When a player is in a circle,
squatting and prepare to throw his
boules, his hand (holding the boules)
touch the ground as he is trying to
balance himself. Does he infringe any
rules ?

No!

Article 6 states (in part):
"The feet must be entirely on the inside of the circle without touching it, and they must not leave the circle or be lifted completely off the ground until the thrown boule has touched the ground. No other part of the body may touch the ground outside the circle. The exception is that those who are disabled in a lower limb are allowed to place only one foot inside the circle."


It seems that "If no other part of the body may touch the ground outside the circle," then other part of the body may touch the ground _inside_ the circle!
???
Guy

To add to my previous post,
Article 6 – Start of Play – Rules Regarding the Circle

"The feet must be entirely on the inside of the circle without touching it, and they must not leave the circle or be lifted completely off the ground until the thrown boule has touched the ground. No other part of the body may touch the ground outside the circle. The exception is that those who are disabled in a lower limb are allowed to place only one foot inside the circle."

Since the article mentions the feet being entirely on the inside of the circle witout touching it, IMHO, it seems logic that the article should rather read" No other part of the body may touch the ground _inside_the circle!

What do youn think?

Guy

My take would be a little different, I think it should read,"No part of the body may touch the ground outside the circle." I think the intent was to specify that ONLY the feet may touch inside the circle, and as far as your other parts go, they may not touch outside the circle. I've seen people point with from the squat with both feet in the circle, but one knee outside the circle on the ground. I believe this is illegal.

As to the original question, I think it pertains to the setting up process,i.e, getting your stance and balance just before the throw. Thus, Ray's answer that no infraction occurs.

Gary,
If, as you wrote: "the intent is to specify that ONLY the feet may touch inside the circle, and as far as your other parts go, they may not touch outside the circle",

then it should read: No other part of the body may touch the ground.

This means inside and outside the circle.

Guy

Can't argue with you. You and I can speculate on intent all we want, but,as is often the case, the rules, as written, seem to require too much "reading between the lines." And we're usually trying to relate or apply rules written for serious, international play to the social form of the game where most people seem to prefer not to be too nitpicking about the letters of the law.

Since you read the original French, do you feel that much is lost in translation? Or do you have a theory why the rules often seem to be so ambiguous and unclear after all these years of rewrites?

Of course, when we play between friends or social petanque, most players have never read the rules nor even seen the rules in writing... and could not care less about it either. Not that I blame them either.

When playing with friends when the jack was not thrown at least six meters, sometimes we just give it a kick if the opponents don't mind or agree".
And we don't always take eternity to measure and re-measure to see which boule is really, really closer to the jack.

But that does not stop me from reading the rules and anything about petanque and whatever other hubby or interest I have. You probably do the same thing too and there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is done just for the h--- of it!

Since I read the original French, do I feel that much is lost in translation?

One thing different between the French and the English version are the words_ bien entendu_ in the French version of article 5 (meaning _of course_ in English) and your word _also_.
Here is the para. of article 5 I refer to:
"These arrangements also apply to the area on which the finals are played."
In French you would read: " _ These arrangements, of course, apply to the area....

Again there, I agree more with the English version than with the French one!

Some other places in the English version the rules are explained a little bit further than in the French version. I am talking about the version from the British Federation... probably the same as the one on Petanque Org.

So no, nothing is lost in the translation, an excellent product!

Or do I have a theory why the rules often seem to be so ambiguous and unclear after all these years of rewrites?

Yes, you and I... and many others of course, are not present when the FIPJP board of directors meet! LOL

Cheers,
Guy

IMHO the “problem” is not with the translation but rather, the original rules are something of a mish-mash. No doubt originally written in the days before “technical authors” were around, subject to various additions and modifications over the years, leading to the confusion and interpretation that sometimes seems necessary.

I think a completely fresh start and rewrite from scratch would help.

There is one point, in Article 8, that seems to cause misunderstanding, i.e. the right of the 2nd team to challenge the jack, after a boule has been played.

Problems seem to arise if the jack is moved by the 1st boule and the 2nd team – mistakenly – think the jack must still be within 6 – 10m.

I fear in this case the English translation may have added to the confusion: the 1st 3 sentences of Article 8 start with “Si” (If) but this strangely hasn’t been translated for the 2nd sentence, where the problem arises, although it is for the 1st & 3rd.
If you take the original French, then again the intent is clearer: IF the opponents play a 1st boule.

The implication being that they played their 1st boule, without agreeing the jack. In this case, the 2nd team can still contest the validity of the THROWN jack - as this was denied to them by the 1st team’s hasty play.

Regards,

Ray

Well clarified, Ray, regarding the "si".

And you may be right regarding the need for a rewrite from scratch of the rules. I believe the rules are being amended as we "speak". Let's hope they get it right this time!

Regards

Barbara