Page 14 of 32 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 320

Thread: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

      
  1. #131
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    614
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    So in conclusing yes the re-write is a clumsy mess. A bit of a curates egg The matrices showing the scum liine out awards and PK positioning are positive changes but removing details from the actual "offence" seems daft. The omitting of the law trials is very odd.

    My main gripe is that had we referees seen this earlier we could have ironed out the book before it was printed.

    I notice my phone app has now changed to the 2018 book so I can't use both books together unless I carry a hard copy of 2017 with me as well as the app. Which makes the app rather pointless.

  2. #132

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,975
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    765

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    Not for a kick or at least not if the kicker knew. A good kick from the middle of the 22 might get to halfway. A good kick from 15m in might get between the opposition 10 and 22. I know where I would prefer the penalty. On a windy day I have seen kickers struggle to get any gain from a midfield penalty.
    ... and at U13/U14 level, or even WADR some levels of female rugby, they may not even make touch from the middle of the 22m line.

    didds

  3. #133

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,456
    Thanks (Received)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    1326

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post
    Interesting Document. My thoughts:

    when you say something is just a 'tidy up' I think what you are saying is that it IS a change - but it's a small and welcome change, and in these instances I would agree.

    But when Laws change the normal practice that WR have followed for ages is
    - WR communicates the changes
    - the new Lawbook highlights the bits that have changed in pale green

    and that's what should have happened here. Instead we have the opposite : an announcement that nothing has changed, and yet some changes smuggled in.

    Anyway

    Quickly take Kick

    Covered by 10.1-4 the offence is still there. Just the effective duplication of law removed.
    The change is in the obligation to retreat. In the 2017 Law book players in front of a quick tap had a sepcific obligation to retreat.
    In the 2018 Law Book players in front of a quick tap are, as you rightly point out, offside in general play and caught by 10.1 - 4 - but under these Laws, there is no obligation to retreat. That's the change. (you might say that's also a tidy up)


    Knock-on into in goal

    Law 7.3 (f) No advantage when the ball is made dead. So it is still there.
    if you want to continue with that debate then you should post on the dedicated thread - so that everyone who is thoroughly bored of the topic can ignore it But that's not what 7.3 says. The thread is here http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread....n-or-into-goal
    Last edited by crossref; 03-03-18 at 12:03.

  4. #134
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    614
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    THe time to retreat at a Quick PK is so insignificant. That there really is nothing to see.


    No a tidy up is not a change (in terms of what is being said. Yes it is in terms of how it is being said. But that is not the same thing.

    No thanks I'll post it here (the reference to the Knock on in goal) as it is relevant here.I would read it that the IRB clarified the point with the extra wording. They problably think that all refs should have got the message by now. There is no advantage after the ball goes dead. S owe go back the the Knock on scrum sanction. We are not required to like it but there it is. Note that in the case of a knock on into touch there is an Choice and that is clarified by an inclusion in law.

  5. #135

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,456
    Thanks (Received)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    1326

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Obligation to retreat at a quick tap --
    Yes I agree that it's not a very significant change
    And its for the better , and we probably all reffed in the 2018 manner anyway

    But nevertheless it's still a change and that's why it's listed in the table
    Last edited by crossref; 03-03-18 at 13:03.

  6. #136
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    614
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Doing Crossref's quiz I noticed the followign change:

    The old law stated that it is mandatory for intentional foul play leading to a PT to result in a "Caution and Teporary Suspension or sending off"



    2017 Book 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
    (a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or
    play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned
    that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
    have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be
    cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. (this was the subject of a clarification that only intentional offending mandated to card)


    the law clarification 9/2004
    The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

    Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

    The first paragraph states:
    Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent-off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

    The final paragraph states:
    A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

    The clarification sought is:
    Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

    Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

    The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
    In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

    Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

    Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
    Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

    The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

    Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
    • a collapsed scrum
    • a collapsed maul
    • a defending player intentionally offside
    • a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

    If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

    Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
    • mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
    • unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.



    However, in the new book:

    2018 Book
    Law 8.3
    PENALTY TRY
    3. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team
    prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A
    player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    THe Reference to Intentional offending has been removed. This makes a significant difference!

  7. #137

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,456
    Thanks (Received)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    1326

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Hmm how am I going to squeeze all that into the table ?

  8. #138

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria -The North
    Grade
    Advisor/Assessor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 05
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    80

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Pt=yc/rc
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    (Groucho Marx)

  9. #139
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    614
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    118

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by tim White View Post
    Pt=yc/rc


    The 9/2004 clarification states:

    Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

    Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
    • a collapsed scrum
    • a collapsed maul
    • a defending player intentionally offside
    • a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

    If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

    The difference is very clear. If as an Advisor /assessor you were euling that all PTs MUST be cacompanied by a card before Jan 1 2018, I am sorry but you were wrong in law.From 1 Jan 2018 and the Simplified (but NO CHANGES IN LAW) book You would be correct. Or are you saying thw clarification 9/2004 is was an error?

  10. #140
    Rugby Club Member ouk.'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Northland Rugby Referees Association
    Grade
    Steep
    Join Date
    05 Aug 17
    Posts
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default Re: Where the 2018 Law Book is actually different from 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    If you spot anything else -- let me know

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing
    Did you check out the few minor ones I mentioned earlier here: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread....l=1#post342029 ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •