about arguments on forums...

[Dickie E]

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in, who then argue that the referee should play advantage as a subterfuge then call it over to award the defending team a 22DO instead. This is the type of advice that young/new referees could frankly, do without

Went to a ref's dinner on Wednesday night last week and Craig J and Nigel O were special guests.

They were asked, if they could change one law, what would it be.

Interestingly both said they'd change the law about a knock on into in goal not being a 22 drop out outcome.

Nigel also said he'd restrict subs to 20 minute mark, half time and 60 minute mark but that's a different topic.

[L'irlandais]

Isn't it like 3am in your part of the world?

Extract from OP linked discussion

...Avoiding interminable arguments is an important social engineering problem we’re really bad at. Part of it is that we need a way to distinguish the baby from the bathwater. What does it mean to seek out productive discussion while avoiding interminable arguments?

The crux of the matter (topic of this discussion thread, that is) is that discussions on RRF have become counterproductive, if viewed in the light of Robbie's "raison d'être" for these forums.