Big changes for lawbook
-
@NTA i would love to see how we could give the refs less to look at during every breakdown without destroying the fabric of the game.
And as i say, within months someone would be exploiting it, an interpretation will be issued, and gradually we will end up back where we are now.
-
They're needlessly complicating a simple fix; make people stay on their feet at the ruck.
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
-
@booboo said in Big changes for lawbook:
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
And yet he came up with the wrong answer ... as did Garces. And Kaplan is an enabler, and didn't agree with the call ... and if you're from the NH, you think Garces is a genius.
I was being flippant, but while the refs generally know the lawbook, I'm not sure players do. And sometimes the calls are just a bit silly... like jumping into a tackle at the end of the second test match
-
I would be concerned that by reducing the laws we might end up giving the refs even more discretion and room for judgement calls. I am interested to see how this looks, but I don't think there's much wrong with the laws currently.
Having said that, I'm a big fan of the trial to remove the right of the tackler to play the ball from any direction - it's just too hard to referee correctly, and about 50% of the time the referees (even the top ones) get it wrong.
-
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Whether making the law book less wordy solves or increases that confusion I don't know. I would have thought that simplification leaves even more open to interpretation however it could be a case of leaving out the ifs and buts and making the laws more cut and dried.
eg players joining rucks. A clear law that says 'must stay on their feet and remove themselves if on the ground' leaves little room for argument -
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@booboo said in Big changes for lawbook:
@nzzp said in Big changes for lawbook:
@hydro11 said in Big changes for lawbook:
I can't remember the last time in a game a referee actually didn't know the law.
11 days ago, Roman Poite?
He knew the law. Just took a while to judge what he thought the player actually did.
And yet he came up with the wrong answer ... as did Garces. And Kaplan is an enabler, and didn't agree with the call ... and if you're from the NH, you think Garces is a genius.
I was being flippant, but while the refs generally know the lawbook, I'm not sure players do. And sometimes the calls are just a bit silly... like jumping into a tackle at the end of the second test match
Don't you need to make the rule book longer to deal with that? The rule book would have to distinguish between tackled in the air from a kick and tackled in the air from a pass.
-
For fans the trick would be to bring in an application of common sense.
With the tackle in the air for a pass scenario why not apply the same logic as dealing with a late tackle? If the tackler is already committed and can't pull out then no fault. If someone jumping to catch a high ball jumps into a stationary player on the ground (eg the Finn Russell example) then don't penalise the guy who was meant to guess what was going to happen. The jumper took the risk.
If an incident is obviously accidental then don't penalise. -
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
For fans the trick would be to bring in an application of common sense.
With the tackle in the air for a pass scenario why not apply the same logic as dealing with a late tackle? If the tackler is already committed and can't pull out then no fault. If someone jumping to catch a high ball jumps into a stationary player on the ground (eg the Finn Russell example) then don't penalise the guy who was meant to guess what was going to happen. The jumper took the risk.
If an incident is obviously accidental then don't penalise.ie: what we have now. Just applied properly.
-
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Don't be confused by what the name of the website is. Anyone can post there and claim they're a referee.
-
@antipodean said in Big changes for lawbook:
@Crucial said in Big changes for lawbook:
As far as the complexity/ confusion of the current law book goes you only have to read forums like RugbyRefs to see how much debate and variation exists among referees. In many cases the pertinent law itself is undefined and you need to assume that the situation will be dealt with according to the way a different situation is.
Don't be confused by what the name of the website is. Anyone can post there and claim they're a referee.
Of course. I have posted there myself. You do get to know who the real ones are. Some are even assessors.
