New Roman settlement uncovered in Rugby

[Imperial Dave]

and another interesting article, this time on discovery of a 'new' Roman settlement in Rugby.

http://rugbyobserver.co.uk/news/ancient-roman-settlement-unearthed-outskirts-rugby/

What made me laugh was the reporting of the Bovis Home director reaction to the finds:

"Bovis Homes West Midlands Technical Director Daniel Oliver said: "By developing this land, we were able to give Archaeology Warwickshire and CgMs Consulting the opportunity to investigate the area and we are delighted that they were able to find items of interest."

I can assure you that privately he and Bovis Homes will be gnashing their teeth over this as it delays the development 

[Erpingham]

"Bovis Homes West Midlands Technical Director Daniel Oliver said: "By developing this land, we were able to give Archaeology Warwickshire and CgMs Consulting the opportunity to investigate the area and we are delighted that they were able to find items of interest."

I can assure you that privately he and Bovis Homes will be gnashing their teeth over this as it delays the development 

I'm sure his PR person will have said something about making a virtue out of necessity

[Mark G]

Any clues there to the origin if the breakdown laws?

[Patrick Waterson]

If you mean the pit alignment, these are apparently not very well known or understood, but what is known is summarised here.

[Mark G]

I was thinking more of these

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Rugby+breakdown+penalty&view=detail&mid=4F4506667FF8F6ED952B4F4506667FF8F6ED952B&FORM=VRRTAP&ts=1476516637657&nclid=A0194A123E082BA0018BE12035ED1574

[Patrick Waterson]

Ah, yes.

It is axiomatic that nothing is outside the bounds of Roman jurisprudence.  In Justinian's later Pandects, Ulpian, commentator on the Lex Aquila, which consolidated much previous legislation, makes the following observations:

"Thus, if someone does damage through being pushed by someone else, Proculus writes that neither is liable under the Lex: the one who pushed is not liable because he did not kill, nor the one who was pushed because he did not do the damage unlawfully.  According to this view an action in factum will be given against the one who pushed." (On why a maul is stopped by the referee.)

"Further, Mela writes that when some people were playing with a ball, one of them hit it hard and it knocked the hands of a barber, with the result that the throat of a slave, whom the barber was shaving, was cut by the jerking of the razor." (On why in rucking the ball must be hooked by the feet.)

The commentator Paul adds: "Playing dangerous games is blameworthy conduct."

I looked to see if there was anything about tackling, but could find no precedent for seizing hold of men on the basis that they were in possession of balls.