Talk:Laws of rugby league

Article guidance

The following is an explanation and guide for the article. All open to debate and improvement (begin a new section at the bottom of this talk page for this).

WHAT RULE CHANGES TO INCLUDE

Content of the Laws of the Game. Generally, on-field changes, though video refereeing would be included as the video ref is an official. Not off-field and operational rules such as salary caps.

A RULE WAS INTRODUCED AT DIFFERENT TIMES...

If a law has been put in Country A in year 1 and Country B in year 3 divide the content as follows:
Country A: Note the change. Not the intentions behind the change. Note opinion of experts (coaches, administrators, RL press)
Country B: Note the change. Note Country B opinion.

Why senior competitions of test nations?

Because that is when rugby league authorities have given the highest level of approval to a nation. Expectation of finding sources is higher.

Why all together

A mixture of reasons. Rugby league's national governing bodies are allowed to make their own, sometimes significant, variations to the rules, unlike some other sports. Several times one of the major competitions has changed a law and been followed by the rest or introduced changes and dropped them without those rules becoming part of the international rules. The most readily available sources on rule changes are for national bodies rather than the dates of adoption by the IRLB/RLIF.

Why flags and icons?

These provide an additional aid alongside the organisation responsible for changes to the reader. Two senior rugby league competitions (Super League and the National Rugby League) are multinational, and the addition or removal of symbols reflects this. It has been used in a similar way in the expansion team article.

Why does the NRFU use the world icon at first?

Because in the early years they were the only national rugby league governing body and controlled the laws of the game absolutely.

What about France dropping in and out of Super League?

Undecided. There is currently a lack of available information on changes to rugby league laws in France throughout its time there, not just in the Super League era. The recent actions of the FFR13 and French SL clubs show that the previously senior French competition has taken on a "subservient" role to Super League.

Why NSWRL for Australia?

The NSWRL competition became the ARL one and then the NRL. It also follows the lead of the ARL/NRL. Example: their account of rules since 1908 for their centenary.

Why Super League (Australia) and Super League International Board rules?

During the Super League war, bar Australia, every major nation was part of the SLIB, giving its actions the right to be included here. Super League bodies brought in several rule changes that remain with the sport, to claim they were introduced post Super League war would not tell the full story. In the case of Australia when there was no single senior competition, which rules each of the rival competitions introduced and then dropped/retained upon unification should be noted.

Importance of referencing

Laws are created, dropped, resurrected, amended and more; there is plenty of scope for mix ups - it is very important that anything added to this article's 'changes' section is referenced so it can be double checked. LunarLander // talk // 02:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

~~1897 - More details on the soccer-style field goal are needed. Points value? The other goals are currently listed as being made 2pts. This field goal is currently hidden text.~~
1895-1908 - at some time during this period kickers became permitted to place the ball for place kicks and defenders couldn't charge anymore according to http://www.rl1908.com/History/goals.htm - when exactly?
1906 - need to find out what happened originally for kicks on the full to touch. I think they gained territory and I think I've seen an excerpt from a newspaper of an England RU captain criticising that more than any other changes...but I can't find it now.
When were RL rules switched to metric?
1997/8 zero tackle amendments?
2001 is currently down for banning mid air tackles but it may be just an amendment according to the source I used there from the Aussie refs' association. What year were they first banned?
2006/7 taps 20m infield in which year - sources are conflicted.
2004 - did the tackle count restart when a player was held up in-goal and PTB on the 10m line, or was that a later change?

Flags

What do the flags add? --John (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A visual differentiation to aid information identification and assimilation by users of over a century's worth of rule changes in a sport with a convoluted history and evolution of decentralised authority and senior competition which conversely is highly related contextually, historically and officially. LunarLander // talk // 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does it work better as a "visual differentiation" than text? Our readers can read. --John (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They quickly indicate to the audience the territories in which the rules took effect, something which is not always readily apparent without delay for further investigation. They have a function in aiding information identification just as section and sub-titles do for the chronology. Visual-spatial orientated readers especially, but not exclusively, will use icons/colour etc. to aid them in organising, assimilating, learning and memorising the information presented. LunarLander // talk // 14:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions. How much faster does one of your "visual-spacial orientated readers" process

United Kingdom than United Kingdom? Where is the evidence for these assertions, or are they just your unsubstantiated opinion? Where does the little blue pretend Earth flag fit into this? --John (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The governing body for rugby league in Britain isn't called "United Kingdom", it was previously called the Northern Rugby Football Union and is now called the Rugby Football League.
Here's some information: http://www.learning-styles-online.com/style/visual-spatial/.
I've previously written to you about the world icon here. Different organisations have acted as the international governing body in the past, including ones without obvious words in their name such as 'international' or 'world', nominally entrusted with the rules. In these circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to use a world icon to symbolise times when all territories are affected as national flag icons are used in others. LunarLander // talk // 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to any consensus on the project to use flag icons in this way? Your opinions would carry considerably more weight if it could be shown that a significant body of editors shared them. --John (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the idea on Expansion team. LunarLander // talk // 19:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any consensus to have these flags, or any encyclopedic reason to have them, I suggest removing them --John (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all!

John makes a good point. The flag icons are not essential to the article. Per WP:ICONDECORATION,

"one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them."

WP:ICONDECORATION goes on to say

"... purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration."

Firstly, should we agree that Wikipedia:ALT is not relevant here - we're not talking about text descriptions of images for readers using Lynx or some such? Secondly, should we agree that we should focus this discussion on the reader experience of the article?
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with you that this discussion should focus on reader experience of the article. One of my concerns has been that John's action to remove first the world icon and then all of the flags has been part of his wider effort to remove icons from many articles and I feel that consideration of the merits of this article's use of icons has not been given.
John, in the hope of encouraging a productive discussion, I should tell you that I have been disappointed that, beyond your presumed belief that the removal of icons improves an article, you have proffered no ideas to offset the loss of the icons and flags. I have also been disappointed that since your first action on this article (in January [1]) until now, you have only named guidelines ("or", and just the other day, WP:ICONDECORATION) rather than explaining (see WP:JUSTAPOLICY which advises to provide specific reasons). At the beginning of this section you asked me some questions but your responses to my replies were more questions with little other comment; it felt a bit one sided.
Shirt and all, if I may deal with WP:ICONDECORATION in two parts:

Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction.

First, the icons/flags have not been added only because they look good. I would also dispute that these icons are, or will be, a distraction. The list is a work in progress but it can be seen by looking at the more developed parts of it (1993/4 for example) that the icons are spaced out and not overwhelming.

Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.

(Some of this I have dealt with above in this section.) The icons provide both additional useful information relevant to the subject and also act as navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. There is a consensus that using flags icons in lists aids navigation. There are also several instances of the governing bodies that make these rule changes changing their names, being replaced or being superseded and having non-geographic names despite have geographic responsibilities. Without flags/icons, their jurisdictions may not be apparent to an uninformed reader before further research away from this article. LunarLander // talk // 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrum V Ruck

This article doesn't make it clear when the ruck was differentiated from the scrum. Anyone have information about that? Gnevin (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but here's my interpretation: In the early form of the game, once the player in possession was tackled/held they were 'down' and play then stopped and allowed them to regain their feet. A ruck exists in the time between a tackle being completed and the ball being brought back into play. At some point (I don't have the information in front of me so this may be wrong) the play began to be allowed to continue rather than the tackled player regaining their feet. In 1899, the rules were changed so that after a player had been tackled a loose scrum was now ordered formed to allow the ball to be brought back into play. This changed over time to become the modern two-player scrum: the play-the-ball. From this, I'd say that there may have always been a differentiation because the ruck is a concept of time...or summat! LunarLander // talk // 00:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is interesting. It seems to agree mostly with what your saying Gnevin (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Field goal, drop goal

Please see discussion here on usage of these terms. LunarLander // talk // 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]