Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

      
  1. #41

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    In fact it is brand new , and was added to the Law book a month ago . Does that alter your perspective on it ?
    No. Cause you're not correct. The same blocking wording was in the 2017 book under 19.10 (h).
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  2. #42

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1776

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by menace View Post
    No. Cause you're not correct. The same blocking wording was in the 2017 book under 19.10 (h).
    Well, the whole point is that in the old days it said player , the new law says opponent

  3. #43

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    Well, the whole point is that in the old days it said player , the new law says opponent
    And???

    Opponents are players too...it just made more sense to indicate that the offence would not be by their own team mate. Teams have zero incentive to block their own thrower??

    But in a way that's irrelevant...my argument is I would not apply a different sanction for the same offence. I think choose one and apply it consistently.
    I choose FK every time (more based on the old law wording AND the QT law wording on the same action). I may well be wrong...but at least I'm consistent in the application.
    You changing the sanction based on the team throwing just does not make sense to me.

    Im also happy to agree to disagree. Which is the point I am at.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  4. #44

    Referees in Wales
    Taff's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Llanelli District
    Grade
    WRU Level 2
    Join Date
    23 Aug 09
    Posts
    6,915
    Thanks (Received)
    34
    Likes (Received)
    338

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by menace View Post
    ... But in a way that's irrelevant...my argument is I would not apply a different sanction for the same offence. ...
    You changing the sanction based on the team throwing just does not make sense to me.
    Which was exactly Dickie's point a few years ago.

    It makes no sense to have different sanctions for the exact same offence.

  5. #45

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,827
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1776

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by Taff View Post
    Which was exactly Dickie's point a few years ago.

    It makes no sense to have different sanctions for the exact same offence.
    I agree it makes no sense .
    (I was always in the FK 'em all camp)

    But now they have written it into the Laws..

  6. #46

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I agree it makes no sense .
    (I was always in the FK 'em all camp)

    But now they have written it into the Laws..
    I will readily concede that the old wording of blocking law contained an 'or' clause about preventing the ball reaching the 5m line. I was comfortable distinguishing the two as different but results in a FK for "not 5m".
    So it is interesting that in the new rewrite laws that theyve dealt with blocking in isolation. But i guess this is WR method to simplifying wording be removing (nested) OR and AND clauses that were confusing people.
    What that actually means with intent of isolating "blocking" then I dont know???
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

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
  •