WR Quiz - questionable ones #4

[crossref]

A team knocks on, loses possession and then the same team goes offside. The referee plays advantage for the offside but none materialises. What action should the referee take?
A Blow the whistle and act on the second infringement
B Blow the whistle and act on the first infringement
C Allow play to continue
D Apply the sanction to the offence which is most advantageous to the non-offending team

WR Answer - D But this is out of date. The Laws have changed since the quiz was compiled

Correct answer, as we all know, none of the above

[LAWS]The offending team commits a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained. The referee stops play and allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous sanction.[/LAWS]

ie offer options.



I think we have seen enough examples now to realise the the Quiz is NOT up to date with the current Law Book...

 

[Rich_NL]

That doesn't make the law book correct in every case; it could still be as unreliable or more so as the quiz.

Unless you feel that the law is all and only exactly what is written in the law book.

 

[crossref]

.

Unless you feel that the law is all and only exactly what is written in the law book.

Well, isn't that definition of a Law Book ?

Of course the Law Book could have a typo or similar that accidents changes the meaning. In 2019 they corrected a couple introduced in the rewrite. But barring that scenario the Law is what is in the Law Book

Generally speaking we could distinguish two cases

1 Oh, that Law dates from 1968 and things have moved on since then , so we ignore it

2 Oh , that Law dates from last year and appears to change the way we have always reffed it, so we ignore it

1 is understandable (if confusing for everyone)

2 is just baffling. How can WR ever change a Law when so many people take this approach

 

[OB..]

[...]

Unless you feel that the law is all and only exactly what is written in the law book.

Well, isn't that definition of a Law Book ?

In the past the law book has never been sufficient in itself. Until fairly recently the hand-off was technically illegal, but nobody ever penalised it. Currently nobody penalises a crooked fed at a scrum even though most are technically crooked.

The lawmakers try to plug gaps from time to time, but often they simply rely on players and referees to have an unspoken agreement about some aspects. The game continues to evolve and the law can only play catch-up.

 

[crossref]

So what's the correct answer to this quiz question?

Are you saying that its impossible to know, because the "true" Law is not written down in the Law Book, it can only be known by consulting the respected gurus of what constitutes convention and common practice ?

Or more straightforwardly is the correct answer what it say in 5.2.d?

[LAWS]The offending team commits a second or subsequent infringement from which no advantage can be gained. The referee stops play and allows the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous sanction [/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

Or more straightforwardly is the correct answer what it say in 5.2.d?

Yes, but noting that if the offside is close to the knock on, I'm not going to bother offering the scrum option. So D could also be correct.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

. Until fairly recently the hand-off was technically illegal, but nobody ever penalised it. Currently nobody penalises a crooked fed at a scrum even though most are technically crooked.
.

I have, in the past, PK'd a hand-off to neck or face. I PK crooked feeds. Am I a nobody?

The lawmakers try to plug gaps from time to time, but often they simply rely on players and referees to have an unspoken agreement about some aspects. .

but often acquiesce to players and referees

The game continues to evolve and the law can only play catch-up.

The game evolves when rugby laws are not enforced, I would expect the same with any real law. It is human. We can't expect humans to enforce rugby law. Rugby law is subject to opinions and, well, subjectivity.

 

[OB..]

I have, in the past, PK'd a hand-off to neck or face.

That would come under dangerous play. Technically any kind of hand-off was illegal because it was playing a player who did not have the ball.

I PK crooked feeds. Am I a nobody?

I see a lot of different referees plus professional rugby on television. You must be the odd man out.

The game evolves when rugby laws are not enforced

Sometimes. However it also evolves when coaches and players devise new tactics etc not covered by existing law.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

However it also evolves when coaches and players devise new tactics etc not covered by existing law.

That is the good kind of evolution. New tactics are met with counter tactics and so on. That from coaches and players should be applauded not legislated.

 

[crossref]

Convention changes in the way you describe.

The Law changes when World Rugby write a new Law in the Law Book


What's the correct answer to the Quiz question?

 

[Dickie E]

Convention changes in the way you describe.

The Law changes when World Rugby write a new Law in the Law Book


What's the correct answer to the Quiz question?

I think it is clear that the quiz is out of date. You're over egging this pudding

 

[crossref]

I think it is clear that the quiz is out of date. You're over egging this pudding

The reason I am persisting is to try and nail down OB's suggestion that the Law is something different from what it written in the Law Book.

OB is implying that if - right now in 2019 - the majority of referees are ignoring 5.2.d and continuing to apply the old Law, then this would mean, by convention, that the Law Book is 'wrong' and in fact the Quiz gives the 'true' law answer.


Hence trying to get OB to answer the quiz question

 

[OB..]

The reason I am persisting is to try and nail down OB's suggestion that the Law is something different from what it written in the Law Book.

My position is that the game is played according to both law and custom, and sometimes custom prevails over law.

The modern position on multiple offences is that the referee usually offers the other team the choice.

 

[Rich_NL]

Well, isn't that definition of a Law Book ?

Of course the Law Book could have a typo or similar that accidents changes the meaning.

Or the definition of what a Law book should be. There are similar arguments in the legal world between legal literalists and those who believe a Law has an intention that may or may not be captured in words, especially in Constitution law. And then there is case law, the practical implementation of the written word.

For example, is "second or subsequent" in the law meant to include simultaneous offences, or intended to mean "chronologically second, third, fourth, etc"? The first group say the former, the second the latter, case law seems to side with the latter.

Laws are generally composed by highly skilled professionals, debated and amended at great length by people who aggregate the concerns and interests of many parties, and then reviewed by a second, independent body. The scope for literalism is reasonably large.

We both know that the WR law book is not this. Certainly not since the rewrite. You're welcome to referee literally, but might not find it advantageous to the enjoyment of the game or the result of assessments.

In this example, you're correct. However, providing examples where the quiz is wrong does not prove the infallibility of the law book, which is in any case self-contradictory.

 

[Arabcheif]

@Rich_NL - What I've found is that some members take the definitions and seem to apply them generally, when you look at the definitions, you can click on them and the website indicates what Laws are applicable to that definition. I'm a bit weary of possibly applying a definition that was not intended to be relevant to the Law I'm quoting.

So a more common sense approach would be beneficial in these instances.

 

[crossref]

Common sense suggest there is a big difference between an old Law where convention has moved on (although there should be few of those post the rewrite) and rejecting brand new Laws because they change convention

 

[Rich_NL]

Common sense suggest there is a big difference between an old Law where convention has moved on (although there should be few of those post the rewrite) and rejecting brand new Laws because they change convention

I don't know anyone who blanket rejects the new law.

Common sense might suggest that a law that was introduced to formalise and clarify the situation in general play might not be fully thought-through and applicable to unusual cases, and people might stick to conventions there pending a clarification or case law from the top level.

 

[chbg]

I PK crooked feeds. Am I a nobody?

Not necessarily, but the correct penalty for a crooked feed (at least the first 2-3) is a FK.


epper:

 

[crossref]

I don't know anyone who blanket rejects the new law.

you haven't been reading the forum very closely ! "THERE ARE NO LAW CHANGES" comes to mind

 

[Rich_NL]

The ball rolling to a player already on the ground was always a grey area, and judged differently by different refs even at the very top level. That's what I mean by a formalisation - it's a clarification rather than a change (although they could have just issued a clarification).