Clarity on Passing
- Thread starter Ryphon
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yes, your Tomic thread proved you dont know about rule 6
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
It must be riding on a neutrino from an Italian laboratory.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Save it for next year...
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
OK I accept this is off topic, but let's at least get our definitions right.
And those words aren't in the law. Could you perhaps post the law and highlight that section?
And those words aren't in the law. Could you perhaps post the law and highlight that section?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
I'll take that as a "No".
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I seriously doubt that.
Further, you failed to make it clear that your explanation only applies to inertial frames of reference. Perhaps your failure to define the correct frame of reference has confused Schadenfreude. Or maybe it is because you haven't mathematically derived the full Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms.
Or the confusion could arise from the fact that the law is poorly written and does not clearly define the correct inertial frame of reference. The video corrects this, but the video is meant to be an explanatory aid and is not the actual "law". Perhaps the IRB should just draft the law properly, otherwise why bother with laws at all?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You can and will take it any way you want.
Each proposition you have put is an ipse dixit.
I am endeavouring to limit the irritation caused to other members of this forum by not repeating myself or prolonging this debate.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The laws as they stood in 1871 provided:
26. It is lawful for any player who has the ball to throw it back towards his own goal, or to pass it back to any player of his own side who is at the time behind himi n accordance with the rules of on side.
22. Every player is on side but is put off side if ... when the ball has been kicked, touched or is being run with by any of his own side behind him (i.e. between himself and his own goal line).
27. Knocking on...and...throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents' (sic) goal line are not lawful.
26. It is lawful for any player who has the ball to throw it back towards his own goal, or to pass it back to any player of his own side who is at the time behind himi n accordance with the rules of on side.
22. Every player is on side but is put off side if ... when the ball has been kicked, touched or is being run with by any of his own side behind him (i.e. between himself and his own goal line).
27. Knocking on...and...throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents' (sic) goal line are not lawful.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
It's an interesting assertion - to characterise the quoting the laws and references as "ipse dixit". Especially since your assertions can't be traced (or at least you refuse to) back to any source; AND you keep referring back to yourself in your own argument.
This link might help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
You only need Newton's laws to have a reliable mechanism of judging whether a pass is forward or not. Going to Einstein's theories will just complicate things and he doesn't deal with problems like "forward passes", he deals with the dimension of space-time. He does use some of the same simple principles others used before him, so you could say they are both right to end this argument LOL.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
mate, there are links all over my posts taking you to the sources - the few links you provided lead nowhere. There was a link to the law in post #3: so this is all a furphy.
By the way its "an ipse dixit" not "ipse dixit".
By the way its "an ipse dixit" not "ipse dixit".
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Yes but you continually reference things in the laws which aren't there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Edit: I don't think "An ipse dixit" is Latin - do you?
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
You could - if the people who created the laws of rugby travelled forward in time past 1916, learned about General Relativity, realised that classical mechanics covered the laws of rugby off just fine, and then travelled back to finish writing them.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I dont write in latin. The expression describes a thing.
I'll type this slowly:
Law 12 reads, in part:
From the dictionary link I provided above "throw" means:
"To propel through the air with a motion of the hand or arm"
"pass" means: A motion of the hand or the waving of a wand - Can we agree that one passes the ball using one's hand or hands?
Thus a throw forward occurs when someone propels the ball with their hand or arm forwards.
"Forwards" is defined by the law to mean towards the opposing team's dead ball line.
So, the law means "propelling the ball with hands or arms toward the opposing teams dead ball line".
The word propel is important: "to impel, drive, or cause to move forwards" (same source)
Accordingly the law means:
"to impel or drive the ball with hands or arms toward the opposing teams dead ball line"
The words you are worried about are contained within bigger words - thats what those longer words actually mean. They are the concepts invoked by "throw": the law makers assumed readers would have a concept of the things encompassed by words such as "throw".
For my part I would define propel as "to impart motion to".
That would mean that the law's construction is: "to impart motion to the ball with hands or arms toward the opposing teams dead ball line".
Just a simple matter of construing a straightforward collection of words.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Well "Throw Forward" doesn't bear deconstruction - since it's a noun, but if you'll allow me:
Reconstructing Law 12 this way we can say:
A "Throw Forward" happens when a player releases the ball into the air with their hands towards the opposing team's dead ball line.
We can also compare the rule to the knock on rule:
Can we agree that if a player is tackled hard, the ball is dislodged and it travels forward with it's natural momentum, that is indeed a knock on?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
What sort of bear? Koala? 'cos that's not really a bear.....
The process engaged in is construction not deconstruction. The process is relevant whether a word is a noun or not.
Throw forward: That is not what the law means - it is not what it says. "release" is passive whereas, IMO, "throw" is active.
This thread is about a throw forward. But what is "natural momentum" and where did the ball get this natural momentum from?
The process engaged in is construction not deconstruction. The process is relevant whether a word is a noun or not.
Throw forward: That is not what the law means - it is not what it says. "release" is passive whereas, IMO, "throw" is active.
This thread is about a throw forward. But what is "natural momentum" and where did the ball get this natural momentum from?
- Status