The Gate is dead! Long live the Gate!

[OB..]

did you ask about any of the differences?

The meeting was focussing on the new observer reporting procedures. It would have been inappropriate to jump in at that point but I am following it up off-line.

 

[Dickie E]

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

and, of course, whatever the ball carrying team get, so too do the opposition. epper: Not.

 

[didds]

and, of course, whatever the ball carrying team get, so too do the opposition. epper: Not.

except dead on the half way line

The cl;oser to one's own try line, the wider the gate, the further from one's own, the narrower.

didds

 

[didds]

so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds

 

[ChrisR]

So . . . now Sir needs a protractor? Or will his smart watch be feeding him the calculation driven by the GPS function?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds

Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

 

[thepercy]

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.

Many different sports law/rule books have; explanations, application guides, clarifications, notes on refereeing, positioning guidelines for officials, and notes on specific/strange cases. All in one book or with an accompanying book. Why we can't/won't do this is baffling. Some Unions have attempted this, but I think it would be better if it was from WR.

 

[OB..]

so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds

I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

 

[ChrisR]

I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

. . . and both need to be calculated then summed to account for the location side ti side. I think. Or you could just . . .

 

[didds]

I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

ah yes - I was looking at the angle one could attack from any one side. But yes - double those angles to get the TOTAL angle available to any player indeed.

didds

 

[didds]

Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

err... yes. based on what I perceived was the general "concern" . As I also say above that's not the interpretation I take with my squad.

didds

 

[Jolly Roger]

My understanding is that nothing has changed.....yes I know......!
Therefore my interpretation of:

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

is that players must enter from the 6 o’clock position I.e.through the gate.

“But Sir, what if we come in from 5 or 7 o’clock”
“What if the tackled player is lying across the pitch rather than down the pitch”

Enter through the gate!
We all know what that means.
I don’t see an issue other than challenging the rewrite of the laws; which I agree has been less than helpful.

 

[crossref]

”

Enter through the gate!
We all know what that means.

The concept of the gate has always been hazy, it was never defined in the Laws.
The rewrite makes it completely clear that the gate concept is redundant.

They have to come from the direction of their own goal line. End of.

It must be so frustrating for the Law authors to find d people studiously ignoring their careful clarifications

 

[Phil E]

It must be so frustrating for the Law authors to find d people studiously ignoring their careful clarifications

Would that be the clarification that said "there are no changes in law"?


You can now say "I don't know what means" like a Pavlovian dog!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

didds? Serious?

You haven't been around here long have you?

 

[Balones]

This forum never ceases to amaze me. I never thought when I first joined that I would see TAN used in an answer. Over the years we have had very detailed expert knowledge used to support a point of view and to answer genuine questions on all sort of topics. Including legal matters, engineering and translations etc. From now on I’m going to use this forum instead of Google.��

 

[crossref]

Would that be the clarification that said "there are no changes in law"?

Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

 

[SimonSmith]

The official statement from USA R, FWIW:

[FONT=&quot]Apologies for the delay in response. I asked one of the WR law book editors. There is no change in application. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Probably a few missing words, like “may only play the ball”, and “from their goal line side of the tackle”.

[/FONT]

 

[Phil E]

Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

Au contraire

1. it confirms that there were no deliberate changes by the authors.

2. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

3. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

4. this statement is used to end debate/discussion which should never be discouraged. Debate/discussion that may prove beneficial and provide clarity.