Law Discussion: put law into words
The laws of a game are what makes a game distinct from any other game. The laws are the essence of the game and as they are expressed in words, the words are important. An important quality of the words is clarity.
All laws are better of they are clear an comprehensive. That applies to rugby football as well – in fact especially so because of all game its laws are the most complex.
There is so much for players and match officials to decide on in the heat of battle – all those offside lines, for example, the goings on for various people at tackles – that the clearer the laws are the easier for all, including rugby watchers. An ideal would be the same treatment for what looks the same.
This is a claim that the foreword to the Laws makes: The Laws of the Game, including the standard set of variations for Under 19 Rugby and Sevens Rugby, are complete and contain all that is necessary to enable the Game to be played correctly and fairly.
If that is true why are there clarifications/rulings of various kinds and why are there interpretations.
When Toulouse played Leicester Tigers in a Heineken Cup match on Saturday, Stuart Barnes made a comment on a decision (one we shall look at) by the referee Alain Rolland. He said: "That's what we need – accurate refereeing, not interpretations."
He is so right: there should be application of law, not interpretation of law. Once we get interpretation we open the door wide to inconsistency. But to avoid interpretation we need clearly stated law – unambiguous stuff.
We shall follow this up with just a few confusions, but how is this for turgid law?
If you form a ruck and go forward, you get the ball to put into any subsequent scrum.
If you form a maul and go forward, the other side will get the ball to put into any subsequent scrum.
Oh, except if that is from a kick.
Oh, but only some kicks, not a kick-off or a drop-out.
Oh, and only if you are immediately grabbed by the other side.
Oh, and only if it is a maul and not just a tackle.
Is all of that really necessary?
As it is applied now, even the top referees in the world get it wrong!
For what?
