PDA

View Full Version : Obliging ref?



chopper15
10-12-10, 01:12
An attacking player standing in touch tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP back to his wing.

Instead he accidentally knocks it forward in the air parallel to the TL and the ref. plays advantage.

The defender, knowing his pack is deficient in the scrum, catches the ball with one foot deliberately and obviously placed in touch.

Thinking the ref would probably consider a LO nearer his GL wasn’t sufficient advantage and would probably indicate an unwanted scrum further away, the catcher shouts, ‘Line-out please sir’.

Is the ref obliged to consent?:hap:

barker14610
10-12-10, 03:12
You are up late tonight.
First offense=knock on=scrum

tim White
10-12-10, 08:12
First offense = Touch; No advantage possible -QT?

jeff
10-12-10, 10:12
Tim White-(tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP) The ball was still in the field of play and it was knocked forward.
It is a scrum for the first offence.

Simon Thomas
10-12-10, 10:12
Ball in FOP but player it touches is standing with one foot in touchy.

First is the ball in touch - hence L/O.
Second is the knock on.
No advantage option.
Next steps are QT or line out at line of touch to side who did were not the last to play it before it player standing in touch.

jeff
10-12-10, 10:12
A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not
crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space
rising immediately above the touchline.

Davet
10-12-10, 10:12
If the player in touch prevents the ball crossing the plane of touch by knocking it then the ball is not in touch. If he catches or holds it then it is.

So the initial offence is Knock-on.

The ball is not immediately made dead, so advanatage may be played.

Ref plays advantage.

Ball then goes into touch, nearer the defenders line than the place of the scrum.

Have the defenders gained either a territorial or tactical advantage? If so then advantage is over and we go with the line out, if not we come back for the knock on and scrum down.

Clearly there is no territorial advantage.

There would appear to be no tactical advantage either. The lineout may suit the defenders better, or it may not - the advantage won't crystallise untill we see the result of it - and I suspect not even Chopper would advocate playing the line out as part of advanatge and then come back for the scrum if they messed it up....

So the answer with the advantage of simplicity and compliance with the Laws is that we return to the first offence, and go with the knock on.

That said, at low-level games where skill levels are poor in many phases of play I wouldn't object too much to a decision to go with the line-out, so long as the ref understood why he had done it and what the normal solution would be.

Simon Thomas
10-12-10, 11:12
True Jeff - agree with that.

But he has failed to complete the action successfully.

I would not disagree with a scrum for knock-on either if that is how you interpretted it.

Phil E
10-12-10, 11:12
Is the ref obliged to consent?:hap:

The answer to the question is "No".

8.1(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee
has wide discretion when making decisions.

Taff
10-12-10, 11:12
But isn't this a case of tactical advantage to the defending side?

Davet
10-12-10, 12:12
But isn't this a case of tactical advantage to the defending side?


Potentially, but you don't know until after the line out. They may miss their jumper, concede quick ball off the top, and give away a try....

You can't wait until the line out is over to decide on advantage, simply taking a broad view of future possibility is dangerous... is a lineout closer to their line a real and clear advantage - After all, a mere possibility of advantage is not sufficient - Law 8.2

OB..
10-12-10, 12:12
If the player in touch prevents the ball crossing the plane of touch by knocking it then the ball is not in touch. If he catches or holds it then it is.

So the initial offence is Knock-on.

The ball is not immediately made dead, so advanatage may be played.

Ref plays advantage.

Ball then goes into touch, nearer the defenders line than the place of the scrum.

Have the defenders gained either a territorial or tactical advantage? If so then advantage is over and we go with the line out, if not we come back for the knock on and scrum down.

Clearly there is no territorial advantage.

There would appear to be no tactical advantage either. The lineout may suit the defenders better, or it may not - the advantage won't crystallise untill we see the result of it - and I suspect not even Chopper would advocate playing the line out as part of advanatge and then come back for the scrum if they messed it up....

So the answer with the advantage of simplicity and compliance with the Laws is that we return to the first offence, and go with the knock on.

That said, at low-level games where skill levels are poor in many phases of play I wouldn't object too much to a decision to go with the line-out, so long as the ref understood why he had done it and what the normal solution would be.
I agreed with all that except that I am uncomfortable with the last paragraph. If you take that line you are giving the players a false impression of the law. I'm not convinced that is helpful. Next week's ref would be justified in taking a different view.

tim White
10-12-10, 14:12
Tim White-(tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP) The ball was still in the field of play and it was knocked forward.
It is a scrum for the first offence.

You assume the ball did not cross the plane of touch -I assumed it did. :chin:

jeff
10-12-10, 14:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attacking player standing in touch tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP back to his wing.

:confused:

Taff
10-12-10, 14:12
Potentially, but you don't know until after the line out.But we do know they would prefer the LO to the scrum, because they told us. Isn't that tactical advantage? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) I've queried tactical advantage before and still don't claim to understand it 100% but from what others were saying, it would cover this scenario. In fact IIRC it is pretty close to one of the examples given.


[At the LO] they may miss their jumper, concede quick ball off the top, and give away a try...Err .... sorry, but that's just tough.

My argument would be they were given the tactical advantage by being awarded the LO which they preferred. This tactical advantage was then over as soon as they had the LO. If they then go on to balls up the tactical advantage we gave them, that's their problem.

OB..
10-12-10, 18:12
This is similar to chopper's argument about trying to gain a tactical advantage when the ball is knocked on into in-goal. In both cases the player is trying to take advantage of one part of the law relating to play being stopped.

Law 8 starts: "The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages from infringements." To me that means creating a stoppage cannot be considered as giving tactical advantage; you actually have to play rugby.

Mike Selig
10-12-10, 19:12
I'm sure I've seen TV refs offer a side the line-out after a knock-on puts the ball into touch. Most recent example George Clancy Toulouse vs Wasps when Wasps were being badly beaten in the scrum.

Personally I tend to ask the captain "knock-on, do you want the scrum or the line-out?", particularly if his side are being bested in the scrum, IMO it makes sense. Have I been going wrong?

To answer DaveT, if their scrum is being thrashed but not their line-out, having a line-out in my opinion is an advantage. It gives you a better chance of playing the ball as wanted.

Phil E
10-12-10, 20:12
I'm sure I've seen TV refs offer a side the line-out after a knock-on puts the ball into touch. Most recent example George Clancy Toulouse vs Wasps when Wasps were being badly beaten in the scrum.

Personally I tend to ask the captain "knock-on, do you want the scrum or the line-out?", particularly if his side are being bested in the scrum, IMO it makes sense. Have I been going wrong?

In short; yes you have.


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling1-2009
UnionRFU
Law Reference12
Date19 March '09

This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2010
Request
Senario

Team A moves the ball from right to left when the final pass to a colleague close to the touchline is knocked on with the ball crossing the touchline. The non offending side immediately take a quick throw. Please can you confirm the following two options can take place:

1. Can a quick throw take place by the non offending team?

2. Has the non offending side the option of a throw in from the touch or scrum as a means of restarting the match?

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
1. The Designated Members confirm that the quick throw cannot be taken as advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

The Definition of dead on page (viii) of the IRB Law Book 2008 is The ball is out of play.

2. The referee will award a scrum at the place of infringement in accordance with Law 12.1 (a).

Davet
10-12-10, 21:12
To answer DaveT, if their scrum is being thrashed but not their line-out, having a line-out in my opinion is an advantage. It gives you a better chance of playing the ball as wanted.


What sort of advantage is it, territorial or tactical? - Those are the only varieties available. Is it a clear and real advantage, as Law 8.2 demands, or is it simply an opportunity to gain advanatage, which Law 8.2 says is not to be classed as an advantage?

Not Kurt Weaver
10-12-10, 21:12
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.


I think this tells us to scrum and L/O or QT are not an option

Taff
10-12-10, 22:12
(f) .... Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead. I think this tells us to scrum, and [the] L/O or QT are not an optionBut in the first post the ball was not made dead - the player may have been in touch but he knocked the ball forward before it had crossed the plane of touch.

A cut and paste from THIS (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10775&highlight=tactical) thread. Are the 2 examples really that different?


Here's and example of tactical advantage which has nothing to do with potentially scoring penalties or territory and it happened to me last season. Green v Black, Green getting stuffed in the scrum. After 10 minutes, green skipper says to me if they knock it on, I don't care how far back we go, if we secure possession at ruck , mauls or running I do not want to be called back for a scrum as we will lose it I'd like that to be our advantage.

Not Kurt Weaver
10-12-10, 23:12
But in the first post the ball was not made dead - the player may have been in touch but he knocked the ball forward before it had crossed the plane of touch.




From the first post

The defender, knowing his pack is deficient in the scrum, catches the ball with one foot deliberately and obviously placed in touch.

Taff
10-12-10, 23:12
From the first post. The defender, knowing his pack is deficient in the scrum, catches the ball with one foot deliberately and obviously placed in touch.I think we're at cross purposes here. :D I meant the first infringement (the knock on) didn't put the ball dead, so advantage could be played.


An attacking player standing in touch tries to knock a loose ball in the FoP back to his wing. Instead he accidentally knocks it forward in the air parallel to the TL It was the defender who put it dead. Did the defender gain a territorial advantage? Obviously not as he's closer to his own goal line than where the scrum would have been. Did he gain a real tactical advantage? I would suggest he did, because the defending team was being stuffed at the scrum.

Taff
11-12-10, 00:12
Sorry. I've just realised my mistake - in effect this is a simple knock on into touch ie a scrum.

I apologise, I read it that the defender caught the ball in the filed of play and walked the ball off the FoP from the knock on.

Note to self: Read the first thread more carefully next time plank. :o

Ok, if the defender did catch the ball in the FoP and walked off the pitch with it ie putting it in touch, would that be tactical advantage? :chin:

OB..
11-12-10, 00:12
Sorry. I've just realised my mistake - in effect this is a simple knock on into touch ie a scrum.

I apologise, I read it that the defender caught the ball in the filed of play and walked the ball off the FoP from the knock on.

Note to self: Read the first thread more carefully next time plank. :o

Ok, if the defender did catch the ball in the FoP and walked off the pitch with it ie putting it in touch, would that be tactical advantage? :chin:

Given that the opposition will have the throw, it is hard to see it that way. One such approach would be to kick the ball, making sure it goes high enough for the referee to say "advantage over" before the kick goes into touch.

However why not try to run it?

chopper15
12-12-10, 00:12
I take issue with the law lords ruling: Team A moves the ball from right to left when the final pass to a colleague close to the touchline is knocked on with the ball crossing the touchline. The non offending side immediately take a quick throw. Please can you confirm the following two options can take place:


In my original scenario the wording ' . . . is knocked on with the ball crossing the touch line' can apply. The ref played advantage and the defence caught it with one foot in touch . . . they could've taken a QT quite lawfully if they so chose.

Also the law lords ignored the distance the ball travelled before it went into touch, they assumed it was immediate giving the ref no time to signal advantage. Without any qualification they then foolishly and unwittingly gave a confusing ruling.

This point should be thrown back to them for clarification asap.:clap:

PS as should their ruling on the PK rebounding off the post into touch.

Mike Selig
12-12-10, 00:12
So is this a case of the TV refs getting it wrong and us having to clear the mess up. What if the captain asks "can we have the line-out sir?"? Would you assessors marks a ref down for offering the option.

Dave I would say it is tactical advantage, in that the very fact of having a line-out gives them a more advantageous position than a scrum. Moreover, I can justify it by law by saying that advantage was over just as the ball went into touch, therefore I am not playing advantage after the ball has been made dead.

OB..
12-12-10, 02:12
So is this a case of the TV refs getting it wrong and us having to clear the mess up. What if the captain asks "can we have the line-out sir?"? Would you assessors marks a ref down for offering the option.

Dave I would say it is tactical advantage, in that the very fact of having a line-out gives them a more advantageous position than a scrum. Moreover, I can justify it by law by saying that advantage was over just as the ball went into touch, therefore I am not playing advantage after the ball has been made dead.

And in #16 I quoted Law 8 to support the opposite conclusion.

I would certainly disagree with you.

The Fat
12-12-10, 03:12
So is this a case of the TV refs getting it wrong and us having to clear the mess up. What if the captain asks "can we have the line-out sir?"? Would you assessors marks a ref down for offering the option.

Dave I would say it is tactical advantage, in that the very fact of having a line-out gives them a more advantageous position than a scrum. Moreover, I can justify it by law by saying that advantage was over just as the ball went into touch, therefore I am not playing advantage after the ball has been made dead.

Did the referee call "advantage over" just before the ball went into touch? And further to that, why would he?

I've never seen a referee award a LO after a ball has been knocked forward and then went into touch unless he missed the knock forward.

To me, the OP is a simple case of a knock forward with no advantage so therefore we come back for a scrum.

chopper15
12-12-10, 13:12
Many of the replies prompt the question, can a ref allow advantage retrospectively if he didn't have time to call/ signal and the beneficiary anticipated it?:hap:

I hasten to add I am aware of . . .

8.1(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

chopper15
12-12-10, 14:12
This is similar to chopper's argument about trying to gain a tactical advantage when the ball is knocked on into in-goal. In both cases the player is trying to take advantage of one part of the law relating to play being stopped.

Law 8 starts: "The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages from infringements." To me that means creating a stoppage cannot be considered as giving tactical advantage; you actually have to play rugby.


The ball-carrier mis-throws a pass intended for his wing and it immediately runs loose over the goal-line.

No time to wait for the ref to call advantage, if indeed he was, the wing dives and beats a defender to the touchdown.

Can giving tactical advantage apply to the miscreants by awarding a scrum 5, or should the ref penalise the wing?

dave_clark
12-12-10, 15:12
forgive me if i'm being simple, but on what grounds are you suggesting we play advantage? where's the offence?

OB..
12-12-10, 20:12
Many of the replies prompt the question, can a ref allow advantage retrospectively if he didn't have time to call/ signal and the beneficiary anticipated it?:hap:

ALL calls of advantage are retrospective in the sense that you cannot call it until after the infringement has occurred. That is why players are told to play to the whistle, and not stop just because they have seen a knock-on or whatever.

The call merely makes sure the players realise the referee has seen the infringement, and might call play back.. It is NOT a pre-requisite to a player taking advantage. That would make no sense.

The Fat
12-12-10, 21:12
The ball-carrier mis-throws a pass intended for his wing and it immediately runs loose over the goal-line.

No time to wait for the ref to call advantage, if indeed he was, the wing dives and beats a defender to the touchdown.

Can giving tactical advantage apply to the miscreants by awarding a scrum 5, or should the ref penalise the wing?

Why a scrum 5?
You said the pass was mis-thrown which would imply that it was not an intentional throw forward.
The scrum should be where the ball carrier made the unintentional throw forward (unless that happened within 5m of the goal line as well).
Why penalise the attcking winger? He is only playing to the whistle.
If every time a knock or throw forward occurred the infringing team's players stopped to let the other team pick up the ball there would be a lot of embarrassed players jogging back to their goal line to await the ensuing conversion attempt.

chopper15
14-12-10, 12:12
The ball-carrier mis-throws a pass forward , intended for his wing, over the goal-line.

No time to wait for the ref to call advantage, if indeed he saw it, the onside wing dives and beats a defender to the touchdown.

Scrum 5? . . . or should the ref penalise the wing for depriving the defence of playing advantage?

My apologies, gents.:o . . . please see rephrased query above. Sorry!

Casey Bee
14-12-10, 12:12
My apologies, gents.:o . . . please see rephrased query above. Sorry!

Why would a player be penalised for not allowing opposition to play advantage?? Since when does a player knock-on and then let opponent pick ball up and run off and score a try? [Well, it does happen, but then you have coaches going into cardiac arrest]

OB..
14-12-10, 14:12
Law 22.7 (b) If an attacking player knocks-on or throws forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents' in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

If the referee plays advantage and none accrues, he goes back for the infringement under 22.7 (b).

Lee Lifeson-Peart
14-12-10, 16:12
Did I hear once that Tony Spreadbury called "Advantage over..............nearly" after a player knocked on whilst nearly taking advantage from a previous offence? Sounds like him even if it wasn't. Top bloke.:biggrin: :biggrin:

Davet
14-12-10, 17:12
The ball has been thrown forward, the winger is onside but prevents the defenders gaining possession and any advantage that would accrue thereafter - well played that winger.

No advantage to defenders, scrum down for the knock-on; defending ball.

I cannot see why you regard this as in any way a challenge to referee, it's basic bread and butter stuff.

Taff
14-12-10, 17:12
The ball has been thrown forward, the winger is onside but prevents the defenders gaining possession and any advantage that would accrue thereafter - well played that winger.So in short the onside winger was just "playing to the whistle".

chopper15
14-12-10, 18:12
So in short the onside winger just "plays to the whistle".

. . . . and, as nobody bothered to mention it . . . . if the wing was in front of the passer? :hap:

Davet
14-12-10, 18:12
Then he'd be offside.

Two offences by the same team, the 2nd offence being the offside, award the PK for that.

What else would you expect?

Chopper, this is not really controversial stuff, is there a sub-text here that I'm missing?

SimonSmith
14-12-10, 18:12
"deliberate forward pass that all you referees are missing" would be my guess

OB..
14-12-10, 18:12
I think he is trying to devise a scenario where the defender could finagle the laws so as to get a drop out instead of a scrum. At least, that seems to be where he started out.

chopper15
14-12-10, 20:12
"deliberate forward pass that all you referees are missing" would be my guess

That'll do, Simon. Why shouldn't the canny ball-carrier be a chancer?

They're getting plenty of encouragement from watching elite games on tv now . . . refs just won't risk calling it.

However, I'm only pursuing a debate on fairness in this particular law having been told it's a figment of my imagination.

A player who is accidentally off-side IS NOT sanctioned but IS penalised should he then deliberately interfere with subsequent play.

A player who accidentally knocks on IS sanctioned but NOT penalised should he then deliberately interfere with subsequent play.

Yes, I do accept that you refs are only there to manage the game, but was surprised that there wasn't any sympathy for my point of view.

With enough support perhaps the law lords could be made aware of the unfairness of this obvious anomaly and perhaps revise it . . . along with the chanced drop- kick . . . if it goes dead, it's a scrum back.:hap:

Casey Bee
14-12-10, 20:12
That'll do, Simon. Why shouldn't the canny ball-carrier be a chancer?

They're getting plenty of encouragement from watching elite games on tv now . . . refs just won't risk calling it.

However, I'm only pursuing a debate on fairness in this particular law having been told it's a figment of my imagination.

A player who is accidentally off-side IS NOT sanctioned but IS penalised should he then deliberately interfere with subsequent play.

A player who accidentally knocks on IS sanctioned but NOT penalised should he then deliberately interfere with subsequent play.

Yes, I do accept that you refs are only there to manage the game, but was surprised that there wasn't any sympathy for my point of view.

With enough support perhaps the law lords could be made aware of the unfairness of this obvious anomaly and perhaps revise it . . . along with the chanced drop- kick . . . if it goes dead, it's a scrum back.:hap:

Your point is silly. In one scenario you have an illegal interference in play, in the other you don't. You are trying to give the same sanction for clearly differing circumstances.

Davet
15-12-10, 10:12
In general play A player who is either deliberately or accidentally off-side IS NOT sanctioned but IS penalised should he then deliberately or accidentally interfere with subsequent play.

If the interference on play is wholly accidental and unavoidable, and his team benefits in some way, then a scrum is ordered rather than a full PK - if his team do not benefit from the accidental offside then play on.


Fixed that for you.

chopper15
15-12-10, 20:12
Fixed that for you.

Any refs care to comment on Davet's 'fixing' suggestion?

I would hope so.:hap:

KB: Of course it's illegal, that's the way the law is writ. I'm merely pointing out the blatant anomaly using the offside and knock-on laws as the comparison.

The law allows the already sanctioned miscreant who knocked-on to interfere with play from an advantaged position. (and you accuse me of silliness!)

But when it comes to the offsider, the ref. issues a caution to nip the potential offence in the bud to prevent him from taking advantage of his opportune position.

So, I'm baffled why the law lords haven't bothered to imposed a caution on the miscreant knocker-on aswell because of his advantaged field position.

Casey Bee
15-12-10, 22:12
Any refs care to comment on Davet's 'fixing' suggestion?

I would hope so.:hap:

KB: Of course it's illegal, that's the way the law is writ. I'm merely pointing out the blatant anomaly using the offside and knock-on laws as the comparison.

The law allows the already sanctioned miscreant who knocked-on to interfere with play from an advantaged position. (and you accuse me of silliness!)

But when it comes to the offsider, the ref. issues a caution to nip the potential offence in the bud to prevent him from taking advantage of his opportune position.

So, I'm baffled why the law lords haven't bothered to imposed a caution on the miscreant knocker-on aswell because of his advantaged field position.

If you can't understand the difference in the two scenarios then...

OB..
15-12-10, 23:12
The law allows the already sanctioned miscreant who knocked-on to interfere with play from an advantaged position.
Why is that illegal? You seem to think it ought to be, but what law is he breaking?


But when it comes to the offsider, the ref. issues a caution to nip the potential offence in the bud to prevent him from taking advantage of his opportune position.
He is offside and it is illegal for him to interfere with play until he is on side again. Simples.

Davet
15-12-10, 23:12
There is a difference between "advantaged position" and "illegally advantaged position"

You suggest that the player knocking on should be prohibited from playing on, that isn't the Law, and as far as I am aware the only person who is suggesting it should be is you.

Being a sole protester doesn't necessarily make you wrong, just lonley.

But in this case I would not support your call and see no problem that requires fixing.

chopper15
16-12-10, 15:12
You suggest that the player knocking on should be prohibited from playing on, that isn't the Law, and as far as I am aware the only person who is suggesting it should be is you.
But in this case I would not support your call and see no problem that requires fixing.

I really do know it's not the law. I'm merely pointing out the anomaly to see if anyone agrees with me that it's unfair and could/should be considered for a change.:hap: Simples.

. . . . but, so mote it be.:Looser:

Casey Bee
16-12-10, 16:12
I really do know it's not the law. I'm merely pointing out the anomaly to see if anyone agrees with me that it's unfair and could/should be considered for a change.:hap: Simples.

. . . . but, so mote it be.:Looser:

No anomaly exists.

chopper15
16-12-10, 17:12
No anomaly exists.


:confused:

The law lords consider it necessary to caution an offside player, who invariably is in an opportune position to interfere with play, that he will be penalised should he subsequently do so.

Yet they do not consider that a ball-carrier who knocks on should be cautioned should he subsequently interfere with play, yet he too is usually in an opportune field position to do just that and often deprives the opponent of a chance to play advantage. . . . what I consider is the anomaly

And I refer in particular to 22.7 (b) which sparked this 'debate' regarding fairness in the first place. The defence should be given an opportunity to play the ball without interference from a player who has just been sanctioned as with the player who was merely warned.:hap:

I feel strongly that points such as this deserve feedback consideration by the law lords. But what's the use if refs don't recognise the injustice?:sad:

Casey Bee
16-12-10, 17:12
:confused:

The law lords consider it necessary to caution an offside player, who invariably is in an opportune position to interfere with play, that he will be penalised should he subsequently do so.

Yet they do not consider that a ball-carrier who knocks on should be cautioned should he subsequently interfere with play, yet he too is usually in an opportune field position to do just that and often deprives the opponent of a chance to play advantage. . . . what I consider is the anomaly

And I refer in particular to 22.7 (b) which sparked this 'debate' regarding fairness in the first place. The defence should be given an opportunity to play the ball without interference from a player who has just been sanctioned as with the player who was merely warned.:hap:

I feel strongly that points such as this deserve feedback consideration by the law lords. But what's the use if refs don't recognise the injustice?:sad:

Look up what anomaly means. Given the two situations are entirely different an anomaly does not exist. These are simple laws/rules which are set and applied in rugby; rules are applied in any game. You might as well say a pawn should move in the same way as a knight in chess... the fact that it doesn't move the same way is not an anomaly, it's an accepted and easy to comprehend rule of the game.

Simon Thomas
16-12-10, 17:12
barking up the wrong tree totally.

you need to differentiate between Laws and Management - prventative or otherwise.

you misunderstand the relationship between the current laws, the patterns of play and the historical legacy / evolution of the Game, based around common practice and practicality.

22.7 (b) refers to a specific in-goal situation and was added as clarification by the IRB. In open play there is no such as the referee will apply advantage, which if due to knocking on player's position is not avaulable, it isn't offered.

A knock on is a technical offence based on handling the ball; an offside is an offence that gains an unfair advantage. Hardy comparable.

chopper15
16-12-10, 20:12
Look up what anomaly means. Given the two situations are entirely different an anomaly does not exist. These are simple laws/rules which are set and applied in rugby; rules are applied in any game. You might as well say a pawn should move in the same way as a knight in chess... the fact that it doesn't move the same way is not an anomaly, it's an accepted and easy to comprehend rule of the game.



:confused: So who's implying that the moves in chess should be fair, KB?

The similarity in this game - to establish the anomaly as well as a contradiction - is, knock-on and off-side players are both invariably in an opportune field position to interfere with play.

Yet the law lords, with an obligation to attempt equity wherever they can, allow the one player to interfere with play but not the other. :sad:

If a warning of a sanction is acceptable justification to stop any subsequent interference with play for an off-side player then why allow it for the sanctioned player?

Simon, a law can be amended retrospectively if considered inequitable?

Casey Bee
16-12-10, 20:12
:confused: So who's implying that the moves in chess should be fair, KB?

The similarity in this game - to establish the anomaly as well as a contradiction - is, knock-on and off-side players are both invariably in an opportune field position to interfere with play.

Yet the law lords, with an obligation to attempt equity wherever they can, allow the one player to interfere with play but not the other. :sad:

If a warning of a sanction is acceptable justification to stop any subsequent interference with play for an off-side player then why allow it for the sanctioned player?

All moves in chess are fair based on the rules that are set. Same as rugby.
Write to the law lords if you don't like it. As a spectator, player, coach, referee it seems perfectly understandable to me; with no anomaly.

SimonSmith
16-12-10, 21:12
An off side player is liable to penalty if he continues.

A player who chases a knock on from an on side position is not liable to penalty.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Your argument boils down to: if a player from an offending team is next to play the ball in any circumstance then he should be penalized. Examples would include:
Catch the ball after a "not straight" throw
Catch a forward pass.

You are, as Stuart Adamson would say, talking pie.

Davet
17-12-10, 11:12
Chopper,

In this context, the Law doesn't prohibit a player who has recently committed an offence from taking part in the game, it simply prohibits a player who is continuing to offend from taking part in the game.

The knocking on player is not offside, he is not in front of himself.

You see an injustice here, and wish the law to be changed. You are of course entitled to your opinion. Howeve,r I know of of no-one else who shares your opinion - such is life. You think we are wrong, we think you are wrong, there's more of us than you - so you lose.

I think that's called democracy.....:chin:

chopper15
17-12-10, 20:12
After a few thousand years why on earth should anyone want to change the rules of chess?

Rules and laws, however, can be amended and often are for a variety of justifiable reasons.

All I'm trying to do is draw attention to an apparent anomaly and why it should be considered as a reason to modify the knock-on law. As it stands now it's simply unfair.

You approach the discussion by imposing the law which I consider is unfair and should be reassessed.

And, Simon, I'm most certainly not suggesting ANY team-mate should be penalised, it has to be the sanctioned miscreant until he's effectively put 'on-side' as with the accidentally off-side player who is cautioned.

Consider the scenario I described when, just before the goal-line, the ball-carrier has the ball accidentally dislodged by a team-mate in front of him and it rolls on over.

The off-side team-mate is then justly cautioned, the knock-on and advantage is signalled.

One attacking player is immediately in an opportune field position and is free to deprive the defender of playing advantage to avoid the imposed scrum.

The cautioned one, fortunately for the defender, is protected by the penalty threat.

And that sanctioned miscreant?

Well, the law generously allows him to immediately interfere with play from his favourable leading field position, where he can either ground the ball should it be closer to him than the defender, or force him to ground it with a tackle. . . . and a
Happy Christmas to you all and thanks for the discussion, much appreciated.:clap:

Adam
17-12-10, 23:12
Why should the attackers lose 20 metres of territory for a knock forward? That to me, and everyone else, seems totally inequitable.

chopper15
17-12-10, 23:12
Why should the attackers lose 20 metres of territory for a knock forward? That to me, and everyone else, seems totally inequitable.

Over that distance as a sanctioned player he'll be temporarily 'arrested' in his advantaged field position until he's 'put on side' by any advancing team-mate. . . . same as the off-sider who is also a temporarily 'arrested' player.

That's my point, why treat them differently they're both miscreants; so why not let the defence take full advantage of their opportunity?:hap:

SimonSmith
18-12-10, 00:12
Chopper- reread my post, substituting the word "player" for team where appropriate.

My overall point remains the same

Dickie E
18-12-10, 00:12
Chopper, I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction.

The default outcome of a knock-on is a scrum. If, however, by some miracle, the non-offending team gain an advantage prior to the scrum being called by the ref then it is play on.

OB..
18-12-10, 03:12
All I'm trying to do is draw attention to an apparent anomaly and why it should be considered as a reason to modify the knock-on law. As it stands now it's simply unfair.You have drawn attention to something you consider an anomaly, but apparently nobody agrees with you. I most certainly do not.


You approach the discussion by imposing the law which I consider is unfair and should be reassessed.
I strongly disagree.
Over that distance as a sanctioned player he'll be temporarily 'arrested' in his advantaged field position until he's 'put on side' by any advancing team-mate. . . . same as the off-sider who is also a temporarily 'arrested' player.

That's my point, why treat them differently they're both miscreants; so why not let the defence take full advantage of their opportunity?:hap:You want the player who knocks on to be treated as being offside because in your view he is just as much a miscreant as a player who is actually offside.

There is no basis for equating the two other than your idiosyncratic concept of fairness. Offside is a penalty offence and a knock-on only leads to a scrum. This to me is the correct way of evaluating the two infringements. They are significantly different.

chopper15
18-12-10, 15:12
I give in . . . . but not up. :hap: And thank you all for your patience and considered comments.:clap:

Finally, no need to answer, a point to ponder:

Why give advantage and then allow the only player in the fore who was sanctioned for it the immediate opportunity to take it away?:sad:

chopper15
18-12-10, 17:12
I give in . . . . but not up. :hap: And thank you all for your patience and considered comments.:clap:

Finally, no need to answer, a point to ponder:

Why give advantage and then allow the only player in the fore who was sanctioned for it the immediate opportunity to take it away?:sad:


. . . . and please don't finish by telling me, 'because the law demands it':nono:

chopper15
18-12-10, 23:12
But in the first post the ball was not made dead - the player may have been in touch but he knocked the ball forward before it had crossed the plane of touch.

A cut and paste from THIS (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10775&highlight=tactical) thread.

Are the 2 examples really that different?

How come I'm denied access to Taff's cut&paste? I originated the thread.:sad:

Surely I'm not still being punished for my infraction?

chopper15, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Log Out Home

Phil E
18-12-10, 23:12
I see nothing wrong with the current law.

Davet
19-12-10, 00:12
Chopper, you think it unfair, no one else does.

Not simply because that's the way the Law is, but because to do it your way would not help the game at all - there is no unfairness except in your own head.

Casey Bee
19-12-10, 00:12
I give in . . . . but not up. :hap: And thank you all for your patience and considered comments.:clap:

Finally, no need to answer, a point to ponder:

Why give advantage and then allow the only player in the fore who was sanctioned for it the immediate opportunity to take it away?:sad:


. . . . and please don't finish by telling me, 'because the law demands it':nono:


How come I'm denied access to Taff's cut&paste? I originated the thread.:sad:

Surely I'm not still being punished for my infraction?

chopper15, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Log Out Home

Chopper you must be getting bored; you say no need to answer then follow shortly afterwards with 'please don't finish...' As you continue in ever decreasing circles you have then reviewed the whole thread and picked up that there is something you can't read... that post was made a week ago. Why not get the hint that no one is replying to this thread as it's a dead thread, and it's dead due to the fact that the point you are trying to make is silly. Try starting a new thread...

dave_clark
19-12-10, 00:12
Try starting a new thread...

you sure about that suggestion Kevin?

Casey Bee
19-12-10, 01:12
you sure about that suggestion Kevin?

Thought it might encourage him to find something else to look into!
Chopper does come up with the occasional gem but I don't think this is one of his better efforts... and he seems to be a bit fixated on it, which is a shame, as he's basically resorted to replying to himself. :(

Dickie E
19-12-10, 01:12
I liked Choppper's thoughts on this one:

A player infringes (ie knocks-on). Why should he then be able use his advantageous position to continue to participate in the game? Good food for though, I think.

Casey Bee
19-12-10, 01:12
I liked Choppper's thoughts on this one:

A player infringes (ie knocks-on). Why should he then be able use his advantageous position to continue to participate in the game? Good food for though, I think.

Nope, someone else writing it still doesn't make it any less silly. [I shall qualify that... In My Opinion] Can't be bothered to even go through the myriad circumstance that this would affect.:biggrin:

Taff
19-12-10, 09:12
How come I'm denied access to Taff's cut & paste? I originated the thread. :sad:You did start the thread, but sadly the link I gave was to a previous post in the "Referees Only" section.

It was only a general question regarding tactical and territorial advantage. In fairness a number of people tried to give me an example of tactical advantage - I still don't understand it 100%. :o

PaulDG
19-12-10, 10:12
I liked Choppper's thoughts on this one:

A player infringes (ie knocks-on). Why should he then be able use his advantageous position to continue to participate in the game? Good food for though, I think.

Play to the whistle, simple as that.

If you say that an infringing player is "out of the game" then advantage vanishes from the game - how would players know who was "in" and who was not when advantage is called?

"Advantage Blue, 'knock-on'; Red 6 retire" is a lot more work for us; will certainly be "white noise" to players and spectators and adds nothing to the game.

chopper15
19-12-10, 10:12
I'll just use this dying thread for a quickie.:biggrin:

What sanction does a ref use when there's not enough paces left for a further ten . . . and why not use it at the outset? :sad:


PS . . . and Paul, the accidently off-sider is cautioned.:love:

PaulDG
19-12-10, 11:12
What sanction does a ref use when there's not enough paces left for a further ten . . . and why not use it at the outset? :sad:

Card. Penalty Try. Both. Or Neither, depending on the situation.

Davet
19-12-10, 11:12
The mark for the FK or PK cannot be advanced nearer than 5m to the offenders' goalline.

There are three sanctions available depending on the circumstances.
1) Admonishment
2) Caution
3) Penalty Try

Not sure what you mean by "At the outset", the original offence may only have warranted the PK / FK. So none of these may have been appropriate - of course it may be that 1 or 2 were, and were applied. Clearly 3 wasn't appropriate at that tiem or we would not be at the point where we are advancing the mark.

Most times when the mark is advanced it is because the offenders did not retire 10m, but may be due to other issues.

The ref actually has a choice of wheteher to advance the original 10m or to award a new offence at the place of infringement - this will be a judgement call based on the circumstances - eg FK, material slow retreat, advance FK 10; versus, FK offender then strikes opponent who is preparing to take FK, issue RC and convert FK to PK at place of infringement.

Regarding a caution for accidental offside - I would have thought that a YC would be a little excessive for something defined as "accidental".

chopper15
19-12-10, 12:12
I liked Choppper's thoughts on this one:

A player infringes (ie knocks-on). Why should he then be able use his advantageous position to continue to participate in the game? Good food for though, I think.



If only I could've been so succinct, Dickie. :clap:

Going around the church to find the steeple, I fear, is my undoing on this site, particularly when there's a rigid rote of refs ganging up on me.:sad:

chopper15
19-12-10, 13:12
You did start the thread, but sadly the link I gave was to a previous post in the "Referees Only" section.

Are you lot talking behind my back?:mad:

What on earth can you lot discuss that an outsider shouldn't be privy to?

Come on, let me in you may learn a thing or two.:love:

chopper15
19-12-10, 13:12
Thanks for your considered replies. Which makes me feel a bit churlish when I say they just strengthen my belief that the ten-pace law is, as I suspected, superfluous.:sad:

Why introduce a ref's sop for one part of the FoP for the same offence?

Should I have started a new thread for this one?:hap:

Simon Thomas
19-12-10, 13:12
particularly when there's a rigid rote of refs ganging up on me.:sad:

not ganging up, just that we work very hard to establish consistency at Society, Regional and national level - as do our US cousins. So it is not rigid rote, it is (as requested by coaches and players) consistent refereeing.

OB..
19-12-10, 13:12
If the player who knocks on is to be regarded as offside, the only possible offside line is through the player at the point where the knock-on occurred, Since the player has almost always gone forward at that moment, he is automatically penalisable under the current provision of Law 11.1 (a).

What of a player who knocks on and attempts to recover the ball? If he gets there in time, he was never offside, since there was no knock-on. If he fails, he has clearly infringed the normal offside provisions and put himself in an even more advantageous position. We have a few moments when nobody knows if he is offside or not.

It is an anomaly that a player who is at no stage in front of the ball or a team-mate who last played it could be considered offside, so either Law 11 needs a significant change, or we need a new section somewhere else.

How would the player get back on-side (provided the referee ignored the initial technical infraction)? Would 11.3 work? After all, the player is still in the advantageous position. Surely his move forward is then material? Under 11.2 (a) he could retire behind the offside line, and under 11.3 (c) a team-mate could put him on-side.

What of the case where a full back in splendid isolation knocks on an attempted catch? His only option would be to retreat behind where he knocked on, otherwise he would convert a simple scrum into a penalty. Would the referee really call advantage and make him run round in a circle before awarding the scrum?

If you decide that instead of calling it offside, you merely said the player who knocked on could not recover the ball, the full back scenario would be ludicrous.

Significant changes to the law and play in order to cover a situation that I do not see as being at all unfair in the first place. 9 pages. Enough is enough.

Simon Thomas
19-12-10, 14:12
Are you lot talking behind my back?:mad:

What on earth can you lot discuss that an outsider shouldn't be privy to?

Come on, let me in you may learn a thing or two.:love:

I do not expect to be allowed access to specialist areas of expertise in many areas of life, where qualifications are required - why should you ?

If one is a qualified referee one hase a certain level of knowledge, and if actually refereeing on a pitch relevant practical experience.

chopper15
19-12-10, 17:12
I do not expect to be allowed access to specialist areas of expertise in many areas of life, where qualifications are required - why should you ?

If one is a qualified referee one hase a certain level of knowledge, and if actually refereeing on a pitch relevant practical experience.

You're not a supporter of the Wikiapedia expose then, Simon? :biggrin:

Simon Thomas
19-12-10, 18:12
You're not a supporter of the Wikiapedia expose then, Simon? :biggrin:

What on earth are you talking about ?

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia supported by user generated content and was founded by Jimmy Wales in 2001.

Perhaps you mean WikiLeaks, which is an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes otherwise unavailable documents from anonymous news sources and news leaks, whistleblowers and censored /restricted material that has ethical, diplomatic and political significance, and was founded by Julian Assange in 2006.

I you mean the latter, rest asured that I am supporter & donator and have publically expressed my support on conference platforms for what Julian and the team have achieved, well before the current high profile set of US Embassy were released. Having worked in Fleet Street I am well aware of the level of censorship and control even in the most allegedly open democracies. I lost count of the D-ntocies I saw issued back in the 80s.

However if I want to have an informed debate with someone about Plate Tectonics or Geomorphology I reserve the right to only do so with those who have a degree in Geography or Geology with those as specialist topics, and also perhaps limited to other FRGS.

Likewise if I want to discuss rugby refereeing topics, it may be that sometimes I want to do that with those who are fully qualified referees, and who have experience with adult matches at a certain level or higher, so that we can share common experiences and perspectives.

Phil E
20-12-10, 14:12
However if I want to have an informed debate with someone about Plate Tectonics or Geomorphology I reserve the right to only do so with those who have a degree in Geography or Geology with those as specialist topics, and also perhaps limited to other FRGS.

Is that African or European Plate Tectonics? :wink:

Simon Thomas
20-12-10, 14:12
Is that African or European Plate Tectonics? :wink:

Although I have a general global lithosphere interest, it is San Andreas and New Zealand edges of Pacific plate mainly - that is what I studied in detail.

And we are overdue for another 'big one' in California imho.

chopper15
21-12-10, 01:12
Thanks, Simon, for the info'. I know now why I can't find the leaks.:o

chopper15
21-12-10, 16:12
Play to the whistle, simple as that.

If you say that an infringing player is "out of the game" then advantage vanishes from the game - how would players know who was "in" and who was not when advantage is called?

"Advantage Blue, 'knock-on'; Red 6 retire" is a lot more work for us; will certainly be "white noise" to players and spectators and adds nothing to the game.

So, taking my cue from, "Advantage blue, 'accidentally off-side'; red 6 retire" (the latter being the miscreant), what about;

"Advantage blue, 'knock-on', red 6 retire"? :hap:

. . . but then experienced refs would probably have a much more succinct way of expressing it. :clap:


OB, thanks for your detailed and welcomed reply, i'm still trying to digest it I'm afraid.

Davet
21-12-10, 17:12
So, taking my cue from, "Advantage blue, 'accidentally off-side'; red 6 retire" (the latter being the miscreant),


I hope you would never hear such a call.

If you call advantage then you have decided that a material infraction has taken place, and that unless advatage happens you WILL blow and impose the sanction. Red 6 retiring or not is irrelevant, even if he complies he will still be penalised UNLESS there is an advantage to Blue.

chopper15
23-12-10, 00:12
So how do you call advantage, should the ball-carrier have the ball dislodged forward by accidentally touching a team mate in front of him?

I'm asking should a law revision forbid both players to interfere with play until they are, in effect, put on-side.

OB..
23-12-10, 01:12
So how do you call advantage, should the ball-carrier have the ball dislodged forward by accidentally touching a team mate in front of him?
Accidental offside. Unless the opponents get a quick advantage, usually play the scrum to avoid messy complications.


I'm asking should a law revision forbid both players to interfere with play until they are, in effect, put on-side.
Very definitely not.

I have posted the fullback problem earlier: he fumbles a catch with the nearest player (an opponent) some 20 metres away. Your idea is that he is not allowed to recover the fumble because he is "offside".

Extend this to two players both going for the ball. One gets it, bumps into the other, in front of him, and loses the ball forward. Your idea is that both of them should stand there looking at the ball while an opponent runs up and grabs it.

And this is supposed to be something to do with fairness.

Fortunately this is not a question of some arcane interpretation of the law. It is just your suggestion, so we don't have to do anything about it at all.

Davet
23-12-10, 10:12
Accidental offside is only called if the infringing team gain an advantage, otherwise it is play on. In most cases of accidemtal offside there is no advantage to the infringers, often the opposite as a ball carrier gets his run blocked - in such cases the law mandates "play on".

Hence, I assume, OB's comment that you either blow quickly (since if the infringers have gained an advantage then the opposition are unlikely to) or play on.

If the ball carrier loses the ball forwards as a result of an accidental offside collision then they clearly gain no advantage, so play on from the Accidental Offside. However, you would call advantage from the knock on (player lost possession and ball went forward).

If the offside player then played the ball, preventing an opponent doing so that is a Penalty offence, otherwise if no advantage from the knock-on scrum down opposition ball.

If the ex-ball carrier plays the ball, then no advanatge from Knock on - scrum down opposition ball.

chopper15
23-12-10, 12:12
I have posted the fullback problem earlier: he fumbles a catch with the nearest player (an opponent) some 20 metres away. Your idea is that he is not allowed to recover the fumble because he is "offside".

Extend this to two players both going for the ball. One gets it, bumps into the other, in front of him, and loses the ball forward. Your idea is that both of them should stand there looking at the ball while an opponent runs up and grabs it.

And this is supposed to be something to do with fairness.

Fortunately this is not a question of some arcane interpretation of the law. It is just your suggestion, so we don't have to do anything about it at all.

O What a tangled web we weave . . .

My idea for the action you describe is when advantage is signalled . . . you conveniently use 'fumble' to add some creditability to your point of view.

If he propels it forward to the ground and that 20m away opponent takes the ball, my proposal then is not reflected in your last two belittling paras.:hap:

Davet
23-12-10, 12:12
If a FB fails to catch the ball cleanly and it goes forward the "fumble" would seem an appropraite word.

You apear to be suggesting that the FB, rather than do this he propels the ball forward, which would appear to define a deliberate knock on. I don't think I've ever seen a FB do that when the nearest opponent is 20m away. Nor would I ever expect to, it would simply be a stupid and pointless act.

In any event, if no advantage came to the opposition, either from a fumble or a deliberate knock on, then the appropriate sanction should be called.

The whole premise of your arguement is that a player who infringes should be required to actually advantage the opposition. You are suggesting that a team has a right to gain an advantage from an opposition infringement, rather than simply an opportunity to do as things are currently.

The current situation wher the infringers are able to limit the damage to the actual infraction doesn't seem unfair - and taking away that ability in fact seems to me to be the unfair thing.

chopper15
23-12-10, 13:12
Woe is me . . . . by your 'unable/unwilling to read between the lines' comments, I'm obviously not getting my point over.

Anybody willing to help for goodness sakes, it's Xmas. :clap:

Davet
23-12-10, 14:12
Thewn why not try being clear rather than wanting us to read bewteen the lines.

It may be simpler.

OB..
23-12-10, 14:12
Woe is me . . . . by your 'unable/unwilling to read between the lines' comments, I'm obviously not getting my point over.

Anybody willing to help for goodness sakes, it's Xmas. :clap:

Why did my #86 not cover the issues you raised and their implications?

Deeps
23-12-10, 22:12
Somehow, we have managed to use up more than the normal 99 posts on this subject. Amazing really!

chopper15
24-12-10, 01:12
Why did my #86 not cover the issues you raised and their implications?



You cite 11.1 (a) and explain how it affects a player who IS off-side.

I only use the law as an example of how the law RECOGNISES that a player who initiates advantage is prevented from interfering with play from an opportune position after being CAUTIONED.

So I simply drew attention to the anomaly created by the knock-on player who IS permitted to interfere with play after being SANCTIONED.

And, Deeps, my point is still not addressed regarding this anomaly . . . . could much too rigid ref rote be a contributing factor do you think?:sad:

Dickie E
24-12-10, 02:12
Chopper, look at it this way. The knock-on player is not allowed to interfere with play. If he does successfully, the sanction is a scrum against his team.

Davet
24-12-10, 11:12
Chopper - you think allowing the player who infringes the ability to prevent an advantage being taken, when his subsequent actions are legal, is unfair.

The vast majority of the rest of us do not see that as unfair, and in fact regard it as a perfectly good part of the game.

We have taken the trouble to winkle out what your meaning is, and we do understand very clearly what you are suggesting, we simply reject it as being unnecessary, and undesirable in that it would change the dynamic of the game, and complicate the game unnecessarily. There is no problem here that needs fixing.

The Fat
24-12-10, 11:12
Chopper - you think allowing the player who infringes the ability to prevent an advantage being taken, when his subsequent actions are legal, is unfair.

The vast majority of the rest of us do not see that as unfair, and in fact regard it as a perfectly good part of the game.

We have taken the trouble to winkle out what your meaning is, and we do understand very clearly what you are suggesting, we simply reject it as being unnecessary, and undesirable in that it would change the dynamic of the game, and complicate the game unnecessarily. There is no problem here that needs fixing.

Exactly:clap: :clap: :clap:

OB..
24-12-10, 13:12
You cite 11.1 (a) and explain how it affects a player who IS off-side.

I only use the law as an example of how the law RECOGNISES that a player who initiates advantage is prevented from interfering with play from an opportune position after being CAUTIONED.

So I simply drew attention to the anomaly created by the knock-on player who IS permitted to interfere with play after being SANCTIONED.

And, Deeps, my point is still not addressed regarding this anomaly . . . . could much too rigid ref rote be a contributing factor do you think?:sad:

You are attempting to draw a general principle from the law on offside. I see no reason to believe that there is any such underlying principle - the offside concept is fine as it stands. No anomaly exists.

If you wanted to bring in your concept you would have to change the laws, and I have pointed out some potential pitfalls in doing so.

By "rigid ref rote" I presume to mean the efforts that referees make to have a common understanding and application of the laws, despite the many gaps and ambiguities. I hope you are not suggesting that we should all interpret the laws as we personally feel best?

chopper15
28-12-10, 23:12
Ref. OB: By "rigid ref rote" I presume to mean the efforts that referees make to have a common understanding and application of the laws, despite the many gaps and ambiguities. I hope you are not suggesting that we should all interpret the laws as we personally feel best?




Of course not, OB, but I do think opinionated discussion should be on-going and never belittled

What you describe is sensible and appreciated 'ref. rote'.

'Rigid ref. rote', in my opinion, is a 'dog in the manger' attitude evidented by interpretive variation in the hemi-spheres and 'go it alone' statements by some refs on these threads.

Why is there such reluctance to pursue a law lords' ruling?

Davet
28-12-10, 23:12
Why is there such reluctance to pursue a law lords' ruling?

Because the Law is not ambiguous, and the game has been played in this way for a great many years without anyone bringing it into question.

If the members were asked to rule they would probably simply raise an eyebrow and wonder whether the questioner had ever played rugby.

chopper15
06-01-11, 00:01
Because the Law is not ambiguous, and the game has been played in this way for a great many years without anyone bringing it into question.

If the members were asked to rule they would probably simply raise an eyebrow and wonder whether the questioner had ever played rugby.

Just caught your answer, Davet.

With respect is that what you believe? Not ambiguous? No one bringing it into question? And if brought into question just raise an eyebrow and wonder?

Pull the other one!:clap:

OB..
06-01-11, 02:01
Let's try the Socratic approach:

Do you accept that the player who knocks on CANNOT be offside from the knock-on?

(Yes or no is the preferred answer.)

SimonSmith
06-01-11, 02:01
Let's try the Socratic approach

Damn. For a moment there I thought you were going to suggest hemlock :)

Davet
06-01-11, 10:01
Of course there is no ambiguity - the Law is clear.

You want to change the Law, not clarify it.

You base your desire for change on a percieved unfairness - which no-one else sees.

You may regard youself as a voice crying in the wilderness, but I don't think you are paving the way for anything.

chopper15
06-01-11, 19:01
. . . and those answers are accepted by most - if not all - refs? :Looser:

OB..
06-01-11, 20:01
. . . and those answers are accepted by most - if not all - refs? :Looser:

We have been discussing this with you for 115 posts. Is that not enough?


Let's try the Socratic approach:

Do you accept that the player who knocks on CANNOT be offside from the knock-on?

(Yes or no is the preferred answer.)

chopper15
06-01-11, 21:01
Let's try the Socratic approach:

Do you accept that the player who knocks on CANNOT be offside from the knock-on?

(Yes or no is the preferred answer.)

I think I'm beginning to see where you're all coming from, OB.

Socratic utterances did not always succeed in confirming an answer.:clap:

His ignorance of a subject, which he admitted to, was used to further self-criticism and by way of debate he would then, hopefully, arrive at a truer understanding of the question proposed.

So, for starters, I'll answer your query with a 'no'. :hap:

OB..
06-01-11, 22:01
So, for starters, I'll answer your query with a 'no'. :hap:

In that case, how do you claim the law puts the player offside?

tim White
06-01-11, 22:01
So, for starters, I'll answer your query with a 'no'. :hap:

Good try, but wrong; Have another go.:cool:

chopper15
06-01-11, 23:01
Good try, but wrong; Have another go.:cool:

Yes?:sad:

Eureka! That Socrates was no fool was he?:clap:

Davet
06-01-11, 23:01
Well done.

Progress may may be occurring.:eek: :)

chopper15
07-01-11, 00:01
Well done.

Progress may may be occurring.:eek: :)

What exactly are those face thingies telling me Davet? For some reason my iPad won't display their message. :sad:

Any remedy, please?

ianh5979
07-01-11, 09:01
Chopper what on earth are you doing with modern technology like that?:D

Dixie
07-01-11, 10:01
For some reason my iPad won't display their message. :sad:

Any remedy, please? Cheap and nasty product - buy an Android device instead. Oh - and make a new year resolution not to pay hugely over the odds for cheap tat just because it's fashionable.

Dickie E
07-01-11, 13:01
Chopper,

forget the iPod, iPad and iPhone. Go for the iRon:

chopper15
07-01-11, 20:01
Cheap and nasty product - buy an Android device instead. Oh - and make a new year resolution not to pay hugely over the odds for cheap tat just because it's fashionable.

I don't think I'll pass on your advice to Mrs Chopper, she gave it to me for Christmas.:sad:

. . . . it is rather beautiful, Dixie, and how do you compare tat with tat?:hap:

Davet
07-01-11, 22:01
Whatever you want them to mean, Chopper.

chopper15
08-01-11, 01:01
Whatever you want them to mean, Chopper.

The double 'may' suggests uncertainty to me, Davet.:sad:

Davet
08-01-11, 13:01
Or a typo

tim White
08-01-11, 17:01
It is a part of the small print of SOD'S Law -you only find out how good something is AFTER you have paid for it -it is rarely better than you expected. :(