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
Referees in-game coaching i.e. their constant commands
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="TRF_heineken" data-source="post: 1032125" data-attributes="member: 40658"><p>Because they are human. And humans wrote the laws.</p><p></p><p>Interpretation of statutes are one of the subjects you have when studying law (well in SA it is). And there they teach that there will be differences in interpretation on laws between individuals and how they act on it, especially on those laws which has room for improvement/change.</p><p></p><p>I remember a couple of years ago, I assisted Smartcooky in the writing of certain laws for WR which the NZRU had a difference of opinion on what SARU proposed (it was one of those experimental laws for Super Rugby). And the law was originally written in Afrikaans and then translated to english and then sent to NZRU. Then cooky and the other NZ refs took the afrikaans version of the law, and translated it to dutch. And the found a couple of differences in interpretation of some of the aspect of these laws.</p><p></p><p>I assisted basically in changing of some of the words to make it more of a go-between the 2 parties. </p><p></p><p>Come to think of it, those laws never actually became part of SR.</p><p></p><p>But nonetheless, it's a human's interpretation of laws and how he wants to establish it.</p><p></p><p>If a part of the law says advantage can be played for a couple of phases, for example, does that mean 2 phases, or more? Some refs will deem it 2, in taking a more literal approach to the word couple, while others will stretch it out for more than 2 phases, some will even go the extreme. But none of them are wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_heineken, post: 1032125, member: 40658"] Because they are human. And humans wrote the laws. Interpretation of statutes are one of the subjects you have when studying law (well in SA it is). And there they teach that there will be differences in interpretation on laws between individuals and how they act on it, especially on those laws which has room for improvement/change. I remember a couple of years ago, I assisted Smartcooky in the writing of certain laws for WR which the NZRU had a difference of opinion on what SARU proposed (it was one of those experimental laws for Super Rugby). And the law was originally written in Afrikaans and then translated to english and then sent to NZRU. Then cooky and the other NZ refs took the afrikaans version of the law, and translated it to dutch. And the found a couple of differences in interpretation of some of the aspect of these laws. I assisted basically in changing of some of the words to make it more of a go-between the 2 parties. Come to think of it, those laws never actually became part of SR. But nonetheless, it's a human's interpretation of laws and how he wants to establish it. If a part of the law says advantage can be played for a couple of phases, for example, does that mean 2 phases, or more? Some refs will deem it 2, in taking a more literal approach to the word couple, while others will stretch it out for more than 2 phases, some will even go the extreme. But none of them are wrong. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Referees in-game coaching i.e. their constant commands
Top