The Gate is dead! Long live the Gate!

[ChrisR]

NKW brought this up in January but the thread didn't get much traction then. So now that the trials are in the 2018 Laws I'm wondering what the impact on the game is.

[LAWS]
2017 Laws
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

2018 Laws
6. Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

[/LAWS]

So, in 2017 we had the virtual 'gate' as a reference. Now we have "from the direction of their own goal line".

I recall that 'coming in from the side' being applied at a tackle in the 2018 World 7s. I wasn't sure if the 2018 trials were in force.

With the new season under way have y'all given this much thought? Any instructions from your societies?

As a coach I'm going to stick to 'behind the ball' until I get a sense of what the parameters are. Didds, any thoughts?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

In case it helps, the guidance (informally) given to me was there is little changed. The wording changed to disambiguate the meaning of "behind" in the phrase "behind the ball" which could be interpreted relative to a tackler. Instead the phrase "from the direction of their own goal line" is intended to be less subjective.
I am not changing my interpretation of what "coming in from the side" means - roughly a 90 degree wedge with an apex at the tackle area ( or gate ).
Hasnt been remarked upon by any Match-observer so far

 

[didds]

I'm taking the same approach as Chris. A totaslly fresh reading of current laws with no historicval context may mean that "sideways entry" appears to be permitted.

I'm not convinced that that is a deliberate change , doubt that WADR many "old" refs (ie before 2018!) even notice the change anyway, or change their interpretation if they do. Brand new refs needs advice as part of their training.

It is however a clear case of the simplification possibly ending up as not... ;-)

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

NKW brought this up in January but the thread didn't get much traction then. So now that the trials are in the 2018 Laws I'm wondering what the impact on the game is.

[LAWS]
2017 Laws
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

2018 Laws
6. Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

[/LAWS]

So, in 2017 we had the virtual 'gate' as a reference. Now we have "from the direction of their own goal line".

I recall that 'coming in from the side' being applied at a tackle in the 2018 World 7s. I wasn't sure if the 2018 trials were in force.

With the new season under way have y'all given this much thought? Any instructions from your societies?

As a coach I'm going to stick to 'behind the ball' until I get a sense of what the parameters are. Didds, any thoughts?

Well, in a strictly technical sense, the range of directions encompassing "the direction of your own goal line" gets wider the closer you are to it, and narrower the further you are from it. I regard "the direction of your own goal line" to be the direction toward the nearest part of your own goal-line, i.e. directly behind the ball. I sure that is what the writers meant even if they didn't write it that way.

 

[ChrisR]

Well, in a strictly technical sense, the range of directions encompassing "the direction of your own goal line" gets wider the closer you are to it, and narrower the further you are from it. I regard "the direction of your own goal line" to be the direction toward the nearest part of your own goal-line, i.e. directly behind the ball. I sure that is what the writers meant even if they didn't write it that way.

If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

I've seen players who have come in at around a 45° angle being PK for side entry. Under what I said in my previous post, that would be PK, but under "own side of the ball", that would be legal.

And that is at a few levels of the game too; Saturday morning at the local park, in Mitre 10 Cup, and Super Rugby.

 

[crossref]

For me the impact of the change is to relax the Law a little bit .. is a slightly wider angle of approach is now allowed.

Ieg f you allowed 30deg before you might allow 45 Deg now ..

 

[ChrisR]

Ian, your observations are what I had anticipated. That the only real change in the trials, and now in law, is to prohibit the tackler from going for the ball from the opponent's side.

I think everyone accepted the concept of a 'gate' ("directly behind the tackled player") and the meaning of "behind the ball" as a means of keeping order at the tackle. To allow side entry is an invitation for more chaos.

 

[SimonSmith]

I've written to my "boss" at USA R asking for formal guidance.

 

[didds]

If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

As to why change the wording... i'll put it down to getting so focused with "simplifying" the laws that sense whent out of the window - or there were a lot of abse presumptions being made

didds

 

[didds]

For me the impact of the change is to relax the Law a little bit .. is a slightly wider angle of approach is now allowed.

Ieg f you allowed 30deg before you might allow 45 Deg now ..

You've more faith than I CR

I don't see why they would decide to do that at all.

I just think its another cock up/poorly worded and proofed law re-rewrite.

"There are no changes" yadda yadda

It's tedious innit?

didds

 

[Zebra1922]

I don't believe there is any material change, so we referee the tackle as we have always done.

Yes the new wording makes no reference to "behind the tackler", but this never mentioned a mythical gate, and behind could be in any direction depending on how the tackler lay (behind is relative the the tackler not any other part of the pitch). We previously would not have allowed aside entry or entry from the opposite side, we don't allow it now.

There will always be wording amendments, but if the guidance is nothing has changed, we should stop looking for problems and new interpretations. Yes there may be errors, report them to WR, but this should not change the fundamentals of how we have always refereed the game (subject to aforementioned WR "clarifications"!)

 

[crossref]

The old Law said DIRECTLY behind the tackle.
The omission of that particular word is, I think, significant

While we can referee to the Law as it was in 2017, the legendary novice ref, whom we worry about so much , won't be aware of what the old Law was, and he or she is entitled to ref to the current Law

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't believe there is any material change, so we referee the tackle as we have always done.

Yes the new wording makes no reference to "behind the tackler", but this never mentioned a mythical gate, and behind could be in any direction depending on how the tackler lay (behind is relative the the tackler not any other part of the pitch). We previously would not have allowed aside entry or entry from the opposite side, we don't allow it now.

There will always be wording amendments, but if the guidance is nothing has changed, we should stop looking for problems and new interpretations. Yes there may be errors, report them to WR, but this should not change the fundamentals of how we have always refereed the game (subject to aforementioned WR "clarifications"!)

This!

To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade - Rector, St Alban's Episcopal Church (who was talking about The Bible)

"The Rugby Law Book is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say"

 

[crossref]

To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade - Rector, St Alban's Episcopal Church (who was talking about The Bible)

"The Rugby Law Book is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say"

Very wise words.
The 2018 Law Book has problems but generally speaking is very clear .

But the words can be tortured to resemble the 2017 book

 

[OB..]

Very wise words.
The 2018 Law Book has problems but generally speaking is very clear .

But the words can be tortured to resemble the 2017 book

At this evening's referees' meeting we were advised that there have been NO LAW CHANGES.

 

[crossref]

did you ask about any of the differences?

 

[Ian_Cook]

At this evening's referees' meeting we were advised that there have been NO LAW CHANGES.

IMO this goes to what I have always considered about the Laws of the Game. You cannot just pick up a Law book, read it and then go out and referee a game of rugby, and nor should you be able to. It requires guidance, that's why we have Societies/Associations with education officers, training and assessment.

When I first started refereeing, I was lucky in one respect in that our Law books had additional "pink pages" after every Law. Those pages were explanatory notes that described in plain English what the preceding Laws actually meant and how they were to be applied. Its a shame this idea was never carried on.

 

[didds]

When I first started refereeing, I was lucky in one respect in that our Law books had additional "pink pages" after every Law. Those pages were explanatory notes that described in plain English what the preceding Laws actually meant and how they were to be applied. Its a shame this idea was never carried on.

Maybe that's an indication of how the lawbook can't really be "simplified" ? maybe the actual requirement is not a simplification but in fact an extension of provision? Notwithstanding a review to tidy up all the areas that this forum has flagged (before the 2018 re-write)

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I think it would be an excellent idea to have a book of laws and a book of application guidelines, including law clarifications and conventions around the relevant laws.