wrong), so the burden of proof is on them.

The smarter thing to do would be the challenge them to show you a law reference to say that a player cannot push the ball carrier.

 

[Pegleg]

Good point.

 

[ChrisR]

The real problem here is one that every software engineer understands: Don't release the code until it's undergone a thorough beta test with all current updates installed.

This is the beta test but without the updates (trials) installed. They could have said: "Keep using the 2017 Laws and the trials. But, while you're at it, compare outcomes to this new version".

And the 2018 book would have been largely ignored (except possibly on RR).

Or, they could have said: “Referee using the 2018 book (and the law trials where applicable). It was not our intent to change the law so if you find contradictions apply 2017 law in the field. Here is a place to report any discrepancy so we can review and respond for all to see".

What they could do now is admit that the 2018 is a beta and will be under review. To do this they need a technical writer and a wordsmith, not a panel of distinguished gentlemen. A panel of distinguished referees, coaches and players need to be on hand to resolve meaning ambiguities and to proofread. When the law trials are complete the accepted law changes need to be incorporated and proofread again. Then put it out as 2019. We, and the rugby world, can live with WR directives in the meantime.

I'd be happy to oversee the process for room & board and good seats at Twickenham for the fall internationals. I promise I'll be done by 1/1/2019.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The real problem here is one that every software engineer understands: Don't release the code until it's undergone a thorough beta test with all current updates installed.

This is the beta test but without the updates (trials) installed. They could have said: "Keep using the 2017 Laws and the trials. But, while you're at it, compare outcomes to this new version".

And the 2018 book would have been largely ignored (except possibly on RR).

Or, they could have said: “Referee using the 2018 book (and the law trials where applicable). It was not our intent to change the law so if you find contradictions apply 2017 law in the field. Here is a place to report any discrepancy so we can review and respond for all to see".

What they could do now is admit that the 2018 is a beta and will be under review. To do this they need a technical writer and a wordsmith, not a panel of distinguished gentlemen. A panel of distinguished referees, coaches and players need to be on hand to resolve meaning ambiguities and to proofread. When the law trials are complete the accepted law changes need to be incorporated and proofread again. Then put it out as 2019. We, and the rugby world, can live with WR directives in the meantime.

I'd be happy to oversee the process for room & board and good seats at Twickenham for the fall internationals. I promise I'll be done by 1/1/2019.

That would be too simple!

 

[crossref]

They could also have said

In the course making the Law Book easier to read we are naturally resolving various ambiguities, oddities, and lacunas in the existing Law . In every case we are resolving those in line with the way we believe the Law is already understood by the majority of participants, but in every case we have highlighted the new text as we recognise that for some people it will represent a change

They also could have said
We recognise in an exercise of this size that some idadvertent mistakes might creep in, and we invite every one to report any they find . The new laws will be online only for three months so that we have the opportunity to make corrections before we proceed to print it

Gosh, it could have been such a good project

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Isn;t that basically what they did say - The first paragraph anyway?

The second highlights the failure to let "stakeholders" review it rather than let the committee of experts to pat themselves on hte back and say; "How well we did boys".

The problem is not whether or not the book introduced changes. The problem is that it is a really bad piece of work. A bad piece of work that fails in its task. It expects far too much from the reader. It is simply terrible.

When the hand off made its way into the law book it did not represent a lae change. It simple recognised what the qorld of rugby had accepoted for years. WR has attempted to do that again here but with a totally failing outcome.

Until the book is re-written / amended again we are stuck with it. As refs, we have to make it make sense. I believe we can best do that coming from the angle that WR intended. THER ARE NO LAW CHANGES. We need to carry on debate within our own societies and unions so that the message that it is a terrible waste of a few hundred trees and campaign to get the job done again and done properly. Otherwise we will end up with this mess and more abiguity than before. That's not good for any of us.

 

[didds]

A panel of distinguished referees, coaches and players need to be on hand to resolve meaning ambiguities and to proofread.

well their last panel of top level referees and coaches etc didn't achieve that so - WADR to Chris - why would their next panel of top level referees and coaches etc do a better job?

They'd be better off dropping that idea and employing Crossref.



didds

 

[Dickie E]

They'd be better off dropping that idea and employing Crossref.

he certainly seems to have plenty of time on his hands

 

[ChrisR]

To continue my thoughts on testing the laws.

The first phase of testing software is to determine that the program does all the things that you designed it to do. That is the easy part. The real test is to see how you can make it fail. That's the fun part.

The experiences, observations and speculations of the members of RR are the fail tests for the 2018 laws. We are the test crew. Put our real life scenarios, and our imagined ones, up against the laws and we should find an unambiguous answer to: Is it allowed/required? If not, what is the sanction? Are their options to be offered?

In their effort to reduce word count specific sanctions by offence have been omitted. Here's an example:

From the 2018 laws:

[LAWS]DURING A RUCK
10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
12. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.
13. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
14. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
15. Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the
ball in the ruck or as it emerges.
16. Players must not:
a. Pick the ball up with their legs.
b. Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.
c. Intentionally step on another player.
d. Fall over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty.
e. Return the ball into the ruck.
f. Take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has
not.
Sanction: Free-kick.
[/LAWS]

Does the PK sanction apply to line items 10 thru 16? Does item 10 mean no crocodile rolls or pulling an opponent forward?

Does the FK sanction apply to item e?

The 2017 laws were clearer on this.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

To continue my thoughts on testing the laws.

The first phase of testing software is to determine that the program does all the things that you designed it to do. That is the easy part. The real test is to see how you can make it fail. That's the fun part.

The experiences, observations and speculations of the members of RR are the fail tests for the 2018 laws. We are the test crew. Put our real life scenarios, and our imagined ones, up against the laws and we should find an unambiguous answer to: Is it allowed/required? If not, what is the sanction? Are their options to be offered?

In their effort to reduce word count specific sanctions by offence have been omitted. Here's an example:

From the 2018 laws:

[LAWS]DURING A RUCK
10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
12. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.
13. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
14. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
15. Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the
ball in the ruck or as it emerges.
16. Players must not:
a. Pick the ball up with their legs.
b. Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.
c. Intentionally step on another player.
d. Fall over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty.
e. Return the ball into the ruck.
f. Take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has
not.
Sanction: Free-kick.
[/LAWS]

Does the PK sanction apply to line items 10 thru 16? Does item 10 mean no crocodile rolls or pulling an opponent forward?

Does the FK sanction apply to item e?

The 2017 laws were clearer on this.

The answers to the questions are

1: Yes (Rational: There are no law changes)
2: Depends (Rational: There are no law changes) Is it the neck or body. Are you clearing the are on Collapsing. Is it dangerous play or not etc.
3; Yes (Rational: There are no law changes)

Is it badly written and does it fail the basic test (The first phase of testing software is to determine that the program does all the things that you designed it to do)? Well clearly it does fail because it confuses people. Even when they've been told that there are no law changes, some still stuggle (well we all identify confusion!) to intepret the book with that caveat in mind.

 

[crossref]

When you say there are no Law Changes , you are saying that the 2017 Law Book (no longer available on the WR website) takes precedence over the 2018.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

:deadhorse:

 

[crossref]

.. he he, but bear with me ... what happens if the 2019 Law Book is the same as the 2018 one ...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

:wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::wtf::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::holysheep::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep::wtf::deadhorse::holysheep:

 

[Rich_NL]

When you say there are no Law Changes , you are saying that the 2017 Law Book (no longer available on the WR website) takes precedence over the 2018.

That is indeed what WR are saying. I think this is not a sign of competent management, but not a sign that they are incorrect.

 

[crossref]

That is indeed what WR are saying. I think this is not a sign of competent management, but not a sign that they are incorrect.

I don't think that is what WR are saying .. they have archived the 2017 Law Book, and taken it down from their website.

 

[Rich_NL]

That sounds an awful lot like incompetent management.

 

[crossref]

In part
I guess we won't get any further for a while , but broadly WR need to address two problem

1 they made some accidental changes to the Laws .
what are they going to do about that ? The only reasonable answer is to fess up, and produce an amended 2018 Law book to reverse them

2 they also made some deliberate changes , but because they told everyone they hadn't , most people haven't noticed them, and others have noticed but have refused to accept them. What are they going to do ?
The only reasonable answer is to issue a new version green highlight the changes and confirming that they did indeed mean what they said

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Law 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.

As per your crib sheet- Logically you can so no change!