[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
zackly
|
Sat, 16 February 08 14:23 GMT
|
Help ! This Topic has been highjacked by a prolonged and positively exotic discussion of How the Laws Are Formed.
Can we get back to Bridging & Sealing please ?
Specifically, how to deal with players diving onto body-heaps - sometimes penalised on TV for "killing the ball" & sometimes not ?
If it's now permissible I'd like to allow it in its approved form for down-in-the-weeds games (Think "below Level 12")
This message edited on Sat, 16 February 08 by zackly
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 16 February 08 01:33 GMT
|
HighsideUK - "Yes and my point is that even if the perception is that the game is improved by all this micro-management - this is a fallacy. They judge that the turnover law is not what they want to happen in rucks so they keep it for mauls but not for rucks. It is simply wrong to even consider doing this."
Where on earth to you get that assertion from? Players have been coping with this for 13 years. I have no idea what criteria you are using to judge these matters, but you must start with the game and not the laws.
Over the years the laws are changed because the changes are intended to improve things in one way of another. Every now and then the collection of small changes needs tidying up, so there is a complete re-write. The last one was in 2000.
There is an inherent difference between rucks and mauls. In a ruck the ball is on the ground, and is not held. At one time the All Blacks used to drive the ruck forward, but eventually other countries realised how to combat this. Today a ruck is basically stationary.
A maul is essentially dynamic and can move because a player is holding the ball off the ground. That is not an esoteric difference - it is a crucial, practical one.
As to the history of the laws, there is not an awful lot. A couple of Presidents of the RFU have done their bit - Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Royds up to 1949, and Cyril Gadney from then up to 1973. The only place I have seen these has been in the Reference Library at Twickenham (free access, but you have to apply in advance). They also have an almost complete set of law books, and minutes of RFU committee meetings.
There is an excellent article by Jim Crowe in the centenary booklet for the London Referees Society, and I have found a copy on the web at http://www.hkrefs.com/Pages/Features-LawsEvolution.htm
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 15 February 08 22:36 GMT
|
Whistleblower:
"You now have evidence that the game's legislators are (even!) worse than parliamentary draftsmen"
Haha!
But I'll tell you this. My 'other' hobby is motorcycling. Did you know the law for minimum tread depth for motorcycles is different from cars/lorries/vans etc.? Its still 1 mm and no bald patches. In the 1990s (I think) parliament tightened everything else up to 1.6 mm right across the tyre. But guess what? The draughtsmen had a bad day at the office and forgot to include 'Motorcycles' in the list of vehicles affected!
But why the flippin' heck can't the IRB just put back in the line they accidentaly left out ? Its not like anyone would argue!!!!
(not even me)
This message edited on Fri, 15 February 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 15 February 08 22:23 GMT
|
ob:
"Whether you agree or not, you cannot deny that it is been tried and judged"
Yes and my point is that even if the perception is that the game is improved by all ths micro-management - this is a fallacy. They judge that the turnover law is not what they want to happen in rucks so they keep it for mauls but not for rucks. It is simply wrong to even consider doing this. Even if the game can work with the added complication you are just adding another straw that will eventually break the camels back (Just one more waffer thin law Mr. Creosote?).
Not enough weight in the argument is given to the fact that the laws are already too complicated.
It leads to esoteric assertions such as your
"Another important difference between rucks and mauls is that the latter are not allowed to remain stationary (for long)"
Just step back a minute. This says that the law is that it is OK to hold a ball in a stationary ruck for a long time but not a maul. I agree that is what the laws say but this is not how we play. No ref will let you hold the ball in a stationary ruck for very long - it's just time wasting. Or of the ball is burried then its just deemed unplayable. Actually the two are refereed very similarly, if the ball looks like its not coming the whistle goes. Really there is some common sense here that we are all using and this is what should be put into Law.
You can drive a maul twice. Well would it hurt to say you can drive a ruck twice too? Nobody does "driving rucks" do they? Oh hang on that's what a scrum is! If two goes is good enough for a maul then it should be OK for a scrum or a ruck too. You don't have to make everything a special case!
This is a perfect example where the laws create confusion and argument to no useful end. Its only "important" because it is in the law book. If there was no difference things would be better.
I find the history of the laws fascinating and a while ago tried to find some details of how they have evolved or old law books. Unfortunately the history does not seem to be on the internet and once Google failed me I was stumped!
And why does a 22 drop-out have to be different from a restart (apart from where it is taken from)?
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 15 February 08 20:12 GMT
|
Highside, I have considerable sympathy with your heartfelt plea for a simpler set of laws. However, we refs have to work with what is in front of us.
As regards the scrum offside law, the iRB's revision of 2005(?) removed the previously explicit statement that the offside line remained the goal-line when the scrum was driven over that line. The Aussies spotted that it had gone, and asked the iRB's laws committee whether the apparently fundamental revision was intentional.
It turned out that it wasn't - the legislators just had a bad day at the office. The offside line is intended to be the goal line, in spite of what it says in the (extremely badly drafted) laws.
You now have evidence that the game's legislators are (even!) worse than parliamentary draftsmen! ;-)
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 15 February 08 11:04 GMT
|
HighsideUK - a little more history.
In 1992 the IRB introduced the turnover law, and it applied to both rucks and mauls. In 1994 they decided it was a bad idea in rucks so they rescinded it.
Whether you agree or not, you cannot deny that it is been tried and judged.
Another important difference between rucks and mauls is that the latter are not allowed to remain stationary (for long).
Repetition in the written laws actually simplifies their understanding, and does not complicate the game.
You keep asking why it would not work, ignoring the fact that in pretty well every case you mention, it has been tried in the past.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 15 February 08 09:27 GMT
|
ob:
Yes, I know, you are probably right again.
Along with the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence, a similar and common sentiment is that things would always be better if they were done differently (or better still if done my way).
But to just narrow things down a bit again, on the subject of loose scrums. What were (are) the differences between Rucks and Mauls that made it so essential to call them different animals? You can't handle a ball on the ground but what else? I know that currently there are slightly different laws about unsuccessful ends to Rucks and Mauls but any benefit they bring is outweighed by the complication they entail.
The whole point is that there should only be one set of laws for a loose scrum and if you start making loads of exceptions then you've got it wrong.
Why whould this not work?
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 15 February 08 02:05 GMT
|
HighsideUK - you suggest merging laws 16 & 17. A little history.
Before 1905, loose scrums (now called rucks) and set scrums were not distinguished. Thereafter they were both covered in the same law for many years. This meant stating various exceptions, and eventually it was decided it was simpler to have separate laws. Similarly the maul was given its own law in 1967. It is actually easier to understand a law devoted solely to the ruck if you don't have to circumvent all the bits that apply only to mauls. Making the laws shorter does not in itself make them simpler or easier to understand.
"And why are the Laws around Scrums so complicated?"
The scrum law has grown over the years as the law-makers found it necessary. The laws were re-written completely in 2000, so the current law keeps the bits that were thought essential only 8 years ago.
"Why do we want backs 20m apart at Lineouts but not at Scrums? And why not at Rucks and Mauls too then? 10m back at the Lineout, the 15m rule. All of that could just go in the bin and the game would still work."
There was a time when these did not exist. They were introduced, and then kept, because it was felt the game worked better that way. I agree - and I started playing before they were brought in..
I could make similar points for all your other examples. It is not easy to re-write the laws without changing the game. Just try it and see.
"If it were reffed correctly the players/coaches would learn it. Thats how they all learn the rules. Almost nobody reads the book! So in this case it is not the legislators' fault (do we call them that?) but the referees'."
Sadly it is only too true that players do NOT learn the laws from the referees. If they did, they would not keep committing the same offences and then plead ignorance. Don't forget that they see each individual referee only occasionally. The person they see regularly is the coach. It is HIS job to make sure his players know the laws.
Law 59 in the 1871 Laws: "The captains of the respective sides shall be the sole arbiters of all disputes."
It was tried. It didn't work.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Thu, 14 February 08 20:57 GMT
|
Law 13: Well, they seem to intend that their detailed description of a "Kick Off" should also go for a "Restart". But yes - strictly speaking its not covered is it?
Law 20 and the pushover try. Well, the players (and several refs I expect) are getting confused and applying the Ruck and Maul offside law (offside line is the goal line) to the Scrum(offside line is the back foot regardless of the goal line). If it were reffed correctly the players/coaches would learn it. Thats how they all learn the rules. Almost nobody reads the book! So in this case it is not the legislators' fault (do we call them that?) but the referees'.
But the Laws are an awful mess aren't they? Even now they are tinkering to try to simplify but it would be much easier if they took a step back and just slimmed everything down. I'll give you an example.
There are two completely separate sections in the Law book for Rucks and Mauls. Nearly all the laws are common to both (back foot, no collapsing etc. etc.). You could lose a whole section and not change the game at all if you just called it something else (say a "Huddle") and had one set of laws for this Huddle. To keep the character of the old ruck you just need one simple law to say that once the ball is on the floor in a Huddle nobody in the Huddle can handle it.
And all the extra rules about unplayable ball in a maul being formed straight from a clean catch and all that - well keep them if you must and apply them to the huddle - but any benefit they give is more than outweighed by the fact that nobody much remembers them.
And why are the Laws around Scrums so complicated? A Scrum is just a 'staged' huddle. There need to be a few Laws dictating how it is set up an how the ball is put in and then the standard huddle rules should apply (ball on floor).
It would make it all so much simpler and you would not get the situation you describe above where we've got three offside rules lines to pick from (Ruck/Maul/Scrum)and pick the ones we are used to rather than the right one.
Why do we want backs 20m apart at Lineouts but not at Scrums? And why not at Rucks and Mauls too then? 10m back at the Lineout, the 15m rule. All of that could just go in the bin and the game would still work.
Oh I could rant on and on about this.
Why are the laws for a 22 drop out different from (but similar to) a kick off? Why can't we have one set of laws for a drop-out and say kickoffs and restarts are a dropout on the half way? Fiddling around with two types is just messy.
And all the complication around offside after a kick and being onside after he's run 5m but not if you are within 10m of the catcher and all that guff. Its all too hard to keep track of and think about on the spur of the moment. It catches international players and referees out all the time so what chance do pub players stand? If anyone in front of the kicker was offside until put onside by the kicker or another onside player that would do. That's all you need. How would the game collapse or even change significantly?
If the rules really were pared down do you think the game would suddenly be more one dimensional and boring? I think not. What we know as Scrums/Rucks/Mauls/Lineouts would still happen but it would just be easier to legislate/play/referee AND spectate!
You might even get to the situation where it is possible to have an knock-about informal game of Rugby Union (not just Tag or League) without a needing referee at all. Wouldn't that be great? I can't think of a single popular game (other than Rugby Union) that you just can't really play without a referee. Not really.
This message edited on Thu, 14 February 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Thu, 14 February 08 09:40 GMT
|
Highside, I've rarely seen a more gracious end to a discussion. I'm deeply impressed.
You write: <<But I don't think the IRB would be flattered by your dismissal of their efforts in drawing up the Laws. I have no reason to suspect that they are less competent or thorough than Parliamentary draughtsmen>>
Have a look at law 13, and see if you can find out where either side should stand at a restart kick after a try has been scored, what happens if they don't stand there, and what happens if the ball doesn't travel 10m at such a kick.
Equally, have a look at law 20.12, and try to find out where the defending backs should stand when the scrum has been driven almost, but not quite entirely, over the goal line.
The first is not even addressed in Law, the second would give you a very different answer than you'd expect - and a different one from that which is universally played.
If you don't owna paper copy of the laws, they can be downloaded here:
http://tinyurl.com/32ecfj
This message edited on Thu, 14 February 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 14 February 08 01:14 GMT
|
HighsideUK - I'm glad we now agree, very gracious.
I am well aware that many referees allow it: I am an adviser rather than a referee (albeit at the bottom level).
There are a lot of lawyers involved in rugby. The original 1871 were drafted by a lawyer. However the laws have always been aimed at ordinary people.
Many years ago I did a law degree, and the language used in statutes is quite different. Fro example, look at the definitions in Law 19 and check how they are used (or not used) in the body of that law. It is a real mess. A statute would have had better definitions, and would have used each in its proper context, however long-winded that made it.
It is well knows to lawyers that you cannot write statutes in everyday language - that was tried in the Larceny Act 1916, and it filled the courts with arguments over its meaning.
But now I am drifting off topic. Sorry.
This message edited on Thu, 14 February 08 by ob
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Wed, 13 February 08 22:35 GMT
|
ob:
OK, I am going to concede.
I think that you are right.
I think there is enough in the the laws to make
a) bridging before the opponent arrives and
b) binding on to someone at the bottom of a ruck
illegal.
Now I have to go and pick an argument (er.. I mean tactfully raise the issue) with all the referees that allow it!
But I don't think the IRB would be flattered by your dismissal of their efforts in drawing up the Laws. I have no reason to suspect that they are less competent or thorough than Parliamentary draughtsmen.
You have won me over by quoting the laws - not by convincing me that they are wrong or fuzzy.
You are right. I am not a referee. Well. Not a "proper" one. I did ref a game once and it filled me with admiration for them (you). But careful. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For 80 minutes or so you are all Judge Dredd ( I AM the Law!) and quite right too. But at any other time you must prepared and able to justify your decisions with more than just arm waving and opinion.
But you are right and I was wrong. Well done.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 13 February 08 18:28 GMT
|
HighsideUK - "Referees are supposed to learn and apply Laws, not make them up."
That suggests to me that you may not be a referee. The laws were not written by parliamentary draughtsmen, and are often imprecise. Referees are expected to know the laws, and make sense of them. There are many grey areas where referees disagree over interpretation.
"Nowhere do the laws say 'a player on the floor is out of the game'."
Law 14 preamble includes: "The game is to be played by players who are on their feet." There is argument as to how general this is meant to be but the IRB has recently endorsed it as a general principle. It is certainly true that a tackled player is expected to try to get up or at least get away from the ball.
Grasping a player on the ground after a ruck has formed is not what is generally understood as "bridging". That involves getting into an illegal position to protect the ball before an opponent arrives.
I still regard your example as illegal, but it is a different point.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Wed, 13 February 08 14:11 GMT
|
ob:
"You are forcing him to be part of the game."
No this one does not stand up either.
Nowhere do the laws say "a player on the floor is out of the game".
What the laws do is list things that a player must and must not do when he is on the floor. These are commonly summarised as "off your feet is out of the game" but this soundbite is not the law.
Laws 15.6 and 15.7 are also very clear and detailed about what you cannot do to a player on the floor. The only one that has any bearing here is whether I am preventing my team mate gatting up or rolling away.
I must admit that this does bother me. But as I say, since players at the bottom of rucks often stay there until the ball has gone - it is churlish to penalise someone who binds on to a prone player. The act of forming any sort of ruck is a real impedement to anyone getting up or rolling away and nobody wants an 'ordinary' ruck penalised!
I think this is the reason we see so much bridging on the telly. Earlier in the thread there was much hand-wringing over double standards - but I think its just that the better referees and players are interpreting the Laws better.
We should all just relax and copy them (but safely with heads up) unless the laws are changed.
If the IRB wanted to ban it then it would be dead simple. Since they have not I conclude they do not want it banned.
Referees are supposed to learn and apply Laws, not make them up.
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Wed, 13 February 08 13:09 GMT
|
I suppose then my question should have been,"why has it taken so long"....because we are happy to have an extremely complex game,where the Laws(Laws not Rules)can be ignored if it speeds up the game...regardless of how much confusion it creates......
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 13 February 08 13:07 GMT
|
HighsideUK - the original bridging problem occurred before an opponent arrived, as I explained. You now seem to be talking about grabbing the tackled player on the ground after a ruck has formed.
A player on the ground is out of the game. If he cannot get up, he is expected to make a reasonable effort not to interfere with play. You are forcing him to be part of the game.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 13 February 08 07:47 GMT
|
>a)why has the allowance,to allow handling in the ruck after the ball has been clearly won,never been encoded?Its been around for years.
It may well be soon. The ELV that introduces an offside at the tackle makes it clear that anyone who is onside at the tackle may play the ball anyway they like as long as they stay on their feet. "Hands in" will be entirely legal if this change is accepted.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
dr seoul
|
Wed, 13 February 08 00:00 GMT
|
ob,sorry for my delay because of time zone differences.
Just two points,
a)why has the allowance,to allow handling in the ruck after the ball has been clearly won,never been encoded?Its been around for years.
b)your logic is based upon the need for substantial refereeing lattitude because of the wide range of skill level throught the game,however instead of the lattitude being applied at the lower level,it's applied at the top....where surely the players have the skill to comply.Sentinels are a good example.They hardly exist at the lower levels,but are still evident at the upper level....where they could be stamped out easily...as could the constant feeding at the scrum,which is penalised in a pub game but ignored by professionals.
Making the pub game flow requires sensible application of the advantage law,however if advantage is applied to the offender we slip back to the early days of the Super 12.
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 12 February 08 22:09 GMT
|
ob:
Look. I don't want to seem too pig-headed over this.
What I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to tease out the whys and wherefores of all this. Several people seem to imply this is dead simple and cut and dried but I don't think it is.
So, bearing that in mind...
Law 10.4(f) is talking about "an opponent" while this is my team-mate. It also says "Except in a ruck" and this is clearly a ruck. So 10.4(f) actually specifically allows bridging.
I expect the Ref's Society had good reasons for forming their guidlines and I want to know what they are!
It would be so easy to make a law to make it illegal to bind on to (or remain bound to) a player off their feet. So if that is what the law makers intended, why didn't they just do it?
Your last point is an interesting one. If my mate is tackled and there is nobody else around yet (except the tackler) and my mate just lays there and I turn up and bind on and bridge and stand there waiting for the opposition to turn up and try to shift me then I can see that he has not rolled away when he clearly should have. Hooray! at last a Law that really has been broken. I agree, that would be illegal. It would also be dim - if nobody else is there, just pick up the ball!
But what about this scenario that is the far more common one: my mate is tackled and I arrive at the same time as an opponent,(or maybe the tacker gets up) and we lock horns over him. It is a very harsh ref that penalises any ball carrier that does not immediately remove himself from the tangle of our legs. So we are now rucking and I'm under my opponent and have won the ruck for now but then I grab hold of my mates shirt because I know that now I am much more stable and even if a second opponent arrives they are unlikely to shift me.
You seem to want this to be illegal but there is no law against it. And what is being done that is against the spirit of the game? I am on my feet. I am contesting posession as best as I can. I'm not endangering anyone as long as my head is up. I can't even see how in this secenario I am slowing the ball down - rather I am making it available to my team. Even if I were, slowing a the ball down legally is well.... legal.
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 12 February 08 19:30 GMT
|
HighsideUK
Law 10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
I think that covers your objection (a)..
I remember being at Society training sessions when the guidelines on bridging were explained. It was seen as dangerous, illegal, and slowing the game down. As such it needed to be discouraged. It consisted of leaning on the tackled player in such a way as to make it impossible for the opposition to get at the ball, without any attempt to pick up the ball.
Players therefore became more subtle: they would balance on their feet, but grab hold of the tackled player's shirt so as to prevent themselves being pushed away by the opponents. This was also declared to be illegal.
Why was it deemed illegal? Because it relied on the tackled player not rolling away.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 12 February 08 17:47 GMT
|
whistleblower
You are quoting the laws and then stating your opinions but few of your arguments join up.
You say it "...exposes the nape of the neck...". But this is only true if it is done incorrectly. So as long as I have my head up I'm OK - right?
a) "..playing a player wthout the ball.." Well that's daft. We bind/ lean and push on eachother all the time in rucks and mauls. And when I lift my lock am I playing a man without the ball then too? Law 10.4(e) is clearly not intended to cover this situation.
b) "..holding the player in..". As I said, nobody is "holding anyone in" unless they would otherwise be "getting out". Its Law 15.7(b) that says you must not prevent a tackled player from getting up, but as soon as any ruck forms the players in the ruck are making it damn awkward for the tackled player to get up. Why does 15.7(b) let me stand astride someone and effectively pin then down with my rear knee and yet not bridge with head up and bum down?
c) "...1gm of weight...." On the pitch you can ping what you like but in the bar and on the forums you should have a stronger argument than that! Of course I can bridge and be on my feet! I know often that's not what happens but that's just poor technique. In that case its just falling on a player - which is not the same as bridging.
On the subject of your house being at risk, I think that in trying to play it safe you are opening yourself up to a whole load of trouble. Lets suppose for a moment that bridging is not technically illegal and yet you have correctly identified it as dangerous and so are correct in banning it fom your games. Is it therefore the Ref's job to be omniscent and identify any other shortcoming in the laws? How long would you allow tackles to happen if your house depended on them being safe? Accidents happen but a ref is protected to large degree as long as he can claim to be enforcing laws and guidelines that are handed down by those he can legitimately expect to know better than he. So by establishing the precident that you should be expected to make up your own laws to keep the game safe you are on dangerous ground.
Of course none of that applies if bridging really is illegal. But you have not found me a single law that makes it so, much less three.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 12 February 08 15:15 GMT
|
Highside,
Sealing/bridging is undesirable because it exposes the nape of the neck to the full force of the opposition hit. The aim of the tactic is to prevent the third man at the breakdown from being driven off the ball by the fourth. In most cases, third man is an attacker, fourth is a defender, so the sealer/bridger is holding on either to his own team-mate or to the tackler. Refs are pre-disposed to ping the act for safety reasons (they expose themself to liability if they fail to exercise a duty of care to the players). What grounds do they ahve to ping the act?
a) Both tackled player and tackler must have released the ball. Therefore, neither of them can be considered a ball carrier. Third man is playing the prone player without the ball. Penalty: Law 10.4(e).
b) Tackler and tackled player are both required to release AND roll away from the tackle zone at once. He cannot do this if he is held in. Penalty against the player preventing this action
c) Arriving player must remain on his feet at the tackle zone. No ruck has yet formed. Law 15.6(a) Players are on their feet if no other part of their body
is supported by the ground or players on the ground. The ref is the sole judge of fact. If he judges that 1gm of weight is being borne by the arm of the sealing/bridging player, the offence is committed - PK.
So there are three separate acts contrary to law involved in sealing/parking/bridging. Feel free to argue with me about it in the bar afterwards, but be aware that your side will have suffered multiple PKs and YC for repeated infringements in the meantime. If you want me to change my view, you have to convince me that my house is not at risk when your player breaks his neck. I assure you, there is very little chance that you can do this.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Tue, 12 February 08 13:49 GMT
|
The contention that bridging is illegal seems to rely entirely on the claim that by getting hold of the tackled player's shirt you are preventing him from getting up.
I'm not convinced that this is a given.
Firstly, half the time he has no intention of getting up anyway (although I know he should) so you are preventing nothing.
Secondly, if he did start to get up you could always let go.
Thirdly, why can't he get up with you still holding on?
Fourthly, quite often the tackled player is pinned and so would not be getting up anyway.
If you want to get all pedantic then any time a tackled player does not get up or roll away straight away then somebody must have committed an offence. Either he has for not trying hard enough or somebody else has for preventing him doing it. but you can;t (and should not) blow up at every other tackle.
So I contend that bridging is legal.
As for dangerous - well, only if done badly - but then so is tackling if you put your head the wrong side. Better ban that too.
This message edited on Tue, 12 February 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Tue, 12 February 08 12:39 GMT
|
Completely disagree.
The laws say repeatedly that rugby is a game played on your feet but it has been decided that at the posh levels you can go off your feet intentionally and that is ignored. Actually it's encourage, because referees reward teams who effectively seal off the ball from the oppo, and punish the oppo by telling them not to compete. This is NOT interpretation, it is in direct contardiction to the laws as written. It is much more analogous to soccer allowing offside in Prem matches and not in park games.
Essentially I believe that the laws as played at lower levels will slowly change so that we all play this version. I think that's wrong for the game.
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 12 February 08 12:23 GMT
|
ealing bill - you failed to spot what I actually said: "In rugby we can have one set of laws, but we should expect the referees to apply them differently wherever the referee's judgement is needed."
I am also familiar with the sport of diving. The rules are the same at all levels, but the judges interpretation varies. They are much more generous at club level than in internationals. If they judged a club competition in the same way as the Olympics the marks would be discouragingly low and the grass roots of the sport would suffer.
Expecting park rugby players to be able to react like top international players is similarly unrealistic. As a rule of thumb, in the local park most infringements occur through incompetence and ignorance; at top level very little happens unintentionally.
|
|
|
[
FIRST
|
PREVIOUS
|
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
