Law Change Proposal - Elminate accidental knock-ons

[OB..]

indeed, and when they addressed it they made it oval and unpredictable.

No they didn't. They simply defined the sort of ball everyone was already using.

but as I said, chicken and egg. I am not arguing that it was solely the chicken. But at the same time it wasn't solely the egg.

Dribbling was a significant part of the game until at least the 1950s, so why would anyone deliberately want to make it difficult? I don't see that your idea has any traction whatsoever.

[crossref]

I don't see that your idea has any traction whatsoever.

I am saying it's chicken and egg, right : in other words
- in part the game developed because of the shape of the ball
- but in part the shape of the ball was designed in order to meet the objectives of the game

So here's some examples of people who think the shape of the ball was designed to produce certain qualities. .. including - you'll see - a specific reference to making it oval so that it doesn't roll so far (ie more difficult to dribble)

Some people believe the more elongated shape developed because it was more suited to a game like rugby that involved running with the ball as well as kicking it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/h...00/3733304.stm

2 The distinctly shaped oval balls are deemed suited to the game of rugby as they are perfect to catch, hold and run with and don’t roll as far so don’t go out of play as often. It was also deemed important to ensure that rugby balls clearly differed from footballs.

https://www.intouchrugby.com/magazin...w-rugby-balls/

Over the years, the shape has changed slightly to make the ball more streamlined for passing and easier to hold.

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/ques...val-not-round/

The RFU decided in 1892 to make it compulsory that all rugby balls are oval in shape and this is where the standardization in size and shape began. The new 4 panel design was developed to be sleek and streamline to aid in the quick passing of the ball and also the flight of the ball once kicked.

https://www.sportsballshop.co.uk/sportsballblog/1093-2/

NB - I am not saying it's one or the other. I am saying it's chicken and egg - a bit of both

[leaguerefaus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_ball

RL balls are inflated with nitrogen! Who knew that?

Not sure who edited that, but no... even the reference on that page links to the law book which says 'The game shall be played with an oval air-inflated ball'.

We tried HELIUM once though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJ90Feq_QI

[OB..]

I am saying it's chicken and egg, right : in other words
- in part the game developed because of the shape of the ball
- but in part the shape of the ball was designed in order to meet the objectives of the game

You have carefully changed your original claim that the intention of the oval ball was to make dribbling difficult - presumably because none of your references actually support it.

So here's some examples of people who think the shape of the ball was designed to produce certain qualities. .. including - you'll see - a specific reference to making it oval so that it doesn't roll so far (ie more difficult to dribble)

The bit in brackets is your extended interpretation of a secondary thought in the original quotation. "Certain qualities" can, of course, include ease of handling, which I have already referred to.

NB - I am not saying it's one or the other. I am saying it's chicken and egg - a bit of both

And I am saying this is a distinctly chopperesque argument ie of no value even in your modified form. I'm too bored to bother any more.

[crossref]

You have carefully changed your original claim=.

indeed, because I read what you wrote originally, thought you had a good point, and I changed my mind ,

having read what you wrote I think it's a chicken and egg thing: in part the game was determined by the shape of the ball in part the ball shape was designed to fit the game. The thread as whole contains a lot of evidence to support both sides of the process

[OB..]

indeed, because I read what you wrote originally, thought you had a good point, and I changed my mind ,

Good. No further interest.

[menace]

You have carefully changed your original claim that the intention of the oval ball was to make dribbling difficult - presumably because none of your references actually support it.
The bit in brackets is your extended interpretation of a secondary thought in the original quotation. "Certain qualities" can, of course, include ease of handling, which I have already referred to.

And I am saying this is a distinctly chopperesque argument ie of no value even in your modified form. I'm too bored to bother any more.

I love how "Chopper" STILL has a presence here...even though he's no longer.
Who would have thought the words of Chopper would have cut so deep to leave so many scars.
I kinda miss Chopper now.