Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Global Law Trials

      
  1. #81

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,195
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    From the wording of the law that seems to have been intentional.

    Other restart kicks (drop-outs)

    Play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out when, apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent.

    Play is restarted with a goal line drop-out when:
    - The ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is held up by an opponent.
    - An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal or penalty attempt, is grounded by the defending team in their own in-goal.
    - An attacking player knocks on in the opponents’ in-goal.
    In the new RFU Global Law Trials - Points of clarification
    They seem to have changed the wording again.

    As above it did say

    12.12b- An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal or penalty attempt, is grounded by the defending team in their own in-goal.


    This has now been changed in the RFU document and in the World Rugby document to say

    12.12b- An attacking kick, other than a kick-off, restart kick following a score, drop goal, drop-out or penalty attempt, is grounded or made dead in in-goal by the defending team.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  2. #82

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NLMOT PR
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.
    Makes you wonder about their internal processes.

  3. #83

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,467

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.
    Makes you wonder about their internal processes.
    and provides more grist to the mill over the debates/arguments about whether what is written in some laws is deliberate (whether what appears to be specific scenarios, or ommissions) or just really poor writing, proofing and checking along with any sort of "thought" process. Hence the oft noted 12 year old author.

    And really leaves one wondering if the people that write the alws actually understand the game in the first place.

  4. #84

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    1,150

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    It was a rather ridiculous oversight in the first place.
    That I disagree with - give possession away with a kick into In-goal that you have no chance of competing for and the defending team can get a 22 DO. Make it more competitive where a Defending touch-down is essential, and the reward is forcing them into a GL DO.

    But hey ho, it seems to be academic now.
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  5. #85

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    1,150

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    and provides more grist to the mill over the debates/arguments about whether what is written in some laws is deliberate (whether what appears to be specific scenarios, or ommissions) or just really poor writing, proofing and checking along with any sort of "thought" process. Hence the oft noted 12 year old author.

    And really leaves one wondering if the people that write the alws actually understand the game in the first place.
    It makes me really angry that the Laws can be changed so radically by a small change in wording that is not communicated globally. Do WR really expect us to read the full Law book before every match, just in case some wording has changed? This is what happens when the only provenience is an easily amended website. Bring back the printed Law book to bring discipline to the process!

    More ridiculously, the Global law trials web page still states:

    Goal line drop-out
    The trial
    If the ball is held up in in-goal, there is a knock-on from an attacking player in in-goal or an attacking kick is grounded by the defenders in their own in-goal, then play restarts with a goal line drop-out anywhere along the goal line.

    Primary intention
    To encourage variety in attacking play close to the goal line and to increase ball in play time by replacing a scrum with a kick that must be taken without delay. An opportunity for counter attack is also created.


    The additional change certainly increases the attackers' options: but do we really wish to encourage more kicking?

    I suggest that there will be plenty of referees following those instructions, rather that knowing that they have to go the actual Law to find the 'right' answer.

    For once I am actually feeling rebellious!
    Last edited by chbg; 30-07-21 at 21:07.
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  6. #86
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,557

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    So if Red kick into the in goal and blue make it dead it is a GLDO
    If Red kick through the in goal it s a scrum back.

    But what if Red kick and the red player catches the ball and steps into touch in goal?

    I think we will see more teams kicking into the ingoal - though not when time is up, then they will continue to pick and go.

  7. #87

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,210

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Camquin View Post

    But what if Red kick and the red player catches the ball and steps into touch in goal?

    .
    The answer to that scenario has been missing from the Law Book since 2017!

    . It's a shame they didn't fix that omission as part of this trial

    What is the answer ? I would suggest a 22m DO , as the laws used to say before 2017. But you could make an argument for GLD

  8. #88

    Referees in America
    smeagol's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CARFU RS
    Join Date
    20 Apr 12
    Posts
    466

    Default Re: Global Law Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    The answer to that scenario has been missing from the Law Book since 2017!

    . It's a shame they didn't fix that omission as part of this trial

    What is the answer ? I would suggest a 22m DO , as the laws used to say before 2017. But you could make an argument for GLD
    The new law trial says nothing about the attacking side making it dead, so I fail to see how a GLDO call would be defensible.

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
  •