Taken into 22?

[Phil E]

The name Chopper nearly always seem to dictate negative comments.

That's the only sensible thing you have said in this thread.........I am still out.

 

[OB..]

You could've mentioned a much more positive comment on OB's failure to address my point below (not Davet's as Dickie erroneously stated) and Dickie's subsequent and most pertinent comment which appears to belie OB's 'extended line' contention, ie;This is an interesting observation as it sets a precedence for the concept of the imaginery 22 metre line extension being recognised by IRB.

The WRU had requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch & line-out back in 2004. But this was based on a def. player ' . . . . gathers the ball, runs a few metres (still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line where he throws the ball straight infield. He gathers it and kicks direct to touch.'

What failure to comment?
You first mentioned it here

..

I replied in my very next post, identifying your quote as being from Ruling 10 of 2004.

..

In light of Dickie's comment I then rephrased, hoping to make the point clearer.

..

Is this my failure to comment, or your failure to read?

 

[SimonSmith]

The name Chopper nearly always seem to dictate negative comments from you ,Simon. Why so sour with your hurtful and insensitive 'go away' to a fellow threader? :sad:

You could've mentioned a much more positive comment on OB's failure to address my point below (not Davet's as Dickie erroneously stated) and Dickie's subsequent and most pertinent comment which appears to belie OB's 'extended line' contention, ie;This is an interesting observation as it sets a precedence for the concept of the imaginery 22 metre line extension being recognised by IRB.

The WRU had requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch & line-out back in 2004. But this was based on a def. player ' . . . . gathers the ball, runs a few metres (still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line where he throws the ball straight infield. He gathers it and kicks direct to touch.'

This precedent is a serious consideration should the other unions seek consideration and something you could've constructively commented on. Hence my 'coat tails' statement which you thought insulting.

My last response to to this subthread.
Why the negativity? Because YOU allege complacency, obsequiousness and sundry other faults because 1) people agree with OB; that tends to happened with well reasoned and well argued points - btw, OB and I DO disagree on issues. More so management than law, but that happens. And 2) people fail to agree with you or fail to add anything new - that happens when whatever I would want to say has already been said.

go back through the thread. Read where my responses come. I'm pretty sure that any animosity in your direction comes as a direct response to your ad hominem attacks. Not for the first time.

 

[Donal1988]

Chopper,

Simple answer to your question is that in every thread you just argue against everybody and against what is the estabilished norms we referee by.

Its good not to be a sheep but as I have said to you I dont think you can realistically be a rugby fan if you have that many problems with the game.

I think your a rugby fan who likes winding up lads on the internet and looks like you succeeded. Internet forums need a "love to hate" guy

 

[chopper15]

That's the only sensible thing you have said in this thread.........I am still out.

You gave no reason for this petulent statement, Phil.

Please don't be offended by the deliberate choice of adj. It also derives from the old French, petulare, to attack playfully!

 

[chopper15]

Ref SimonS; 1) people agree with OB; that tends to happened with well reasoned and well argued points - btw, OB and I DO disagree on issues. More so management than law, but that happens. And 2) people fail to agree with you or fail to add anything new - that happens when whatever I would want to say has already been said.

What on earth are you on about, Simon?

Over the last few hours I raised a very relevent IRB/WRU statement by DMs. and drew your attention to it; ie., 'This precedent is a serious consideration should the other unions seek consideration and something you could've constructively commented on.' It was both a 'new' consideration and well reasoned and argued.

You chose either to ignore it, to suit your personal tirade on me, or didn't appreciate the significence of it. Considering your learned syntax I very much doubt the latter, which I sincerely regret, I would like to consider your views on it.

I think there's echoes of snobbery in your attitude to me that engenders a subconscious contempt and insensitivity to whatever point of view I might have.

My education may not be up to your, and some others', obvious standards. . . .but I do at least try to address the points raised!:sad:

Have a read of the latest Dickie an SimonT's comments, perhaps you won't feel so 'degraded' if you confront and answer their points, which, incidently, I was pursuing with my queries.:sad:

 

[OB..]

Over the last few hours I raised a very relevent IRB/WRU statement by DMs. and drew your attention to it; ie., 'This precedent is a serious consideration should the other unions seek consideration and something you could've constructively commented on.' It was both a 'new' consideration and well reasoned and argued.

Chopper - have you read my previous post(s) on this point?

...

If yes, why are you ignoring them?!

(Hint: click on the little blue/white arrowhead)

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Whenever I see the first post in a new thread I have a guess at how many posts it'll spawn.

This is one I thought would produce about a dozen.

Unbelievable! :sad:

 

[chopper15]

I though I explained why it didn't? Let me try again.

That was Ruling 10 of 2004 ie before the ELVs. In those days you could pass back into the 22 for a gain in ground, so as long as the QT was legitimately inside the 22, it could then be kicked for a gain in ground. As to whether or not the throw was inside the 22, the ball had to be thrown straight, so you could tell by where it bounced/was caught (even if the thrower was not actually standing on the touchline).

It did not matter where the ball was gathered up. (That idea is not exactly brand new, since it was the rule 150 years ago - before the days of referees.)

The ques. posed I was referring to was dated 23rd December 2004 and reads;

The WRU has requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch & line-out and Law 21 Penalty and Free Kicks
A player of the attacking team kicks the ball indirectly into touch just outside the defender 22 metre area. A defender gathers the ball, runs a few metres (still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line where he throws the ball straight infield. He gathers it and kicks direct to touch.


My comment which prompted this was;

What we've been discussing is the ball rolling a few metres; '(still in touch) to a place behind his 22 metre line then gathers it and kicks direct to touch.

'The DMs accepted the term 'behind his 22 metre line', but OB contested it using it as a basis for his 'no gain' decision.

 

[OB..]

The ques. posed I was referring to was dated 23rd December 2004

Yes, chopper, I know. I have previously identified that as Ruling 10 of 2004.

I then pointed out that this was before the ELVs which makes a very big difference. At that time it was legitimate to pass the ball back into the 22 and then kick to touch for a gain in ground.

Therefore if the player ran back to throw in to the 22, that was OK, particularly since at that time he had to throw in straight. That meant you did not need to decide exactly where he was standing: if the throw was straight, you could tell whether the place where it landed/was caught was inside the 22 or not. Moreover the thrower would usually run up to the touchline anyway, so you could see which side of the flag he was.

The situation has now changed significantly. You can throw the ball backwards, so where it lands can no longer determine if the ball was originally inside the 22 or not. It is agreed by everybody that a player may not run back beyond the "extended" 22m line for a kick to gain ground.

This leaves us with the radically different views under question.

 

[OB..]

We had a Federation Seminar this evening, run by Steve Leyshon. He was surprised to hear the SA/Aus view, and will pursue the matter.