PDA

View Full Version : Incorrect You answered A. The correct answer is a. !



Rob M W
01-10-11, 12:10
Incorrect You answered A. The correct answer is a. !
1760

chopper15
02-10-11, 00:10
When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?

Where is the ball and/or the player relative to the 22? Is the ball moving or stationary? You can't answer until they're known, so what's the point?

Eg., with reference to the last sentence of 19.1b. If the ball has already rolled there of course he can.

Robert Burns
02-10-11, 01:10
Yeah, I'm aware of this but as I'm in NZ I cannot fix it.

Thanks for reporting it though.

didds
02-10-11, 01:10
When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?

Where is the ball and/or the player relative to the 22? Is the ball moving or stationary? You can't answer until they're known, so what's the point?

???

the defending player is outside the 22. he plays the ball - the ball thus must have been outside of the 22. they are BOTH outside of the 22.

It doesn;t matter if the player and/or ball is stationary or moving.

??

didds

chopper15
02-10-11, 01:10
The wording taken from the law can be interpreted as the ball is outside the 22, didds, not necessarily the player. Then you would want to know if it was static or moving when he 'played' it.

Same applies to the last sentence of 19.1b. Agree?

The Fat
02-10-11, 12:10
The wording taken from the law can be interpreted as the ball is outside the 22, didds, not necessarily the player. Then you would want to know if it was static or moving when he 'played' it.

Same applies to the last sentence of 19.1b. Agree?

What are you smoking Chopper?
It's a straight forward question with only one answer and not a myriad of possible alternate scenarios. The only problem is that the quiz incorrectly tells the quizee that he/she has given the wrong answer. It's not a trick question.

OB..
02-10-11, 14:10
The question quotes the law and is simply seeking to find out if the responder knows how it finishes.

didds
02-10-11, 14:10
The question quotes the law and is simply seeking to find out if the responder knows how it finishes.

yup. clearly and obviously.

didds

chopper15
02-10-11, 20:10
19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball (coming) from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

If he's standing within his 22 and deflects the ball down onto the 22 and it's then kicked direct into touch it'll be a gain in ground . . . that is, of course, if the opp's were last to touch it.

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?:chin:

How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points? :sad:

didds
02-10-11, 20:10
because as has been already explained to you the wording is a direct quote from the laws. It is testing the reader's knowledge of the laws as written. That is all. As already explained.

No doubt there is another question being devised about what happens when a herd of mad elephants arrives led by an ex-Albanian international that now lives in samoa, eating a energy bar containing EPO, speaking a non-English native language, on a Tuesday, wearing leggings that is levitating above the 22m line etc.

When that one gets published we'll discuss what it means. In the meantime we'll look at the words in that question, the words in the law it directly refers to and add the three words the quote left out.

To whit

GAIN IN GROUND.

as OB said somewhere... End Of.

didds

Phil E
02-10-11, 21:10
If he's standing within his 22 and deflects the ball down onto the 22 and it's then kicked direct into touch it'll be a gain in ground . . . that is, of course, if the opp's were last to touch it.

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?:chin:

How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points? :sad:

Chopper, clearly being Cornish, you can't read English. RTFQ......Read the F'in Question.

When a defending player, plays the ball from outside the 22.

So the first defender was outside the 22 and played the ball.

and it goes into that players 22

So we know he played it from outside the 22......into the 22 (played back).

Which bit of that are you finding hard to understand.......because it is crystal clear, but then English is my first language.

chopper15
03-10-11, 01:10
I think the problem with you experienced refs is, as soon as you see a reference to a particular law, accepted interpretation immediately gives you the answer without having to read it.

So perhaps it would help the 'less-informed' if Ques.7 simply read: 'When a defending player outside the 22 plays the ball and it goes into that player's 22 . . . ', the pertinent law could then accompany the answer.

I don't think I would have any trouble in deciphering and answering that one correctly then.:hap:

Chopper, clearly being Cornish, you can't read English. RTFQ......Read the F'in Question.

'Fraid not, Phil. Please translate.:sad:

didds
03-10-11, 09:10
I really don't know how to say this any other way Chopper.

the questions is not about "when this hapopens and that happens and the martian space craft hovers above the 22m line" etc..

Its a direct quote from the laws requesting the answerer to insert the missing words.

It is NOT a scenario question. Its a direct LAW question.

If you can't understand that then there is no point continuing this thread because you have had the honest answer whether you like it or not. I am beginning to understand why so many others on this forum clearly think you are an idiot.

And I'm not a ref. experienced or otherwise.

didds

chopper15
03-10-11, 18:10
am beginning to understand why so many others on this forum clearly think you are an idiot. didds

Why so unpleasant, didds? Not necessary to belittle someone just because they may lack in the mental ability and learning that you apparently have been blessed with . . . I was just offering an opinion and tried to give an explanation for it that's all.:sad:


Petulant-adjective ORIGIN1590–1600; < L petulant- (s. of petulāns) impudent, akin to petere to seek, head for.

1. moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance: a petulant toss of the head.[/B]


Idiot-noun ORIGIN1250–1300; ME < L idiōta< Gk idiṓtēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise.

1 an utterly foolish or senseless person.

2 Psychol.a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.


Crass- -adjective, -er, -est. ORIGIN1535–45; (< MF) < L crassus thick, dense, fat, heavy

1 without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.

2 Archaic. thick; coarse.



. . . . having looked up the noun 'Idiot' I don't honestly think I qualify.:hap:

OB..
03-10-11, 19:10
Chopper – here is a summary. You first asked:

When these individual laws are isolated for a quiz shouldn't they be rephrased as a specific scenario?
Posts 6, 7, and 8 pointed out that the question was simply checking if the responder knew the wording of the law. It is a perfectly valid type of question.

You replied with

So why shouldn't I query where the defender was standing and who put the ball into the 22?
How is the responder supposed to know the answer if he's not told these pertinent points?
Which suggested you had not read or not understood the previous answers, thus provoking posts 12 and 13 into making the point again.

Your next reply attacked us as referees

I think the problem with you experienced refs is, as soon as you see a reference to a particular law, accepted interpretation immediately gives you the answer without having to read it.

So perhaps it would help the 'less-informed' if Ques.7 simply read: 'When a defending player outside the 22 plays the ball and it goes into that player's 22 . . . ', the pertinent law could then accompany the answer.
again missing the point. The answer is not "accepted interpretation". It is the exact letter of the law. Useful for a referee to know.

You want the question rephrased as a scenario. That would make a different (also valid) question but that does not mean we ought to ditch this one. This is now the 6th effort to get that point across. You show no signs of understanding it. Do you wonder people get irritated?

Rushforth
03-10-11, 22:10
Gentlemen,

I refer you to the post topic, which some seem not to have noticed:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?13293-Incorrect-%E2%80%93-You-answered-A.-The-correct-answer-is-a.-!/page2

A or a?

Please stop arguing at cross purposes.

dave_clark
03-10-11, 22:10
not at all - post 3 is by the site owner saying that he'll sort it once back from holiday. and we'll argue at all those purposes, cross or otherwise :biggrin:

Davet
03-10-11, 22:10
Rob answered this in post 3.

He says he will fix it when he can.

Arguing at cross purposes is what Chopper does. Though why when he says that he is not well equipped mentally he should be upset when referred to as an idiot when that represents his own assessment of himself, I cannot understand.

chopper15
03-10-11, 23:10
19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' would've been omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO was the law's intent. I thought it would be helpful to query this ambiguity, that was all.

And, OB, you mention it was explained to me. With respect, have another read of those you identified and endorsed along with those silly irrelevant comments . . . . thread #11 being a particularly good example.:hap:

didds
03-10-11, 23:10
I give up.

didds

chopper15
04-10-11, 00:10
Rob answered this in post 3.

He says he will fix it when he can.

Arguing at cross purposes is what Chopper does. Though why when he says that he is not well equipped mentally he should be upset when referred to as an idiot when that represents his own assessment of himself, I cannot understand.


I did take into consideration that he probably didn't mean it, particularly when I knew it didn't apply.:horse: :hap:

chopper15
04-10-11, 00:10
I give up.

didds

I do attempt to qualify my point, didds.:hap: what don't you accept in my explanation . . . it actually makes sense.:love: . . . agree, OB?

The Fat
04-10-11, 00:10
I do attempt to qualify my point, didds.:hap: what don't you accept in my explanation . . . it actually makes sense.:love: . . . agree, OB?

This is a gee-up right?
You are sitting at your computer, chuckling to yourself and waiting for the next one of us to reply in sheer frustration right?
I'm with didds.

OB..
04-10-11, 01:10
And, OB, you mention it was explained to me. Yes. Several times. This is my last attempt.

The question is NOT about a scenario. You may think it ought to be, but it isn't.

It is PURELY about the actual wording of Law. The answer quotes Law 19.1 (b) and the point of the question is to see if you know how the sentence ends. The correct answer is simply regurgitating the words in the law book. There is no interpretation involved. You are not required to think about what the words mean. You are merely meant to know what the law book says.

Your comments about interpretation or scenario are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to this question.

chopper15
04-10-11, 22:10
Yes. Several times. This is my last attempt.

The question is NOT about a scenario. You may think it ought to be, but it isn't.

It is PURELY about the actual wording of Law. The answer quotes Law 19.1 (b) and the point of the question is to see if you know how the sentence ends. The correct answer is simply regurgitating the words in the law book. There is no interpretation involved. You are not required to think about what the words mean. You are merely meant to know what the law book says.

Your comments about interpretation or scenario are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to this question.

Apologies gents. And OB, I understand and accept your explanations - the wise-cracks were entertaining, revealing and understandable - I realise I was discussing at cross-purposes as one of you mentioned . . but do appreciate your replies. Thanks.

At the time I didn't realise the objective of the quiz and thought that the wording of the law was simply used to give a scenario to prompt the question.

As my comments were at a cross purpose - in that I was attempting to answer it as a scenario and tried to establish where the player was standing - would appreciate any opinions you may care to give on my thread #19.:hap:

ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' would've been omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO was the law's intent. I thought it would be helpful to query this ambiguity, that was all.

didds
04-10-11, 23:10
It took seven posts all saying exactly the same thing as OB finished with before it sunk in.

OB told you three times. I told you twice and confirmed in a third.

I can only conclude from that that you didn't actually read and inwardly digest the first six pieces of advice in this regard.

Infer from that what you will.

Thank God you understood before one of us died.

didds

The Fat
04-10-11, 23:10
Apologies gents. And OB, I understand and accept your explanations - the wise-cracks were entertaining, revealing and understandable - I realise I was discussing at cross-purposes as one of you mentioned . . but do appreciate your replies. Thanks.

At the time I didn't realise the objective of the quiz and thought that the wording of the law was simply used to give a scenario to prompt the question.

As my comments were at a cross purpose - in that I was attempting to answer it as a scenario and tried to establish where the player was standing - would appreciate any opinions you may care to give on my thread #19.:hap:

ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' would've been omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO was the law's intent. I thought it would be helpful to query this ambiguity, that was all.

Not sure there is a need for your last question as it has all been covered many times before. A defender is standing inside his 22 and picks up a ball that is outside his 22 and then kicks directly to touch. As to the question of a gain in ground, it all depends on if the ball was moving or stationary when he picked it up. Again, there is no hidden path to enlightenment here. It is all straight forward and covered in LoTG in 19.1(c) & 19.1(e)

chopper15
04-10-11, 23:10
It took seven posts all saying exactly the same thing as OB finished with before it sunk in.

OB told you three times. I told you twice and confirmed in a third.

I can only conclude from that that you didn't actually read and inwardly digest the first six pieces of advice in this regard.

Infer from that what you will.

Thank God you understood before one of us died.


didds



Didn't you read all of my last thread, didds?

I recognise now that I was pursuing a cross purpose and apologised for it . . . what else would you want from this dear old gent? :sad:

But surely you, and in particular the refs among you being the host members, could've addressed my cross-purpose observation. Should you care to think about it - and I do think you may - you're as guilty as I was in our over-sights.:hap:

. . . an opinion on my thread, please, didds?


PS. Thanks for commenting, TF. . . . but don't you recognise that the way the law's opening sentence is worded can be confusing for site members not familiar with refs' accepted interpretation?:hap:

OB..
05-10-11, 00:10
chopper - may I suggest you start a new thread, beginning with a succinct statement of your question, assuming that nobody has seen it before (to ensure completeness and clarity).

The Fat
05-10-11, 00:10
PS. Thanks for commenting, TF. . . . but don't you recognise that the way the law's opening sentence is worded can be confusing for site members not familiar with refs' accepted interpretation?:hap:

No.
It is basically a referees forum. Any visitors/non-refs would be encouraged to download a copy of the LoTG (as you obviously have), and read/study them if they don't understand what we are all on about.

chopper15
05-10-11, 18:10
No.
It is basically a referees forum. Any visitors/non-refs would be encouraged to download a copy of the LoTG (as you obviously have), and read/study them if they don't understand what we are all on about.

Of, course I know what you lot are on about, I only wish you could recognise the ambiguity of the opening sentence of 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' should be omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO IS the law's intent. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:

OB..
05-10-11, 20:10
Of, course I know what you lot are on about, I only wish you could recognise the ambiguity of the opening sentence of 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . .

For a defending player to play a ball which is from outside the 22, it can be reasonably assumed that the player would have to be inside the 22.

If not, 'from' should be omitted, ie., 19.1b: When a defending player plays the ball outside the 22 and it goes into that player's 22 . . . which IMHO IS the law's intent. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:IN this thread I do not care whether there is an ambiguity or not.

Phil E
05-10-11, 20:10
I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this ambiguity, that was all.:hap:

I think you're the only one that thinks that.

chopper15
05-10-11, 22:10
I think you're the only one that thinks that.

Phil is probably right, OB, I thought wrong.:sad:

Dickie E
05-10-11, 23:10
I think you're the only one that thinks that.

I can see Chopper's logic. Might be dancing on pin head stuff but makes some sense nonetheless.

I would have to agree that an on-line exam may be better if it was scenario structured rather than law structured. The latter approach invites a simple look-up without the necessary thinking behind it.

But who am I to criticise? I didn't get off my bum and make it happen.

OB..
06-10-11, 01:10
I would have to agree that an on-line exam may be better if it was scenario structured rather than law structured. The latter approach invites a simple look-up without the necessary thinking behind it.The quiz contains both types of question. I reckon getting referees to read the law book is a Good Thing. If they don't know the laws reasonably well, how can they apply them properly? At the very least they ought to know their way round the law book so they can look things up.

In this particular case I would expect any qualified referee to recognise the scenario the law is describing and thus be able to identify the correct answer.