PDA

View Full Version : 'May not . . . .'?



chopper15
14-10-07, 19:10
What exactly does the words 'may not . . . .' mean in the Laws?

Obviously, I know that I 'may' should I want to!

But what if I do when I know I 'may not' ?

I'm serious!

Simon Griffiths
14-10-07, 19:10
I suspect it means you 'may not' even if you should want to.

I don't think we can read to much into it, it just means no...

OB..
14-10-07, 20:10
I can only find "may not" in the phrase "the replaced player may not return to the field of play". The natural meaning of "is not allowed to" makes sense.

There is no infringement as such; the referee will simply not allow it, and will not re-start the game until the player goes off again.

chopper15
14-10-07, 20:10
I can only find "may not" in the phrase "the replaced player may not return to the field of play". The natural meaning of "is not allowed to" makes sense.
There is no infringement as such; the referee will simply not allow it, and will not re-start the game until the player goes off again.



So, 'may not hold the ball' and he does . . . the ref will simply not allow it will he?

And what if it interferes with the course of the game? It seems a strange choice of wording without an explanation.

David J.
14-10-07, 20:10
Could you specifically cite the law in question?

The phrase "may not hold the ball" does not appear in the laws. "Must not" appears frequently. It appears in areas when the referee has control, as in a player "must not" return to play if substituted. The referee would simply not allow the game to start if a player tried coming back on. The other sense, (within the course of the game) as in a player "must not hold, push, or charge" a player not holding the ball has a consequence spelled out.

What law do you think is unclear?

chopper15
20-10-07, 10:10
Could you specifically cite the law in question?

The phrase "may not hold the ball" does not appear in the laws. "Must not" appears frequently. It appears in areas when the referee has control, as in a player "must not" return to play if substituted. The referee would simply not allow the game to start if a player tried coming back on. The other sense, (within the course of the game) as in a player "must not hold, push, or charge" a player not holding the ball has a consequence spelled out.

What law do you think is unclear?



Law 19 Def. Last para. 1st sent.

Altho' not a literal quote the syntax does obviously suggest 'may not hold the ball'.


So, as OB suggests;
I can only find "may not" in the phrase "the replaced player may not return to the field of play". The natural meaning of "is not allowed to" makes sense.
There is no infringement as such; the referee will simply not allow it, and will not re-start the game until the player goes off again.

'.... and will not restart the game until....' Therefore, in Law 19 context what happens?

OB..
20-10-07, 11:10
If a player in touch catches the ball or holds it, then the ball is in touch (as stated in the 6th paragraph). However if he merely kicks or knocks it, the ball is not in touch (unless it has crossed the plane of touch), so play continues.

The reason for "but not hold it" is to prevent any apparent conflict with the earlier provision.

I find the whole definition section badly written, and this is an example. The last sentence is in effect an exception to an exception.

chopper15
20-10-07, 13:10
If a player in touch catches the ball or holds it, then the ball is in touch (as stated in the 6th paragraph). However if he merely kicks or knocks it, the ball is not in touch (unless it has crossed the plane of touch), so play continues.

The reason for "but not hold it" is to prevent any apparent conflict with the earlier provision.

I find the whole definition section badly written, and this is an example. The last sentence is in effect an exception to an exception.





I think you've probably guessed what I'm alluding to . . . .one of my earlier points about Denis Leamy catching the restart ball with one foot deliberately placed in touch when it was obvious the ball was dropping into the field-of-play ref; the last para. which all the thread contributors failed to mention confirming that your ref. buddy gave a 'Good Call'.

It's obvious what the 'spirit' of the law intends, Leamy simply interfered with what the Argentinian FH (Can't think what the, probably, best FH in the WC is called, tha's age for you!) was trying to do. NB the last sentence in the last para. please! It most certainly has a direct bearing on the implied intention of the Law along with 'DIRECT' into touch, or as us learned terrace referees say 'OUT ON THE FULL'!

OB..
20-10-07, 14:10
I should have said "the first sentence of the last paragraph" rather than than "the last sentence".

chopper15
20-10-07, 18:10
I should have said "the first sentence of the last paragraph" rather than than "the last sentence".

So, is that it?

OB..
20-10-07, 23:10
chopper15 - I'm afraid I have no idea what you are asking.

David J.
21-10-07, 20:10
I think you've probably guessed what I'm alluding to . . . .one of my earlier points about Denis Leamy catching the restart ball with one foot deliberately placed in touch when it was obvious the ball was dropping into the field-of-play ref; the last para. which all the thread contributors failed to mention confirming that your ref. buddy gave a 'Good Call'.

It's obvious what the 'spirit' of the law intends, Leamy simply interfered with what the Argentinian FH (Can't think what the, probably, best FH in the WC is called, tha's age for you!) was trying to do. NB the last sentence in the last para. please! It most certainly has a direct bearing on the implied intention of the Law along with 'DIRECT' into touch, or as us learned terrace referees say 'OUT ON THE FULL'!

Well, no, I doubt anyone guessed what you were referring to. You've selected one sentence out of context to base a belief on that runs contrary to established law. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

This isn't even in the category of "can a player on the ground take possession of the ball". It's simply the way the game is played.

You're ignoring other sentences in the same section, like,
"The ball is in touch if a player carthes the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
If the player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch."

The sentence you're referring to is not well written, but that does not change the fact that the FH kicked directly to touch. Sorry.

Davet
22-10-07, 14:10
Chopper - "the player in touch may....not hold [the ball]...."

This refers to whether the ball is, or is not, in touch - rather than being a prohibition on holding the ball. If the player knocks or kicks it, and if the ball has not crossed the plane of touch then the ball is NOT in touch. (If the player knocks it forward this would therefore lead to a scrum/advantage)

Conversley, if he holds it - it is in touch. Regardless of whether the ball has crossed the plane of touch.

The "may...not" is a reference to actions which can keep the ball alive. You need to read the definition as a whole.

Which demonstrates neatly that in Leamy's case the ref was correct.

By virtue of Leamy being in touch the ball was in touch as soon as he caught it. Which meant that it was out on the full.

chopper15
22-10-07, 15:10
With reference to Law19.

Para.1 Kicked DIRECTLY into touch (colloq.’Out on the full’);

Ball kicked thro’ THE PLANE OF TOUCH into touch without contacting field-of-play or player/ref. in the FoP.

With ref. to Restarts, Law13. 9.

Ball goes DIRECTLY into touch.



Anyone disagrees with what I consider is 'the spirit' of the law?

And for goodness sake aren't any of you learned refs out there willing to act as a Devil's Ad' to sort out this disgracefully draughted law?

Account Deleted
29-10-07, 01:10
"Disgracefully"?

Sorry mate Vietnam Vets sleeping on the streets while a draft dodger sleeps in the White house is disgraceful. A badly worded (Rugby) law is not!

Let's get a sense of proportion.

The powers to be have told us that what Leamy did is legal He made the kick bad by his good positioning. Nothing against the spirit of the Law at all.

chopper15
31-10-07, 01:10
"Disgracefully"?

Sorry mate Vietnam Vets sleeping on the streets while a draft dodger sleeps in the White house is disgraceful. A badly worded (Rugby) law is not!

Let's get a sense of proportion.

The powers to be have told us that what Leamy did is legal He made the kick bad by his good positioning. Nothing against the spirit of the Law at all.





WOW!, and I thought I was only referring to 'the condition of being strongly disapproved of '


I could never understand why the Laws have never been revised over the years by a pro. wordsmith. Isn't there such a process of feed-back establised; Law 19 is a classic example of confusion.

50 or so years ago Law 1's descrip. of the posts read something like 'The min. ht. is 12ft and max. ht. deemed to be infinite'. The 'infinite' has been negligently dropped making a nonsense of Law9.1.Goal. ... kicking the ball over an opponents' cross-bar AND BETWEEN THE POSTS....!

So, if it went higher the ref. could 'lawfully' disallow it!

I still feel strongly that 'DIRECT' into touch as 'Out on the full' obviously should mean just that; 'PASSING THRO' THE VERTICAL PLANE OF THE TOUCH_LINE' to make contact in touch. Or alternatively drop the word 'direct' as it's now rendered meaningless.

Incidently, has anyone seen or heard of the Denis Leamey's restart catch happening before?

I can imagine a player lying in the FoP, flat on his back at right angles to touch, with his heels on the line and arms out-stretched palms up behind him.

The restart kick falls direct into his waiting hands at about 2m out from touch.

'' Straight into touch! Scrum back or kick again?'' I hear the ref. call.

''Good call'' you all echo !!??

Account Deleted
31-10-07, 02:10
A ball is in touch when it touches anything that is in touch. Stand, player,crowd, tree, cat, dog, mouse or the floor. When the ball hit Leamy it was in touch.

Just as if a player is in field he can catch a ball that has crossed the line of touch. The ball in this case is live and we play on.

The call was right end of!

OB..
31-10-07, 04:10
I could never understand why the Laws have never been revised over the years by a pro. wordsmith. Isn't there such a process of feed-back establised; Law 19 is a classic example of confusion.
The law makers are trying to square the circle. They want the laws to be understood by laymen, and yet they want them to be unambiguous. Any Parliamentary draughtsman will tell you that these aims are incompatible.

There is plenty of scope for improving the laws without going to legalese. A report was submitted to the RFU Laws Committee along those lines about a year ago. There are plenty of lawyers at the top of the RFU.


50 or so years ago Law 1's descrip. of the posts read something like 'The min. ht. is 12ft and max. ht. deemed to be infinite'. The 'infinite' has been negligently dropped making a nonsense of Law9.1.Goal. ... kicking the ball over an opponents' cross-bar AND BETWEEN THE POSTS....!
In 1908, 1949, and 1959 the laws merely specified the height of the posts as "exceeding 11 ft". On metrication that became "3.4 metres".

In the 19th century the laws specified that a ball going over the top of a post was called a "poster" and did not count as a goal. Currently it seems to be assumed that "between the posts" is good enough. I can think of better things to worry about.

Simon Griffiths
31-10-07, 05:10
I can imagine a player lying in the FoP, flat on his back at right angles to touch, with his heels on the line and arms out-stretched palms up behind him.

The restart kick falls direct into his waiting hands at about 2m out from touch.

'' Straight into touch! Scrum back or kick again?'' I hear the ref. call.

''Good call'' you all echo !!??
:D :D :D :wow: :wow: :wow:

Excuse me whilst I pick myself up off the floor...

David J.
31-10-07, 15:10
WOW!, and I thought I was only referring to 'the condition of being strongly disapproved of '


I could never understand why the Laws have never been revised over the years by a pro. wordsmith. Isn't there such a process of feed-back establised; Law 19 is a classic example of confusion.

50 or so years ago Law 1's descrip. of the posts read something like 'The min. ht. is 12ft and max. ht. deemed to be infinite'. The 'infinite' has been negligently dropped making a nonsense of Law9.1.Goal. ... kicking the ball over an opponents' cross-bar AND BETWEEN THE POSTS....!

So, if it went higher the ref. could 'lawfully' disallow it!

I still feel strongly that 'DIRECT' into touch as 'Out on the full' obviously should mean just that; 'PASSING THRO' THE VERTICAL PLANE OF THE TOUCH_LINE' to make contact in touch. Or alternatively drop the word 'direct' as it's now rendered meaningless.

Incidently, has anyone seen or heard of the Denis Leamey's restart catch happening before?

I can imagine a player lying in the FoP, flat on his back at right angles to touch, with his heels on the line and arms out-stretched palms up behind him.

The restart kick falls direct into his waiting hands at about 2m out from touch.

'' Straight into touch! Scrum back or kick again?'' I hear the ref. call.

''Good call'' you all echo !!??

No, not a good call....There's the option of a line out too!
:wink:

chopper15
31-10-07, 20:10
Perhaps the restart kick law could now include 'Out on the full' qualified by 'thro' the v.plane of touch' as 'direct' into touch is now rendered meaningless by Leamey's intervention.

Again, has anyone seen or heard of the Denis Leamey's restart catch happening before? You only seem to address what you feel safe with; surely some learned ref. can stick their neck out and act as devil's adv.

Account Deleted
01-11-07, 00:11
Yes chopper I've seen it many times! The ref was right and Leamy acted within the Law and showed intelligence too!

Re crossing the plain of touch does not mean the ball ia in touch. This has already been explained to you.

Account Deleted
01-11-07, 00:11
Why act as devils advocate when the law is clear Chopper? Direct to touch is clear according to the Law and rulings. No problem. Please move on.

OB..
01-11-07, 01:11
Like ATTR, I don't see problem here. It is standard practice since the 2000 re-write.