Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Rock bottom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 1209559" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>That's the point, isn't it? in order to make such a statement that trawling back is needed. Or some sort of evidence. You can't have it both ways. </p><p>And i am sure credentials is not a card you (nor me) want to play here. I'm pretty sure most of the members here have been following the sport just as long, played it, reffed it, coached it. That's why we visit this place. </p><p>Everything I've experienced strongly suggests the opposite, but that is my opinion. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes there is. That's the entire point. It says the ball needs to touch the ground or another player, and it doesn't forbids using the feed to achieve that. </p><p>And, and this is important, laws focus mostly (not always but mostly) on what is not permitted and work under the assumption that, as stated above, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". </p><p>This is not just for rugby. Other sports apply this criteria too. For the lack of a better word, you can call it universal. </p><p></p><p>Think about it this way </p><p></p><p>Your argument: there is nothing in the definitions that ..... so it is not allowed.</p><p>My counter: there is nothing in the laws of the game that mentions that players are allowed to breath while practicing the sport. Therefore, breathing is not allowed. </p><p></p><p></p><p>No, we don't. Well, depending on the definition we use of the word "accept". If by accept you mean we need to conclude that was the right call, then no, we don't. And the reason are quite simple: refs can be wrong and in this particular case his interpretation goes against the letter of the law. We have to respect (i.e. he is the ultimate authority) the call, but we can most certainly consider it a mistake and ask for an explanation, guidance, clarification, etc. </p><p></p><p>-------</p><p></p><p>Let me break it down in the simplest way i can think of:</p><p></p><p>- The laws of the game, in "definitions", set up a list of requirements for a knock-on to be (correctly) called. </p><p>- The play does not meet those requirements. </p><p></p><p>Given the above, i sincerely fail to understand how all of this is debatable. I understand how someone can dislike the rule itself, but that is in no way, shape or form a reasonable argument to twist the interpretation enough to go against the letter of the law. Interpretation should be applied when the law is not clear. I fail to see what is not clear about the laws & definitions. We dont like them? Then let's change them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 1209559, member: 55747"] That's the point, isn't it? in order to make such a statement that trawling back is needed. Or some sort of evidence. You can't have it both ways. And i am sure credentials is not a card you (nor me) want to play here. I'm pretty sure most of the members here have been following the sport just as long, played it, reffed it, coached it. That's why we visit this place. Everything I've experienced strongly suggests the opposite, but that is my opinion. Yes there is. That's the entire point. It says the ball needs to touch the ground or another player, and it doesn't forbids using the feed to achieve that. And, and this is important, laws focus mostly (not always but mostly) on what is not permitted and work under the assumption that, as stated above, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". This is not just for rugby. Other sports apply this criteria too. For the lack of a better word, you can call it universal. Think about it this way Your argument: there is nothing in the definitions that ..... so it is not allowed. My counter: there is nothing in the laws of the game that mentions that players are allowed to breath while practicing the sport. Therefore, breathing is not allowed. No, we don't. Well, depending on the definition we use of the word "accept". If by accept you mean we need to conclude that was the right call, then no, we don't. And the reason are quite simple: refs can be wrong and in this particular case his interpretation goes against the letter of the law. We have to respect (i.e. he is the ultimate authority) the call, but we can most certainly consider it a mistake and ask for an explanation, guidance, clarification, etc. ------- Let me break it down in the simplest way i can think of: - The laws of the game, in "definitions", set up a list of requirements for a knock-on to be (correctly) called. - The play does not meet those requirements. Given the above, i sincerely fail to understand how all of this is debatable. I understand how someone can dislike the rule itself, but that is in no way, shape or form a reasonable argument to twist the interpretation enough to go against the letter of the law. Interpretation should be applied when the law is not clear. I fail to see what is not clear about the laws & definitions. We dont like them? Then let's change them. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Rock bottom
Top
