Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

[Dickie E]

Thanks for your efforts with this, CR. I have shared with our local laws wallah.

 

[crossref]

Thanks for your efforts with this, CR. I have shared with our local laws wallah.

Be careful with that! .. discovering the table can be quite unsettling for people ..there is a reason why "hug the messenger" isn't an expression. :biggrin:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Perhaps one resason for people not noticing your "changes" is that many purely reflect practice and the simplification, in part, is recognising referee practice (that is what the law had already evolved into) than what was written.

To explain.

The hand off was , in "written" law, illegal untill a few short years ago. However in practive it has be allowed for ever. the law makers changed the book to reflect the truth that player were allowed to hand off despite the law book stating that it was an illegal act.


The Tap "tackle" is a tackle with no attempt to bind. Again this is expressly prohibited in "written" law. But we donnot ping it. One day the law makers may recognise that reality and amend the wording. However the la in practice will not "change".

 

[crossref]

I am confused by your examples

..The hand off was introduced pre 2017 (2015 wasn't it?) , it wasn't a 2017 / 18 change

Tap tackles, also no 2017/18 change , and not in my table

You have trashed two straw men.
There are plenty of actual 2017/18 changes .. they are in the table

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I, merely, pointed out that changes to the wording of the laws were made to reflect current law practice are not changes to law per se.

The two example I give one was a change to the wording after over 100 years of hand offs being allowed in pracetice despite what the book says. THe book finally caught up with reality. On the question of the tip tackle it still has not done so. One day, no doubt the wording will be amended to reflect reality. It will not me any law has changed.


But I'm sure you really know all this already. It just does not fit your agenda.

 

[crossref]

Well, Marc my agenda was simply to document the unexpected Law changes, in order to

1 help WR to identify any unintended mistakes and correct them (that has been acheived, evidently there was just two, I was thanked by one of the authors for the useful input )

2 to bring the other, IE deliberate , changes to people's attention so we can all ref to the current Laws , not the old ones

I stand by that as a positive, constructive and useful agenda


What's your agenda?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The hand off was , in "written" law, illegal untill a few short years ago. However in practive it has be allowed for ever.

The hand off has been allowed forever? That is an absolute and an absolutely long time.

The two example I give one was a change to the wording after over 100 years of hand offs being allowed in pracetice despite what the book says.

How do you know the hand off is greater than 100 years old? When was the first hand off? We kind of have an idea of the first handling of the ball. When was is not considered a breach of etiquette to hand off an opponent?

I started rugby in 83, and we did hand off. But in USA we called it a stiff arm. Then again we were all pretty tough, robust, and gifted individuals having previously played high school football.

Perhaps one resason for people not noticing your "changes" is that many purely reflect practice and the simplification, in part, is recognising referee practice (that is what the law had already evolved into) than what was written.

This is called tacit approval. It is kind of humourous in regard to rugby laws. Not so humourous with real laws.

I, merely, pointed out that changes to the wording of the laws were made to reflect current law practice are not changes to law per se.

This is called acknowledgment of that approval

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Oh dear me.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well, Marc my agenda was simply to document the unexpected Law changes, in order to

1 help WR to identify any unintended mistakes and correct them (that has been acheived, evidently there was just two, I was thanked by one of the authors for the useful input )

2 to bring the other, IE deliberate , changes to people's attention so we can all ref to the current Laws , not the old ones

I stand by that as a positive, constructive and useful agenda


What's your agenda?

Rule 1: There are no changes.

Rule 2: there are a number of alterations to wording to take into account referee practice.

Rule 3: If you find a "deliberate" change refer to Rule 1

Rule 4: If you find an "unintended" change refer to Rule 1

My agenda is to referee games of rugby according to the laws taking account of WR and WRU directives and guidlines.

 

[Dickie E]

Rule 1: There are no changes.

Rule 2: there are a number of alterations to wording to take into account referee practice.

Rule 3: If you find a "deliberate" change refer to Rule 1

Rule 4: If you find an "unintended" change refer to Rule 1

My agenda is to referee games of rugby according to the laws taking account of WR and WRU directives and guidlines.

So you will continue to referee to 2017 laws? Good luck with that. And to the referees who follow you next Saturday.

Anyway, let's test this:

Scenario: Blue kick a Garryowen penalty. Red player catches ball, maul forms immediately. Maul becomes unplayable & ends unsuccessfully. Who gets the scrum feed?

A: In 2017, Red would clearly have got the scrum feed. In 2019, Blue clearly gets the scrum feed.

Given your Rule 1, what would you give?

Here's another one:

You award a PK to Blue after time has expired. In an effort to gain ground Blue kick for the corner, however ball bounces before going into touch.

In 2017, this would have been a lineout to Blue. In 2019, it is half over.

What are you going to give next Saturday?

 

[crossref]

... ..

 

[menace]

So you will continue to referee to 2017 laws? Good luck with that. And to the referees who follow you next Saturday.

Anyway, let's test this:

Scenario: Blue kick a Garryowen penalty. Red player catches ball, maul forms immediately. Maul becomes unplayable & ends unsuccessfully. Who gets the scrum feed?

A: In 2017, Red would clearly have got the scrum feed. In 2019, Blue clearly gets the scrum feed.

Given your Rule 1, what would you give?

Here's another one:

You award a PK to Blue after time has expired. In an effort to gain ground Blue kick for the corner, however ball bounces before going into touch.

In 2017, this would have been a lineout to Blue. In 2019, it is half over.

What are you going to give next Saturday?

But Dickie you're presuming with your interpretation that in 2019 laws Blue would get feed. I disagree...i believe the PK was not taken in open play..so I interpret red would still getbthe feed in 2019 like 2017 laws (yes Ive read that other thread that this was discussed...and I think the key wording of a unplayable maul from a kick in open play...is that the kick is in open play...not the catch.).
So in my opinion (which isnt worth much :wink::wink::wink like a Saturday in 2017, red will get the put in in 2019!

 

[crossref]

Menace if you believe a PK was not in open play (I agree ) then blue get the put in. 2019 Laws

 

[menace]

Menace if you believe a PK was not in open play (I agree ) then blue get the put in. 2019 Laws

Thanks...I better go review that one more carefully before our pre season kicks off!

Edit: yep..got myself confused...thanks for correcting me. Sorry Dickie. I dont have my 2017 book on the beach holiday with me...but I didnt think it changed so I was really aiming that the ruling in 2019 would be the same as 2017! Ie i had in my head if it's an unsuccessful catch from an open play kick then ball feed stays with catcher.

 

[Dickie E]

menace, I've had confirmation from ARU ref hierarchy in Sydney that kicker gets the feed from a PK. Maybe check with the ACT folk.

 

[menace]

menace, I've had confirmation from ARU ref hierarchy in Sydney that kicker gets the feed from a PK. Maybe check with the ACT folk.

Jamie McG??

Ta. I believe you.
ACT would be taking direction from them anyway.

But that's what I would expect it to be...because it's not a kick from Open play it would like any other unplayable maul. (Gee I know ive contradicted myself from earlier...when I confused myself not thinking about this carefully enough :redface

 

[Dickie E]

Jamie McG??

that's the one

 

[crossref]

Jamie McG??

Ta. I believe you.
ACT would be taking direction from them anyway.

But that's what I would expect it to be...because it's not a kick from Open play it would like any other unplayable maul. (Gee I know ive contradicted myself from earlier...when I confused myself not thinking about this carefully enough :redface

In 2017 PK led to the same result as kicks in open play

In 2018 and 2019 PK leads to a different result from kicks in open play

 

[Marc Wakeham]

But Dickie you're presuming with your interpretation that in 2019 laws Blue would get feed. I disagree...i believe the PK was not taken in open play..so I interpret red would still getbthe feed in 2019 like 2017 laws (yes Ive read that other thread that this was discussed...and I think the key wording of a unplayable maul from a kick in open play...is that the kick is in open play...not the catch.).
So in my opinion (which isnt worth much :wink::wink::wink like a Saturday in 2017, red will get the put in in 2019!

There were no changes in the 2018 book. So I'm not too sure what your reference to 2019 has to do with that issue.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm out of this discussion. I'll leave angels and pinheads to the trainspotters.