Boys will be boys I

[Davet]

"If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly"

Now, surely he means that doing it quickly would be good?

Good can go from good, to better, to best. It doesn't go good, well, etc.,

If was done, when it was done then it would be good/better/best if it was done quickly.

Best would be best.

Who taught that fellow to write...?

[Rit Hinners]

Well, I can find no reference to who taught him to write but the where is supposedly the King's New School in Stratford.

[chopper15]

Originally Posted by OB..

All laws need to take into account the Definitions. I did not look back to see what you point you were making.

Originally Posted by Greg Collins
Blue winger speculatively throws ball back over his shoulder as he hits the deck, it stays in FOP and lands some 10m behind him where it bounces bobbles and it picked up by a trundling Blue prop.

Now our Blue prop ain't that bright and like Good King Wenceslas' page marks his wingers footsteps. Boldly. Red winger cannot believe his luck and as the mastodon like ball carrier attempts to swerve around around the prone Red winger the winger executes a tap tackle with his outstretched arm and down crashes our Blue prop.

Who is NOT going to penalise the Red winger?

I'm asking as there's no consensus one way or t'other to be had from these threads.


SimonS; I'll blow according to common sense and overarching principle: the game is to be played by players on their feet.

NKW; I'd blow according to 14.1d



I then suggested that Law 14.1(d) A player on the ground must not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent. is subject to Law 14 Ball on the Ground - No Tackle, Definitions.

To apply this particular law or for that matter any other 14 law would mean taking it out of context, which some refs consider permissable.

I just wondered what you think. Is 14.1 taken out of context if used to penalise Greg's Red winger? aka last Sat's 'Jonny scenario' when Rolland ignored the tackle . . being only a few feet away.

[OB..]

Penalise it. Use 10.4 (m) if you really must.

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by chopper15

I just wondered what you think. Is 14.1 taken out of context if used to penalise Greg's Red winger? aka last Sat's 'Jonny scenario' when Rolland ignored the tackle . . being only a few feet away.

there can be no doubt that applying the Law 14 definition in a scenario when Law 14 doesn't apply is indeed taking the definition out of context. The question is whether in doing so, a referee actually gives effect to the intent of the legislators, as divined by their acceptance of long practice in the game.

Law 14.1(d) is itself out of context. 14.1 says what the ball carrier must do when grounded but not tackled; 14.1(d) is a non-sequitur, preventing a player on the ground from tackling another player. Once again, the question is whether in applying outside a Law 14 situation, the referee is giving effect to the legislators' intent. In that particular case, I believe it is; thinking about law 14 it is hard to imagine a grounded ball carrier tacking anyone; he'd be too busy trying to exercise his options (or illegally to hang on, if he's isolated).

[Davet]

Chopper,

Law 14 definitions say that "this occurs when..." and "this also occurs when ..."

The definition doesn't state, "this ONLY occurs when... "

Why are you interpreting as if it did? The definitions are simply giving examples of common ways this Law may be triggered.

The Law however is unsatisfactory as it doesn't allow a tap tackle - which we would all allow, and would be hung out to dry if we pinged it under 14.1.d.

Nobody said refereeing was easy - if it was, any fool could do it.

[OB..]

Originally Posted by chopper15

As I mentioned, I used 'good' (as an adjective?) to mean , 'having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing'.

And what noun was that adjective qualifying?

The pedantic point is that in your phrase the word "good " would be parsed as qualifying the verb "write", so you should use an adverb. Dialects may differ, as in my example.

[Davet]

Do you mean that what he wrote was good, or the rubbish he wrote was well-written?

[chopper15]

Originally Posted by Davet

Do you mean that what he wrote was good, or the rubbish he wrote was well-written?

Rubbish, Davet? Really!



Re Davet commenting on law 14; Why are you interpreting as if it did? The definitions are simply giving examples of common ways this Law may be triggered.

The Law however is unsatisfactory as it doesn't allow a tap tackle - which we would all allow, and would be hung out to dry if we pinged it under 14.1.d.





Isn’t the division in interpretatation caused by;

(i) those refs, like yourself, who consider the laws listed under Law14 to be typical examples which allow refs latitude in interpretation, and

(ii) those refs who accept that those laws are simply concomitants of the Heading/Description?



The downside of you ‘examplers’, however, is not having consensus on where to draw the line . . . hence, of course, this drawn out discussion.

And, Davet, that’s why ‘concoms’ don’t have to ping a tap-tackle’ under law 14.1 (d). . . . it would be inflicting that law out of context.