PDA

View Full Version : The Gate is dead! Long live the Gate!



ChrisR
20-08-18, 12:08
NKW brought this up in January but the thread didn't get much traction then. So now that the trials are in the 2018 Laws I'm wondering what the impact on the game is.


2017 Laws
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

2018 Laws
6. Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.



So, in 2017 we had the virtual 'gate' as a reference. Now we have "from the direction of their own goal line".

I recall that 'coming in from the side' being applied at a tackle in the 2018 World 7s. I wasn't sure if the 2018 trials were in force.

With the new season under way have y'all given this much thought? Any instructions from your societies?

As a coach I'm going to stick to 'behind the ball' until I get a sense of what the parameters are. Didds, any thoughts?

CrouchTPEngage
20-08-18, 12:08
In case it helps, the guidance (informally) given to me was there is little changed. The wording changed to disambiguate the meaning of "behind" in the phrase "behind the ball" which could be interpreted relative to a tackler. Instead the phrase "from the direction of their own goal line" is intended to be less subjective.
I am not changing my interpretation of what "coming in from the side" means - roughly a 90 degree wedge with an apex at the tackle area ( or gate ).
Hasnt been remarked upon by any Match-observer so far :-)

didds
20-08-18, 13:08
I'm taking the same approach as Chris. A totaslly fresh reading of current laws with no historicval context may mean that "sideways entry" appears to be permitted.

I'm not convinced that that is a deliberate change , doubt that WADR many "old" refs (ie before 2018!) even notice the change anyway, or change their interpretation if they do. Brand new refs needs advice as part of their training.

It is however a clear case of the simplification possibly ending up as not... ;-)

didds

Ian_Cook
21-08-18, 01:08
NKW brought this up in January but the thread didn't get much traction then. So now that the trials are in the 2018 Laws I'm wondering what the impact on the game is.


2017 Laws
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

2018 Laws
6. Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.



So, in 2017 we had the virtual 'gate' as a reference. Now we have "from the direction of their own goal line".

I recall that 'coming in from the side' being applied at a tackle in the 2018 World 7s. I wasn't sure if the 2018 trials were in force.

With the new season under way have y'all given this much thought? Any instructions from your societies?

As a coach I'm going to stick to 'behind the ball' until I get a sense of what the parameters are. Didds, any thoughts?

Well, in a strictly technical sense, the range of directions encompassing "the direction of your own goal line" gets wider the closer you are to it, and narrower the further you are from it. I regard "the direction of your own goal line" to be the direction toward the nearest part of your own goal-line, i.e. directly behind the ball. I sure that is what the writers meant even if they didn't write it that way.

ChrisR
21-08-18, 01:08
Well, in a strictly technical sense, the range of directions encompassing "the direction of your own goal line" gets wider the closer you are to it, and narrower the further you are from it. I regard "the direction of your own goal line" to be the direction toward the nearest part of your own goal-line, i.e. directly behind the ball. I sure that is what the writers meant even if they didn't write it that way.

If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

Ian_Cook
21-08-18, 03:08
If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

I've seen players who have come in at around a 45° angle being PK for side entry. Under what I said in my previous post, that would be PK, but under "own side of the ball", that would be legal.

And that is at a few levels of the game too; Saturday morning at the local park, in Mitre 10 Cup, and Super Rugby.

crossref
21-08-18, 06:08
For me the impact of the change is to relax the Law a little bit .. is a slightly wider angle of approach is now allowed.

Ieg f you allowed 30deg before you might allow 45 Deg now ..

ChrisR
21-08-18, 11:08
Ian, your observations are what I had anticipated. That the only real change in the trials, and now in law, is to prohibit the tackler from going for the ball from the opponent's side.

I think everyone accepted the concept of a 'gate' ("directly behind the tackled player") and the meaning of "behind the ball" as a means of keeping order at the tackle. To allow side entry is an invitation for more chaos.

SimonSmith
21-08-18, 12:08
I've written to my "boss" at USA R asking for formal guidance.

didds
21-08-18, 12:08
If that was what they meant then why change the wording from 2017? I'm thinking that they meant "from that players own side of the ball" but without regard to the 'gate'. But then why didn't they say that?

I raised it to see if there had been any subsequent union/society directives.

As to why change the wording... i'll put it down to getting so focused with "simplifying" the laws that sense whent out of the window - or there were a lot of abse presumptions being made

didds

didds
21-08-18, 12:08
For me the impact of the change is to relax the Law a little bit .. is a slightly wider angle of approach is now allowed.

Ieg f you allowed 30deg before you might allow 45 Deg now ..

You've more faith than I CR :-)

I don't see why they would decide to do that at all.

I just think its another cock up/poorly worded and proofed law re-rewrite.

"There are no changes" yadda yadda

It's tedious innit?

didds

Zebra1922
21-08-18, 18:08
I don't believe there is any material change, so we referee the tackle as we have always done.

Yes the new wording makes no reference to "behind the tackler", but this never mentioned a mythical gate, and behind could be in any direction depending on how the tackler lay (behind is relative the the tackler not any other part of the pitch). We previously would not have allowed aside entry or entry from the opposite side, we don't allow it now.

There will always be wording amendments, but if the guidance is nothing has changed, we should stop looking for problems and new interpretations. Yes there may be errors, report them to WR, but this should not change the fundamentals of how we have always refereed the game (subject to aforementioned WR "clarifications"!)

crossref
21-08-18, 19:08
The old Law said DIRECTLY behind the tackle.
The omission of that particular word is, I think, significant

While we can referee to the Law as it was in 2017, the legendary novice ref, whom we worry about so much , won't be aware of what the old Law was, and he or she is entitled to ref to the current Law

Ian_Cook
21-08-18, 21:08
I don't believe there is any material change, so we referee the tackle as we have always done.

Yes the new wording makes no reference to "behind the tackler", but this never mentioned a mythical gate, and behind could be in any direction depending on how the tackler lay (behind is relative the the tackler not any other part of the pitch). We previously would not have allowed aside entry or entry from the opposite side, we don't allow it now.

There will always be wording amendments, but if the guidance is nothing has changed, we should stop looking for problems and new interpretations. Yes there may be errors, report them to WR, but this should not change the fundamentals of how we have always refereed the game (subject to aforementioned WR "clarifications"!)


This!

To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade - Rector, St Alban's Episcopal Church (who was talking about The Bible)

"The Rugby Law Book is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say"

crossref
21-08-18, 21:08
To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade - Rector, St Alban's Episcopal Church (who was talking about The Bible)

"The Rugby Law Book is like a person; if you torture it long enough you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say"

Very wise words.
The 2018 Law Book has problems but generally speaking is very clear .

But the words can be tortured to resemble the 2017 book

OB..
21-08-18, 22:08
Very wise words.
The 2018 Law Book has problems but generally speaking is very clear .

But the words can be tortured to resemble the 2017 book
At this evening's referees' meeting we were advised that there have been NO LAW CHANGES.

crossref
21-08-18, 22:08
did you ask about any of the differences?

Ian_Cook
22-08-18, 01:08
At this evening's referees' meeting we were advised that there have been NO LAW CHANGES.

IMO this goes to what I have always considered about the Laws of the Game. You cannot just pick up a Law book, read it and then go out and referee a game of rugby, and nor should you be able to. It requires guidance, that's why we have Societies/Associations with education officers, training and assessment.

When I first started refereeing, I was lucky in one respect in that our Law books had additional "pink pages" after every Law. Those pages were explanatory notes that described in plain English what the preceding Laws actually meant and how they were to be applied. Its a shame this idea was never carried on.

didds
22-08-18, 08:08
When I first started refereeing, I was lucky in one respect in that our Law books had additional "pink pages" after every Law. Those pages were explanatory notes that described in plain English what the preceding Laws actually meant and how they were to be applied. Its a shame this idea was never carried on.

Maybe that's an indication of how the lawbook can't really be "simplified" ? maybe the actual requirement is not a simplification but in fact an extension of provision? Notwithstanding a review to tidy up all the areas that this forum has flagged (before the 2018 re-write)

didds

Rich_NL
22-08-18, 09:08
I think it would be an excellent idea to have a book of laws and a book of application guidelines, including law clarifications and conventions around the relevant laws.

OB..
22-08-18, 09:08
did you ask about any of the differences?The meeting was focussing on the new observer reporting procedures. It would have been inappropriate to jump in at that point but I am following it up off-line.

Dickie E
22-08-18, 11:08
Ieg f you allowed 30deg before you might allow 45 Deg now ..

and, of course, whatever the ball carrying team get, so too do the opposition. :pepper: Not.

didds
22-08-18, 13:08
and, of course, whatever the ball carrying team get, so too do the opposition. :pepper: Not.

except dead on the half way line :-)

The cl;oser to one's own try line, the wider the gate, the further from one's own, the narrower.

didds

didds
22-08-18, 13:08
so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds

ChrisR
22-08-18, 13:08
So . . . now Sir needs a protractor? Or will his smart watch be feeding him the calculation driven by the GPS function?

CrouchTPEngage
22-08-18, 14:08
so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds

Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

thepercy
22-08-18, 14:08
I think it would be an excellent idea to have a book of laws and a book of application guidelines, including law clarifications and conventions around the relevant laws.

Many different sports law/rule books have; explanations, application guides, clarifications, notes on refereeing, positioning guidelines for officials, and notes on specific/strange cases. All in one book or with an accompanying book. Why we can't/won't do this is baffling. Some Unions have attempted this, but I think it would be better if it was from WR.

OB..
22-08-18, 16:08
so on a 100m x 70m pitch, at a breakdown 1m in front of red's try line mid point provides:

blue team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XB) = 35/99 = 0.3535353535353535 => 19.47030201 degrees

red team:
TAN angle at breakdown (XR) = 35/1 = 35.0 => 88.36342296 degrees

(pretty sure that's correct!)

didds
I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

ChrisR
22-08-18, 20:08
I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

. . . and both need to be calculated then summed to account for the location side ti side. I think. Or you could just . . .

didds
22-08-18, 20:08
I think you are only counting one half of the angle to the perpendicular. There are 2, left and right.

ah yes - I was looking at the angle one could attack from any one side. But yes - double those angles to get the TOTAL angle available to any player indeed.

didds

didds
22-08-18, 20:08
Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

err... yes. based on what I perceived was the general "concern" . As I also say above that's not the interpretation I take with my squad.

didds

Jolly Roger
22-08-18, 22:08
My understanding is that nothing has changed.....yes I know......!
Therefore my interpretation of:

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

is that players must enter from the 6 o’clock position I.e.through the gate.

“But Sir, what if we come in from 5 or 7 o’clock”
“What if the tackled player is lying across the pitch rather than down the pitch”

Enter through the gate!
We all know what that means.
I don’t see an issue other than challenging the rewrite of the laws; which I agree has been less than helpful.

crossref
22-08-18, 22:08


Enter through the gate!
We all know what that means.


The concept of the gate has always been hazy, it was never defined in the Laws.
The rewrite makes it completely clear that the gate concept is redundant.

They have to come from the direction of their own goal line. End of.

It must be so frustrating for the Law authors to find d people studiously ignoring their careful clarifications

Phil E
23-08-18, 08:08
It must be so frustrating for the Law authors to find d people studiously ignoring their careful clarifications

Would that be the clarification that said "there are no changes in law"?


You can now say "I don't know what means" like a Pavlovian dog!

Ian_Cook
23-08-18, 08:08
Didds, There was no smiley-face indicator of humour, there. Thus, am I to assume you were being serious ?

didds? Serious?

You haven't been around here long have you?

Balones
23-08-18, 10:08
This forum never ceases to amaze me. I never thought when I first joined that I would see TAN used in an answer. Over the years we have had very detailed expert knowledge used to support a point of view and to answer genuine questions on all sort of topics. Including legal matters, engineering and translations etc. From now on I’m going to use this forum instead of Google.��

crossref
23-08-18, 10:08
Would that be the clarification that said "there are no changes in law"?




Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

SimonSmith
23-08-18, 12:08
The official statement from USA R, FWIW:


Apologies for the delay in response. I asked one of the WR law book editors. There is no change in application.

Probably a few missing words, like “may only play the ball”, and “from their goal line side of the tackle”.

Phil E
23-08-18, 13:08
Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

Au contraire

1. it confirms that there were no deliberate changes by the authors.

2. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

3. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

Not Kurt Weaver
23-08-18, 13:08
Exactly .
that incautious statement by WR had several effects

1 it undermined the many sensible and deliberate changes the authors did make

2 it's meant that people haven't noticed the many sensible and deliberate changes made

3 it's made it difficult for WR to correct the accidental changes they made by mistake , as to issue a new corrected version means admitting that the old version contained changes

4. this statement is used to end debate/discussion which should never be discouraged. Debate/discussion that may prove beneficial and provide clarity.

crossref
23-08-18, 14:08
Au contraire

1. it confirms that there were no deliberate changes by the authors.

2. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

3. doesn't apply as there were no law changes

We can argue about whether the changes were deliberate or accidental, and even whether they are known to the WR Blazers or not

But that there ARE changes is indisputable..

Zebra1922
23-08-18, 18:08
Changes in language yes, but as has been made clear by WR changes in law (or interpretation thereof) no.

WR state no changes so why do people insist on continuing to highlight language which is their view results in a law change? You’ve heard it from the top, stop trying to complicate matters.

crossref
23-08-18, 19:08
Being specific .. which items in my table of differences would you say that the 2018 and 2017 Law Books say the same thing ?

Flish
23-08-18, 20:08
Are we still doing this? Really? Be back in another month :sad:

ChrisR
23-08-18, 21:08
I didn't raise this question to debate change or no change from 2017 to 2018. I'm simply asking if the 2018 wording has changed the way in which the tackle is refereed.

This change goes back a long way. The following is an extract from a document released (?) by the Law Review Group who were preparing trials. The doc is dated December 22 2015.

4. All arriving players must come from an onside position (see 3 above) and can enter their side of the breakdown mid-point (no gate).

Their words, my bold and italics.

That has been percolating in the back of my mind and now that all trials have been incorporated into 2018 it's time to ask the question. What does this mean in the real referee world?

To paraphrase: Meet the new Law, just like the old Law.

didds
23-08-18, 21:08
My understanding is that nothing has changed.....yes I know......!
Therefore my interpretation of:

8. Other players must :
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.

is that players must enter from the 6 o’clock position I.e.through the gate.

“But Sir, what if we come in from 5 or 7 o’clock”
“What if the tackled player is lying across the pitch rather than down the pitch”

Enter through the gate!
We all know what that means.
I don’t see an issue other than challenging the rewrite of the laws; which I agree has been less than helpful.

what I tell my players is... when presenting...

IF they present with their body paralell to the try line, the gate is the width of their body fie from feet to head. So could be 5-6 feet wide (these are U15s).

IF they present with their body parallel to the touchlines, then the gate is about 1m wide (ie width of shoulders/hips).

That is my "rule of thumb". I appeciate it may not be shared by opposition coaches and referees - but in two years thus far (or there abouts) my squad hasnt; been pinged for in from the side IF they follow these "squad rules" when the oppo get tackled to the ground.

didds

SimonSmith
23-08-18, 23:08
Ian has a very good graphic that highlights that.

Dickie E
24-08-18, 03:08
except dead on the half way line :-)

The cl;oser to one's own try line, the wider the gate, the further from one's own, the narrower.

didds

that wasn't quite my point.

There is, was and always will be a greater tolerance for non-straight entry to the ball carrying team than to their opposition.

crossref
24-08-18, 06:08
Of course entry doesn't have to be straight .. just from the direction of your own goal line

Phil E
24-08-18, 09:08
I didn't raise this question to debate change or no change from 2017 to 2018. I'm simply asking if the 2018 wording has changed the way in which the tackle is refereed.


It shouldn't have.
Although top level referees do change the way they "interpret" things and this tends to filter down.

crossref
24-08-18, 09:08
It's an odd thing if the wording of the Laws of Rugby has no impact on the way the game is played.

didds
24-08-18, 10:08
that wasn't quite my point.

There is, was and always will be a greater tolerance for non-straight entry to the ball carrying team than to their opposition.

gotcha dickie!

didds

Ian_Cook
24-08-18, 13:08
what I tell my players is... when presenting...

IF they present with their body paralell to the try line, the gate is the width of their body fie from feet to head. So could be 5-6 feet wide (these are U15s).

IF they present with their body parallel to the touchlines, then the gate is about 1m wide (ie width of shoulders/hips).

That is my "rule of thumb". I appeciate it may not be shared by opposition coaches and referees - but in two years thus far (or there abouts) my squad hasnt; been pinged for in from the side IF they follow these "squad rules" when the oppo get tackled to the ground.

didds


Ian has a very good graphic that highlights that.


This one (what I nicked from Rugby Ready) ?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsqt72q69qldre2/TackleGate2.jpg?raw=1

Not Kurt Weaver
24-08-18, 13:08
This one (what I nicked from Rugby Ready) ?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsqt72q69qldre2/TackleGate2.jpg?raw=1

The two red arrows closest to the green arrows; in other descrip. the two red arrows at the bottom of the page, are the entries we are now in 2018 about which concerned.

Are these aforementioned red arrows legal entry at a tackle?

Phil E
24-08-18, 15:08
The two red arrows closest to the green arrows; in other descrip. the two red arrows at the bottom of the page, are the entries we are now in 2018 about which concerned.

Are these aforementioned red arrows legal entry at a tackle?

No because they are in front of the imaginary gatepost that exists at the corner of the backfoot line and the edge of the tackle area, to help us visualise the entry points.

crossref
24-08-18, 15:08
No because they are in front of the imaginary gatepost that exists at the corner of the backfoot line and the edge of the tackle area, to help us visualise the entry points.

Law Reference for that ?

Phil E
24-08-18, 16:08
Law Reference for that ?

There is no law reference for the gate, it's not mentioned in the laws (but then you already knew that).

As we have seen from this thread the entry point at a tackle is vague in the laws.
To make sense of it as referees we are told (you will have been told I am sure) that the easiest way to do this is visualise two gate posts.

Take a line across the back foot, then on that line note a point at the left and right edges of the tackle area. If you place an imaginary gate post at those two points on the back foot line, anyone entering the tackle in front of the gate post is illegal. Anyone entering between the gate posts is fine.

It's a way of helping you see in your minds eye what is acceptable. We do it for lots of things in the game in different ways. It's a referee aid.

But you see I know that you are already aware of all this, so why are you trying to muddy the waters...except maybe to prove a personal point?

At this point i'm out and wont be responding anymore.

thepercy
24-08-18, 16:08
Law Reference for that ?

This is covered in USA Rugby's GMG, and ARU GMG. Its too bad that WR does not have its own GMG or that all national unions don't have GMG. Every nuance of rugby refereeing does not need to be included in the LotG. But they should be written down somewhere official, like GMGs or in a WR training guide.

crossref
24-08-18, 17:08
I think the picture is a really useful one .

Looking at it from a green perspective : would anyone really penalise a green player entering along the line of the red arrow bottom right ?

I wouldn't

(But I would penalise a green player entering along the line of any of the other five arrows.)

Phil I wasn't making a 2017 v 2018 point , this isn't on my table of differences (it's too subtle and subjective)

I do think that modern practice has evolved to allow a green approach along arrow (given the shape of that particular tackle)

The way that they have chosen thenwording of the Law in 2018 reflects that evolution in the way we ref a tackle

Dickie E
24-08-18, 20:08
Looking at it from a green perspective : would anyone really penalise a green player entering along the line of the red arrow bottom right ?

I wouldn't



What about a blue player entering along the corresponding red arrow at the top?

Ian_Cook
25-08-18, 07:08
Anyone watching the Black Ferns v Wallaroos match will have their answer.

46th minute: Gold PK for side entry (clearly from her own side of the tackle but an an angle of about 45°)

REFEREE: "Side Entry: Go through the gate!"

crossref
25-08-18, 07:08
What about a blue player entering along the corresponding red arrow at the top?

As you say above we are stricter on the tackling team than the ball carrying team..

crossref
25-08-18, 08:08
Anyone watching the Black Ferns v Wallaroos match will have their answer.

46th minute: Gold PK for side entry (clearly from her own side of the tackle but an an angle of about 45°)

REFEREE: "Side Entry: Go through the gate!"

I am not sure what is the claim you make

If you say the diagram represents the letter of the Law - I'd say 'Law Reference please', as I don't think it does - the letter of the Law says 'from the direction of the player's own goal line and is far more relaxed than that diagram.


IF you say the diagram represents how we ref the tackle in practice I'd say : no one would penalise green for coming in on the bottom right arrow, would they?

Flish
25-08-18, 09:08
I have seen defenders walk in from almost 90 degrees (in front of the back foot too) to loosely bind on as guards to protect the 9 in Elite games, it’s always looked wrong to me and not been pinged, if attackers did the same it would be the easiest pen in the world, so defenders do seem to get more leeway

crossref
25-08-18, 10:08
That's an unusual usage of the terms attacker and defender ! Opposite to how I would normally use them

Flish
25-08-18, 10:08
I have seen attackers walk in from almost 90 degrees (in front of the back foot too) to loosely bind on as guards to protect the 9 in Elite games, it’s always looked wrong to me and not been pinged, defenders did the same it would be the easiest pen in the world, so defenders do seem to get more leeway

edited quote to reflect lack of caffeine

- - - Updated - - -


That's an unusual usage of the terms attacker and defender ! Opposite to how I would normally use them

Bugger, teach me to post whilst half asleep!

crossref
25-08-18, 10:08
It kind of made sense though , I can see how the tackling team are in a sense attacking the ruck that forms

ChrisR
25-08-18, 14:08
Anyone watching the Black Ferns v Wallaroos match will have their answer.

46th minute: Gold PK for side entry (clearly from her own side of the tackle but an an angle of about 45°)

REFEREE: "Side Entry: Go through the gate!"

One match, one instance in a far away land (from the US) but does WR know this?. I really think we should formally acknowledge 'the gate' in the Laws and diagram and document it.

Zebra1922
27-08-18, 00:08
I have seen defenders walk in from almost 90 degrees (in front of the back foot too) to loosely bind on as guards to protect the 9 in Elite games, it’s always looked wrong to me and not been pinged, if attackers did the same it would be the easiest pen in the world, so defenders do seem to get more leeway

Yes but it should be pinged. They generally join in front of the back foot, not through the gate, and are not bound. Offside and potential obstruction in my book.

Flish
27-08-18, 09:08
Yes but it should be pinged. They generally join in front of the back foot, not through the gate, and are not bound. Offside and potential obstruction in my book.

I agree, and i’ve warned off players who do similar in my games before now

crossref
27-08-18, 09:08
So , in Ian's diagram, who would penalise green for approaching on the bottom right red arrow ?
Anyone ?

SimonSmith
27-08-18, 13:08
So , in Ian's diagram, who would penalise green for approaching on the bottom right red arrow ?
Anyone ?

If I saw it, mebbe.

I had an easy one on Saturday. White gets tackled. White support, who is standing to the left of the tackle and perfectly level with it, simply stands still on his left foot and swings his right foot over the tackle.

Rich_NL
27-08-18, 13:08
If I saw it, mebbe.

I had an easy one on Saturday. White gets tackled. White support, who is standing to the left of the tackle and perfectly level with it, simply stands still on his left foot and swings his right foot over the tackle.

I've been pinged for this. It's surprisingly easy when you're exhausted, but I was awake enough to cringe as soon as I heard the whistle.

Zebra1922
27-08-18, 18:08
I've been pinged for this. It's surprisingly easy when you're exhausted, but I was awake enough to cringe as soon as I heard the whistle.

At least you cringed, the usual reaction is lots of moaning, groaning, hand waving, grumbling and general dissent :smile:

Ian_Cook
27-08-18, 21:08
So , in Ian's diagram, who would penalise green for approaching on the bottom right red arrow ?
Anyone ?


I would.

A player approaching along that line is not approaching from the direction of his own goal line.

In the 2017 Laws it says "directly behind the ball". OB advises "there have been NO LAW CHANGES", so that still applies.

crossref
27-08-18, 21:08
I agree that the diagram represents the letter of the 2017 Law ... But I don't think thats the way the game is reffed in practice the last few seasons .. almost all refs would allow it.