'Walk Ten' option.

[Phil E]

. . and what is so ridiculous, Phil, about the idea of walking diagonally towards the post should the non-offending wish it? The wording, . . the ref . . advances the mark . . 10 m. appears to allow refs a little leeway to manage it that way.:hap:

1. Its not within the LOTG
2. You are not using the wording in the LOTG

Making up your own words, doesn't make it legal.

 

[chopper15]

1. Its not within the LOTG
2. You are not using the wording in the LOTG

Making up your own words, doesn't make it legal.

10.4 . . . and advances the mark for the penalty kick 10 metres. ?

'Advances', pacing ten any way on a plane but back, perhaps?

Just short of the 5m line it would extend the parameters of the walk and would, probably, be welcomed.

Would you personally welcome it, Phil?

 

[Phil E]

10.4 . . . and advances the mark for the penalty kick 10 metres. ?

'Advances', pacing ten any way on a plane but back, perhaps?

Try 21.7(d)

[LAWS]Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick.[/LAWS]

In front of, not off to one side, not diagonally away from, but in front of.

Now that I have made that point, I will not be entering into any further discussion on the subject.

 

[chopper15]

Try 21.7(d)

[LAWS]Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick.[/LAWS]

In front of, not off to one side, not diagonally away from, but in front of.

Now that I have made that point, I will not be entering into any further discussion on the subject.

Not convinced, Phil.

A player can be offside should he be 'in front of' the ball-carrier on the other side of the FoP. You're probably, which is understandable i admit, misconstruing 'in front of' for 'immediately in front of'.

So would you - or anyone - welcome a diagonal walk to the posts if refs agreed to interpret the law as I suggest?

 

[Robert Burns]

Chopper,

Your interpretation of advancing the penalty 10m in another direction but forwards is not how we referee it.

However, I, and I believe some other referees here, do actually like the idea (surprisingly one of your better ones) of being able to march a penalty further towards the middle of the posts than forward towards the goal line. I actually think giving the non offending side the choice would be fair too, "Would you like 10m forward or 10m inwards?" Perhaps only an option if the original penalty is within the opposing 22m.

 

[Simon Thomas]

We referee it by advancing the penalty in a parallel line to the touchline, not diagnonally.

To do otherwise has no justification in the Laws or accepted referee management technique.

The extra 10m walk, player / skipper ewarnings, and YC are all separate management sanctions that can be used in isolation or combinations.

 

[chopper15]

We referee it by advancing the penalty in a parallel line to the touchline, not diagnonally.

To do otherwise has no justification in the Laws or accepted referee management technique.

The extra 10m walk, player / skipper ewarnings, and YC are all separate management sanctions that can be used in isolation or combinations.

With respect, Simon, the LoG does not state the 'walk ten' must be parallel to the TL. neither does it state that it has to be 'immediately' in front of the mark, just 'in front of'.

This TL parallel walk is merely the refs' interpretation of those two laws.

I'm pretty sure if a poll was set up asking if the relevant laws should be reinterpreted to allow the walk ten be towards the posts it would be overwhelmingly be in favour of it.

 

[PaulDG]

With respect, Simon, the LoG does not state the 'walk ten' must be parallel to the TL. neither does it state that it has to be 'immediately' in front of the mark, just 'in front of'.

Once again chopper, you're expecting the Laws to be written like a formal engineering design specification.

We walk 10m parallel to the touch lines. That's what we do. That's how the game has been played for some time.

Yes, the Laws don't specify that, but the Laws are there to encapsulate the way the game is played, not the other way round.

 

[chopper15]

Once again chopper, you're expecting the Laws to be written like a formal engineering design specification.

We walk 10m parallel to the touch lines. That's what we do. That's how the game has been played for some time.

Yes, the Laws don't specify that, but the Laws are there to encapsulate the way the game is played, not the other way round.

I'm merely pointing out, Phil, that should there ever be agreement that a walk-ten to the posts be preferable to the parallel walk interpretation, then there would be no need to change the wording of the LoG.

Which would you prefer, the more accommodating diagonal or the more limiting parallel walk?

Would any 'insider' be a treasure and set up a poll to that end, please?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Chopper

I did not say that the LoTG state the walk must be parallel to touchline - please do NOT put words into my mouth !

It is the accepted protocol and has been for decades, and is refereed / coached / assessed as such across the world.

If I were to see a referee walk diagonally at Group level I (and the other 11 who make up the "Dirty Dozen" on South West Group), then I would educate him/her (as would the defensive team's coach) in the formal de-brief afterwards. I would expect the same at Federation and Society levels, at the ELRA and by the most in-experienced club referee.

Referees do not usually make up their own complete interpretations but apply the Law framework and their management experience, plus follow training, coaching, advice, guidelines and best practice, passed on at Society, Federation, Group and Panels levels from the RFU and ultimately the IRB

A poll on rugbyrefs.com may be interesting to see what referees think - and I disagree with you on the outcome. Maybe we will find out.
Any such poll of an unrepresentative sample of referees should not be used to propose law amendments - a whole national and international system is already established for just that task.

 

[Davet]

When "interpreting" the laws it is best to take the most obvious and simplest interpretation. It is possible to bend the words and meanings, but that doesn't mean that doing so is a good idea.

General advice to refs would be:

Keep it Simple.
Adopt Common Sense
Be aware of the Conventions that have been used within the game for many years.

And nobody likes a smart arse, so try to avoid being one.

You are there to enable a game, not to prove how subtle your Law interpretation is - you don't get marks for originality.

 

[OB..]

Not convinced, Phil.

I found the Law 21.7 reference totally convincing as it fits in precisely with what every referee does. "10 metres in front of the mark" is not measured sideways or diagonally.

But whether or not one likes your idea (I am not convinced) it is going nowhere.

 

[didds]

We walk 10m parallel to the touch lines. That's what we do. That's how the game has been played for some time.

Yes, the Laws don't specify that, but the Laws are there to encapsulate the way the game is played, not the other way round.

Indeed.

One of the 5 principles of play = GO FORWARD.

As a general rule of thumb, GO FORWARD = Towards The Opposition Try Line. Not "the Posts", not "The flag". It may use zigs and zags to be fair but generally speaking, give a player the ball and some space and where does he run? Straight forwards, parallel to the touchline. Mularkey to get under the posts happens in goal (or with so much space its immaterial by that time)

didds

 

[chopper15]

Chopper I did not say that the LoTG state the walk must be parallel to touchline - please do NOT put words into my mouth !.

I did not intend to cause you offence, Simon. Please read my first two sentences again. I simply mentioned what the LoG stated, in effect suggesting that there was leeway for reinterpretating the accepted parallel walk which you drew my attention to.

Thanks for the interesting info. Appreciated.

 

[Davet]

As a general rule of thumb, GO FORWARD = Towards The Opposition Try Line.

<pedant on>

That would be Goal Line, not Try Line. And anyway you mean Dead Ball Line.

<pedant off>

 

[PaulDG]

I simply mentioned what the LoG stated, in effect suggesting that there was leeway for reinterpretating the accepted parallel walk which you drew my attention to.

You are correct, chopper.

Should one of the unions at some point in the future raise a question about this and should the Designated Members decide, "hey, you know what, despite the fact the game hasn't been played that way in living memory and almost certainly forever, we could do that without even a change to the wording and it would be an improvement" then yes, it could happen.

I think the Sunday newspapers would have an amusing time and it would give the pundits something to fill some air time with too.

I suppose stranger things have happened - such as the "first man on his feet can keep his hands in" ruling which rather caught us by surprise and has certainly led to some faster breakdowns than before.

 

[DrSTU]

fftopic:

You would have loved the Monty Python sketch we managed to go through the other day.

U19 game being played on an American Football pitch, goal posts on dead ball line so I enquire as to where the goal line is, coach replies that the try line is where the goal line is, to which I reply "so, under the posts". To which he replies "no the goal line is the try line" to which I enquire "do you mean the goal line for the American football field?". To which he replies "yes, that goal line is the try line" to which I enquire, why the frig are you calling it the try line and not just keep calling it the goal line like it is supposed to be called, to which he replied' Oh, I didn't know that".

Then we moved onto the lines for in touch, oh you mean out of bounds...:shrug:

<pedant on>

That would be Goal Line, not Try Line. And anyway you mean Dead Ball Line.

<pedant off>

 

[didds]

<pedant on>

That would be Goal Line, not Try Line. And anyway you mean Dead Ball Line.

<pedant off>

Well... wrt "GO FORWARD" if a player ball in hand ran past the opposition goal line and to the dead ball line - whoops!

didds

 

[chopper15]

To ask what?

Chopper: USE YOUR WORDS.

'this', in your words, "I can advance it, but it wont be the full 10m as I can only go as far as the 5m line".

 

[Bryan]

'this', in your words, "I can advance it, but it wont be the full 10m as I can only go as far as the 5m line".

That's not a question!