PDA

View Full Version : Another lineout conundrum?



OB..
03-05-11, 15:05
Form SA Refs DutyRef 371 (http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2729143.htm)
5. Name: Carlos Romero

Question: Hi There

After a ball is kicked by a Blue Player, a Red Player with both feet in the field of play jumps and catches the ball before he crosses the line of touch, landing off the field of play.

Which player put the ball in touch?

Craig Joubert: Hi Carlos,

Since the law refers to 'where the player lands', in your example the ball is deemed to have been put into touch by the Blue player since the Red player landed outside the field of play.

Cheers, Craig
The reference to where the player lands is merely confirming that the ball is in touch, but it does not define who took it there. Law 19.4 is silent on this problem. This business of a player in the air is still an open question with apparently multiple answers.

I would suggest that if ball and player were in the field of play (albeit in the air) when the ball was caught, then the catcher took it into touch.

This really is a point the IRB should address.

Taff
03-05-11, 16:05
I would suggest that if ball and player were in the field of play (albeit in the air) when the ball was caught, then the catcher took it into touch. This really is a point the IRB should address.+1. The reply they gave just complicates matter for no good reason. The ball was in play and hadn't crossed the "plane of touch". The only reason it crossed the plane of touch was because Red took it there. It seems very simple to me. If I was the TJ I would have signalled for a Blue put in where Red had taken it into touch.

If Red wanted the put in or for the ball to go out on the full, he should have placed a foot on or over the touch line and then caught the ball. :wink:

Adam
03-05-11, 16:05
Whereas I prefer Joubert's interpretation. The only thing you therefore have to consider is where the catcher's feet land. If one or more in touch, kicker put ball into touch. If both in playing area, and subsequently in touch, catcher put it there.

chutneyf
03-05-11, 16:05
From the "Manage your Game" section of this esteemed website. (I use this to keep reminding myself as my old age creeps up on me)

If a ball is travelling toward towards the touch line and is caught by a jumping player that lands in touch, the ball is in touch

The lineout is awarded to the catchers team as they are deemed to have caught the ball in touch, if they land in the field of play and then fall into touch with the ball, they have taken the ball into touch and the lineout would be awarded to the kickers team

But I assume 'the plane of touch' is the missing element in this description. Sorry to be too dumb

Robert Burns
03-05-11, 16:05
Yes, that section needs updated a bit too!

OB..
03-05-11, 17:05
Law 19.4 says
The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.
So if the player catches the ball in the air before it crosses the plane of touch, the ball is not in touch at that moment. If he subsequently lands in touch, the ball is indeed in touch, and he is the player who last touched it BEFORE it went into touch.

When Mark Lawrence did his quiz on the SA refs site some years ago, it was decreed that if a player played the ball in the air before it had crossed the plane and tapped it back to a team mate before landing in touch, the ball was still deemed to have been in touch.

That was the extreme effect of the view that all that mattered was where the player landed when deciding if he was in touch. However Mark agreed that if a player jumped from in touch and caught the ball, the ball was in touch because the player was in touch. And he agreed it was all rather inconsistent. A decision by RWC 2003 referees intended to make life simpler had failed to do so.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
03-05-11, 17:05
Law 19.4 says
So if the player catches the ball in the air before it crosses the plane of touch, the ball is not in touch at that moment. If he subsequently lands in touch, the ball is indeed in touch, and he is the player who last touched it BEFORE it went into touch.

When Mark Lawrence did his quiz on the SA refs site some years ago, it was decreed that if a player played the ball in the air before it had crossed the plane and tapped it back to a team mate before landing in touch, the ball was still deemed to have been in touch.

That was the extreme effect of the view that all that mattered was where the player landed when deciding if he was in touch. However Mark agreed that if a player jumped from in touch and caught the ball, the ball was in touch because the player was in touch. And he agreed it was all rather inconsistent. A decision by RWC 2003 referees intended to make life simpler had failed to do so.

Highlanders vs Blues at Carisbrooke recently.

Highlanders winger (Poki?) runs towards touch, jumps, catches ball, ball goes over plane of TL, throws ball into the FoP where it remains, Poki lands in touch.

What?

Play on was result.

FlipFlop
03-05-11, 17:05
I still like the FFR version.

You are in touch, until you are not, and you are in the field of play until you are in touch.

So if you are in the field of play, you are not in touch, until such time as you touch the ground (so a jumping player is not in touch until they land in touch)

And if you are in touch, you remain in touch until you have "re-established yourself" (to steal from the NFL) in the field of play.

Very simple.

None of this wondering about where they might land etc. Just What is their current state...

ckuxmann
03-05-11, 17:05
Only problem I see with that is:
If there is a tall player who dives for a ball in touch and connects before he or the ball has hit the ground, hitting the ball back into the field of play I see something a little off there. He could be a 6-7ft away from the touchline but keep it in with your definition.

OB..
03-05-11, 18:05
I still like the FFR version.

You are in touch, until you are not, and you are in the field of play until you are in touch.

So if you are in the field of play, you are not in touch, until such time as you touch the ground (so a jumping player is not in touch until they land in touch)

And if you are in touch, you remain in touch until you have "re-established yourself" (to steal from the NFL) in the field of play.

Very simple.

None of this wondering about where they might land etc. Just What is their current state...

It does not cover the situation where the player has passed/knocked the ball backwards before he lands. (Unless you like retrospective decisions.)

ckuxmann
03-05-11, 18:05
It seems to say that until you physically touch touch you are not in touch.

chopper15
03-05-11, 20:05
Craig Joubert was remiss in not specifying where he assumed the ball to be.

Assuming kick IS NOT a PK:

i) Player over FoP catches ball over FoP and lands in touch. Kicker's throw.

ii) Player over FoP catches ball over touch and lands in touch. Catcher's throw.

iii) Player over touch catches ball over touch and lands in FoP. Play on. (Neither ball nor player were in contact with touch when ball was caught)

iv) Player over touch catches ball over FoP and lands back in touch. Kicker's throw.

. . . . and these?

v) Player over FoP catches ball over FoP, passes ball over FoP and lands in touch.

vi) Player over FoP catches ball over touch, passes ball from over touch into FoP and lands in touch.

vii) Player over touch catches ball over touch, passes ball from over touch into FoP and lands back in touch.

viii) Player over touch catches ball over FoP, passes ball from over FoP and lands back into touch.


Whew! :hap:

OB..
03-05-11, 21:05
I give my views in blue, but many of these points are disputed.

i) Player over FoP catches ball over FoP and lands in touch. Kicker's throw. Yes

ii) Player over FoP catches ball over touch and lands in touch. Catcher's throw. No

iii) Player over touch catches ball over touch and lands in FoP. Play on. No(Neither ball nor player were in contact with touch when ball was caught)

iv) Player over touch catches ball over FoP and lands back in touch. Kicker's throw. Yes

. . . . and these?

v) Player over FoP catches ball over FoP, passes ball over FoP and lands in touch. Play on

vi) Player over FoP catches ball over touch, passes ball from over touch into FoP and lands in touch. Play on

vii) Player over touch catches ball over touch, passes ball from over touch into FoP and lands back in touch. Catcher's throw

viii) Player over touch catches ball over FoP, passes ball from over FoP and lands back into touch. Catcher's throw


Whew! :hap:

However there is no need for such complications. What we need to know is what criteria are to be applied when deciding if a player in the air is in touch. We already know that the ball is not in touch even if it has crossed the plane of touch until it touches someone or something in touch.

chopper15
03-05-11, 22:05
I give my views in blue, but many of these points are disputed.


However there is no need for such complications. What we need to know is what criteria are to be applied when deciding if a player in the air is in touch. We already know that the ball is not in touch even if it has crossed the plane of touch until it touches someone or something in touch.



Thanks, OB, your opinions are much appreciated and agree but with the assurance that a carefully considered query to the law lords for a ruling must be posed.

This, of course, is the problem; our recent discussion regarding a specific deflection rather than deflections in general posed by the RFU regarding the PK ricochet is classic example of how not to do it . . . both your and Dixie's comments exposed both the IRB's and RFU's irritating failings. (And the DK.PK at goal is yet to be opined on)


I always considered the trivial queries - the tree growing in touch deflecting the ball back from over-hanging branches and a spectator leaping into the air to head the ball back, are obviously not in touch. The latter there being no contact; the former, as with a player deflecting the ball, play on. (Lodged in a fork, in touch.)

Surely, if the ball doesn't contact something/somebody in contact with touch it cannot be judged to have been in touch should it return to the FoP? :hap:

PaulDG
03-05-11, 23:05
I always considered the trivial queries - the tree growing in touch deflecting the ball back from over-hanging branches and a spectator leaping into the air to head the ball back, are obviously not in touch. The latter there being no contact; the former, as with a player deflecting the ball, play on. (Lodged in a fork, in touch.)

Except the RFU doesn't agree with you, obviously.


Surely, if the ball doesn't contact something/somebody in contact with touch it cannot be judged to have been in touch should it return to the FoP?:hap:

Yes, that's where rugby is different to soccer - we don't say it's in touch just because it has crossed the line, indeed it doesn't have to cross the line or even be on the line to be in touch.

So it's perfectly possible for a ball to cross the vertical plane but be blown back and it's "play on".

And it's also perfectly possible for the ball to hit the branch of an overhanging tree without ever having crossed the plane yet be "in touch".

Robert Burns
04-05-11, 01:05
This is one of the laws that I think is written quite clearly, and is easy to understand, but the elite game has 'moulded' it to try and gain the extra bit of game time. IMHO, it is the elite games interpretations that have made it complicated.

Follow the law it says.

If player jumps from FoP catches ball and lands in touch (still holding the ball), he is in touch, and it's their throw. (No definition in law of where he was).
If player jumps from touch catches ball and lands in FoP, Play on. (Player is not in touch as they are not in contact with the touchline or anything beyond when they touch the ball).

If player jumps from field of play, bats ball that has passed the plane of touch back into the FoP whilst still in the air, and then lands in touch it is play on as the ball has not touched anything that was in touch. (Player is not in touch until they touch the ground).

The law backs my understanding up to:



The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.
The ball is in touch when a player is carrying itand the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
A player in touch* may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

*In touch defined above as touching the touchline or anything beyond it.

Very simple I believe. Why not keep it Simple? Kickers will soon learn not to kick it so close to the touchline when there is a covering player around!

OB..
04-05-11, 01:05
Follow the law it says.

If player jumps from FoP catches ball and lands in touch (still holding the ball), he is in touch, and it's their throw. (No definition in law of where he was).
How do you get that? The bit in the Definitions does indeed say the ball is in touch, but it does NOT say who put it there.

At one time, if you caught the ball with one foot on the touch line before the ball crossed the plane, everybody accepted that the ball was in touch, but Australia and NZ had different ideas as to who put it there. So the IRB had to step in and resolve the issue. It caused a lot of argument at the time.

At what point was the ball in touch?


Why not keep it Simple? Kickers will soon learn not to kick it so close to the touchline when there is a covering player around!

That was the argument when the ruling/law change about catching with a foot in touch was promulgated, but it still happens.

Robert Burns
04-05-11, 05:05
True, but it's clear when the ball is in touch and when it isn't.

What difference is there really from jumping in the air catching and landing in touch, to standing with one foot in touch and catching it?

Both are in touch, according to the law. And if we are honest, both would 90% of the time end up in touch themselves because the ball is travelling towards the line. (Discounting kicks up the line as most of the time there is a covering player with foot in touch waiting, and even if not, 50% will bounce into touch because of the ball shape).

As the throw would be the defenders anyway, why not allow them to catch it in touch or landing in touch? You give them a chance to get the ball back in play much faster as they may take a quick throw. Is that not the aim?

Otherwise players will be told to leave balls like that to go into touch (cover them) and we slow the game down again for possibly the same outcome.

Dickie E
04-05-11, 06:05
I look at it a bit differently which helps me cos I'm a bit different:

A. If the ball has crossed the plane of touch it is in touch and has been put there by the kicker unless either of these happen:

1. player in FoP leans over and catches or knocks the ball back in, or
2. wind blows it back.

B. If the ball has not crossed plane of touch it is not in touch unless a player in touch catches it.

Robert Burns
04-05-11, 08:05
what about a player jumping from touch into the field of play and catching the ball whilst in the air, but across the plane of touch?

I say play on, and I believe the law does too, but the Pro game says lineout. (I believe that's correct isn't it OB..?

Considering the plane of touch is specifically mentioned in regards to a player playing the ball when they are in touch, and it isn't mentioned at all when referring to a player who catches the ball in the air. Ipso facto is the plane of touch must not matter in these circumstances, only where the player lands matters.

Drift
04-05-11, 08:05
Craig got it wrong there...

If red jumps from inside the FoP and catches the ball and then lands outside the FoP it has been taken out by red and the lineout is to blue.

Happened to Zane Kirchner in the S14 last year.

OB..
04-05-11, 11:05
True, but it's clear when the ball is in touch and when it isn't.You are continuing to duck the timing issue. At what point in time is the ball in touch under the various circumstances? That determines whose throw it is.


What difference is there really from jumping in the air catching and landing in touch, to standing with one foot in touch and catching it?Timing.


Both are in touch, according to the law.It is landing in touch with the ball that means it is clearly in touch. Was it in touch before the player landed? The law does not say.

The problem is that Law 19 is a mess.

chopper15
04-05-11, 11:05
Craig got it wrong there...

If red jumps from inside the FoP and catches the ball and then lands outside the FoP it has been taken out by red and the lineout is to blue.

Happened to Zane Kirchner in the S14 last year.



But, Oli, this is the point I made at the outset. He was remiss in not stating where the ball was.

If red jumps from inside the FoP and catches the ball over the FoP and then lands outside the FoP it has been taken out by red then you're correct in stating that it's blue's throw.

But, should the ball be over touch . . it's gotta be red's throw, for the simple reason he didn't take it into touch.:hap:

OB..
04-05-11, 11:05
Considering the plane of touch is specifically mentioned in regards to a player playing the ball when they are in touch, and it isn't mentioned at all when referring to a player who catches the ball in the air. Ipso facto is the plane of touch must not matter in these circumstances, only where the player lands matters.

I think that is a dangerous inference to draw, and it is not inescapable. To me the fact that the plane is the last thing mentioned just illustrates the piecemeal add-on approach to the Definitions. It clearly matters yet is just a PS.

Trying to pore over the actual words to dig out a meaning is not really a valid exercise for laws that were (deliberately) not written to that sort of standard. We have to make sense of them however they are written. For years we have allowed hand-offs, but it is only this year that the IRB has plugged the gap in the laws that we were all ignoring.

If a player in the air catches and passes the ball before either of them have crossed the plane, but then lands with one foot on the touchline, it is contrary to common sense IMHO to say that technically the ball was in touch. In practical terms it means you have to wait until the player lands, by which time the ball may be some distance away. I cannot see the casual TJ at grass roots level implementing that view, which means he will declare loudly that the referee is wrong again if he sees it happen at Twickenham.

Dickie E
04-05-11, 12:05
what about a player jumping from touch into the field of play and catching the ball whilst in the air, but across the plane of touch?



What do you mean by "across the plane of touch"? Inside FOP or outside?

Dickie E
04-05-11, 12:05
If red jumps from inside the FoP and catches the ball over the FoP and then lands outside the FoP it has been taken out by red then you're correct in stating that it's blue's throw.

But, should the ball be over touch . . it's gotta be red's throw, for the simple reason he didn't take it into touch.:hap:

Yes & Yes.

Refer attached

http://www.brumbies.com.au/verve/_resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-05-11, 12:05
I cannot see the casual TJ at grass roots level implementing that view, which means he will declare loudly that the referee is wrong again if he sees it happen at Twickenham.

Notwithstanding the intellectual sparring in and around Law 19 and its definitions we are, certainly in England below L4, relying on TJs who I know for sure (if my brother-in-law a L9 club TJ is anything to go by) couldn't get touch and/or LO throw colour right all the time.

We have to be satisfied with the 95% :wow: they do get right.

I would like to consider doing the RFU ARse course but I am not sure I understand fully Law 19 myself! :o

Law 19 wrt touch could be made simpler I think.

Taff
04-05-11, 12:05
The bit in the Definitions does indeed say the ball is in touch, but it does NOT say who put it there.I would suggest who put it there depends on whether the ball had crossed the plane of touch when he caught it. If he caught it while over the FOP (ie before the ball had crossed the plane of touch) the catcher took it in. And in my book, if he caught it after it had crossed the plane of touch - the oppos put it in touch.

Adam
04-05-11, 12:05
Notwithstanding the intellectual sparring in and around Law 19 and its definitions we are, certainly in England below L4, relying on TJs who I know for sure (if my brother-in-law a L9 club TJ is anything to go by) couldn't get touch and/or LO throw colour right all the time.

We have to be satisfied with the 95% :wow: they do get right.

I would like to consider doing the RFU ARse course but I am not sure I understand fully Law 19 myself! :o

Law 19 wrt touch could be made simpler I think.

With the unqualified TJs we have to use at our level a simple question asking did he land with one foot in touch allows us to find our answer. I'm going with the interpretation that if you land with the ball in touch (one or more feet in touch) then the kicker put the ball in touch.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-05-11, 12:05
Yes & Yes.

Refer attached

http://www.brumbies.com.au/verve/_resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf


The document summary does not tie up with the Highlanders vs Blues (FH 18 mins) episode I raised.

The ball had hit Poki on shoulder and was heading for touch so was always going to be white LO if touch was given.

As before:-

He jumps from FoP through PoT.
Catches ball and throws it back into FoP.
He then lands in touch.

So is that a different interpretation OR did AR not think it crossed the PoT? If you're not sure what the AR was thinking/seeing it makes it difficult - or is it just me?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-05-11, 12:05
With the unqualified TJs we have to use at our level a simple question asking did he land with one foot in touch allows us to find our answer. I'm going with the interpretation that if you land with the ball in touch (one or more feet in touch) then the kicker put the ball in touch.

I have no problem with foot/feet in touch before during or after catching/picking up a moving/picking up a stationary ball/hitting a ball that at has not crossed the PoT.

Playing the ball/catching/tapping/hitting/knocking when the ball is over the PoT and the player is in the air and he lands in touch/FoP is when I start to start scratching my head.:confused:

Dickie E
04-05-11, 12:05
Playing the ball/catching/tapping/hitting/knocking when the ball is over the PoT and the player is in the air and he lands in touch/FoP is when I start to start scratching my head.:confused:

If the ball is outside PoT and the player is ouside PoT then the ball is in touch and there is nothing the player can do about it. Forget about where he lands.

The umpire
04-05-11, 12:05
With the unqualified TJs we have to use at our level. . .
indeed! The other week one asked me why i gave that last lo to blue - " cos that's what you signalled!"

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-05-11, 13:05
If the ball is outside PoT and the player is ouside PoT then the ball is in touch and there is nothing the player can do about it. Forget about where he lands.

Irrespective of being in the air (in this case jumping from FoP)?

IF that is the case as the Brumbies document suggested then in the Poki scenario the AR was just wrong ie Poki (in the air) and the ball were over the PoT (albeit you needed slo mo to see it clearly)

It is perhaps me assuming the the AR is correct (ie he has seen what has happened (properly) and it is play on) that is confusing me.

OB..
04-05-11, 13:05
Law 19 wrt touch could be made simpler I think.
I had a go at this once (click the blue arrow)
...

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-05-11, 13:05
I had a go at this once (click the blue arrow)

Thanks OB..

Reading down your list then getting to the asterisk bit only suggests to me that 5 years later you (and I) are still not sure? :biggrin: :biggrin:

OB..
04-05-11, 13:05
Thanks OB..

Reading down your list then getting to the asterisk bit only suggests to me that 5 years later you (and I) are still not sure? :biggrin: :biggrin:

Correct :(

The law is still unclear, but referees have to do their best to make sense of it - hence the different opinions.

Robert Burns
04-05-11, 14:05
If a player in the air catches and passes the ball before either of them have crossed the plane, but then lands with one foot on the touchline, it is contrary to common sense IMHO to say that technically the ball was in touch. In practical terms it means you have to wait until the player lands, by which time the ball may be some distance away. I cannot see the casual TJ at grass roots level implementing that view, which means he will declare loudly that the referee is wrong again if he sees it happen at Twickenham.

I believe this is covered in law, if the player does not have possession of the ball when he becomes in touch (which according to law is when he touches the line or anything beyond it) then the ball cannot be in touch because of him. We agree here.

As for who put it out, as stated, I believe the laws are written because it doesn't matter where the ball is caught it only matters where he ends up if he is still in possession of the ball.

So, Large jump from in the field of play, catches ball in field of play and lands with one or both feet in touch (if one foot must be first foot to touch the ground) - Catcher team throw.

Same scenario but first foot down is in FOP second then put on line, catcher has taken the ball out - kickers throw.

When I get to TV Rugby, I'll worry more about it, until then, the law backs up bar debates.


If the ball is outside PoT and the player is ouside PoT then the ball is in touch and there is nothing the player can do about it. Forget about where he lands.

:nono: The ball is not in touch until it touches something that is on/beyond the line of touch. A Player doesn't count because as clearly stated in law, he is not in touch until the point where he touches the ground on or beyond the touchline.

chopper15
04-05-11, 16:05
So, Large jump from in the field of play, catches ball in field of play and lands with one or both feet in touch (if one foot must be first foot to touch the ground) - Catcher team throw.

Same scenario but first foot down is in FOP second then put on line, catcher has taken the ball out - kickers throw.




Robert, I think you'll eventually be told by one of your peers that for both scenarios the catcher took the ball into touch. Kicker's throw.

What confuses me is 'inside' and 'outside' the touch-line. Is the former the FoP side of touch ie., 'outside of touch' or not?:sad:

Davet
04-05-11, 16:05
What confuses me is 'inside' and 'outside' the touch-line. Is the former the FoP side of touch ie., 'outside of touch' or not?:sad:


Oh, behave.

Inside the touch-line is clearly in the field of play, outside the touch-line is clearly outside the field of play.

Only twisted minds coud think otherwise - though on this board that means you have lots of company;)

chopper15
04-05-11, 17:05
Yes & Yes.

Refer attached

http://www.brumbies.com.au/verve/_resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf



Excellent clarification reference, Dickie, really worth digesting. I think I am now qualified to answer most of your queries. I say most 'cause I need some clarification for . . .

Item10 - Ball holder airborne over touch throws ball back into FoP then lands back in touch - PLAY ON.

However, Item14 - Ball holder airborne over touch throws ball back into FoP then lands back in touch - is same scenario but this time the ball is confirmed as being in touch.

Item17 - Player and ball airborne over touch. Ball knocked into FoP, player lands back in touch - BALL IN TOUCH.

So if - Player and ball airborne over touch. Ball knocked into FoP, player lands back in FoP? This isn't addressed.

OB..
04-05-11, 18:05
As for who put it out, as stated, I believe the laws are written because it doesn't matter where the ball is caught it only matters where he ends up if he is still in possession of the ball.
So, Large jump from in the field of play, catches ball in field of play and lands with one or both feet in touch (if one foot must be first foot to touch the ground) - Catcher team throw.
But Law 19.4 specifically refers to “the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch”. It is not a matter of WHERE the ball was caught, but of WHEN. If it was caught before the catcher landed in touch, then he was the last player under 19.4, so it is the opponents’ throw, regardless of where ball or player were when the ball was caught.

The only reference in the Definitions to a player in the air is
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.It does not specify where he jumps from. However I note this from the Australian Line Ball Your Call document p17 Scenario 5 [emhasis is mine]

Red player punts the ball from outside his own 22m area and the ball crosses the
touch-line on the full. A blue opponent standing in touch leaps in the air, and slaps
the ball back in to the field-of-play and then lands in touch.
(a) Is the ball in touch? YES
(b) Where is the line-out? Where the red player
kicked it from
(c) Team to throw in? Blue
Note: The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it
touches anyone on or beyond the touch-line. The same answer would apply if the
opponent landed in the field-of-play.

Law 19 is full of holes.

Robert Burns
05-05-11, 01:05
Yes, I concede it is definitely in need of a rewrite.

Maybe on the new site I should add a law clarification wishlist, where we write a question like the law clarifications, and hope that some member country of the IRB reads it, agrees and submits it.

:chin:

Dickie E
05-05-11, 03:05
:nono: The ball is not in touch until it touches something that is on/beyond the line of touch. A Player doesn't count because as clearly stated in law, he is not in touch until the point where he touches the ground on or beyond the touchline.

Be that as it may, it is INEVITABLE that in this scenario a lineout will result. So where he takes off from and lands are irrelevant.

Robert Burns
05-05-11, 03:05
Chopper,

Craig Joubert (Arguably the best referee in the world) agrees with me. That's a big enough peer for me to keep going how I am, until the IRB specifically address it.

:D



5. Name: Carlos Romero

Question: Hi There

After a ball is kicked by a Blue Player, a Red Player with both feet in the field of play jumps and catches the ball before he crosses the line of touch, landing off the field of play.

Which player put the ball in touch?

Craig Joubert: Hi Carlos,

Since the law refers to 'where the player lands', in your example the ball is deemed to have been put into touch by the Blue player since the Red player landed outside the field of play.

Cheers, Craig

OB..
05-05-11, 11:05
But I started this thread specifically in order to challenge that decision.

Robert Burns
05-05-11, 12:05
I know!

Safety in numbers....

:eek: :rolleyes:

Ian_Cook
06-05-11, 06:05
I like the ARU's Line Ball - Your Call" booklet (which we also use here in NZ) because each example is consistent and make logical sense.

Some on here have argued that some of the examples go against their understanding of the stated Law, but the reality is that the Law is confusing and self-contradictory, and as OB correctly points out, is silent on some scenarios.

The Fat
07-05-11, 02:05
Certainly is as clear as mud.
If we take Robert's interpretation that everything that happens before the player lands is irrelevant and that it only matters where he lands then what about the scenario that happened in the Reds v Rebels game last night? Reds player puts up a high kick that is coming down inside the Rebels 22 and will land 1m in from touch. Rebels player running towards the touchline jumps, catches the ball 1m inside the FoP but lands outside the FoP with ball in hand.
The difference here was that the Rebels player called "mark" as he caught the ball. The referee awarded the FK commenting that he caught the ball 1m inside the FoP.
Now it would seem silly that if the same thing had happened outside the Rebels 22 that the Rebels player's action would be disregarded and the decision be that the Reds kicker had put the ball in touch because that is where the Rebels player landed.

Robert Burns
07-05-11, 16:05
Robert & Craig's Interpretation if you will... :cool:

Mark is specifically allowed to be called in the air, so makes no difference where he lands.

Touch cannot be given while in the air.

OB..
07-05-11, 17:05
Touch cannot be given while in the air.

A player is standing in touch and jumps to catch the ball. Are you really saying it is wrong to give the ball as in touch before he lands?


If the ball, which has crossed the plain-of-touch, touches a player
beyond the touch-line, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the
player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put
in-touch by the kicking teamp18 of Line Ball Your call.

Robert Burns
07-05-11, 17:05
There are things we do which are common sense.

One is if it's obvious the player/ball will land in touch, we give it. I will admit I do tow the line as while I think the interpretation is incorrect to law, incorrect and consistent is better than correct and inconsistent. I am not trying to, and nor do I want to shout 'told you so' if I ever happen to be proved right in a law change/clarification.

That booklet is only an interpretation by one union though, and is not substantiated by law IMHO VMMV (we've discussed the crappy written law to death).

However, a new question regarding this law. (hoorah!)

These definitions state that the ball must not have crossed the plane of touch, so do you believe this means the ball must not have fully passed through the plane of touch (which is the definition of crossed)?

If so, why have we gone from all laws stating being on a line counts (leading edge), to this one stating that the ball must have not crossed the line to count (trailing edge)?

OB..
07-05-11, 20:05
I am not trying to, and nor do I want to shout 'told you so' if I ever happen to be proved right in a law change/clarification.My whole point is that the law is NOT clear, so there is no right and wrong.


These definitions state that the ball must not have crossed the plane of touch, so do you believe this means the ball must not have fully passed through the plane of touch (which is the definition of crossed)?I take it to mean "break the plane".

Robert Burns
08-05-11, 04:05
Yes, I agree with that point OB.

With regard to the word Crossed, it is past tense. Surely breaking should be crossing?

Example being if you have a bridge over a stream, to have crossed it you must have reached the other side, by standing on the bridge you are still crossing it.

I believe the interpretation should be as you state OB.. as it's consistent with every other law regarding the lines on the pitch. Another example of badly worded though?

Dickie E
08-05-11, 04:05
Yes, I agree with that point OB.

With regard to the word Crossed, it is past tense. Surely breaking should be crossing?

Example being if you have a bridge over a stream, to have crossed it you must have reached the other side, by standing on the bridge you are still crossing it.



I think Chppoer has changed his name to Robert Burns :Nerv:

Robert Burns
08-05-11, 05:05
:mad: := :nono: :wow:

I don't want red card players replaced. :nono:

:Looser:
:biggrin:

The Fat
08-05-11, 06:05
Yes, I agree with that point OB.

With regard to the word Crossed, it is past tense. Surely breaking should be crossing?

Example being if you have a bridge over a stream, to have crossed it you must have reached the other side, by standing on the bridge you are still crossing it.

I believe the interpretation should be as you state OB.. as it's consistent with every other law regarding the lines on the pitch. Another example of badly worded though?

But the plane of touch isn't a line 3 or 4 inches wide. It is a vertical plane extending up from the inside edge of the touch line. Pedantic I know but the whole of the ball or the whole of the player wouldn't need to cross the plane for either to be in touch. If a player steps on the touch line I raise my flag. I don't keep my flag down and say "Oh, his whole foot hadn't crossed the plane of touch". Therefore crossed/crossing is six of one and half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned.

The Fat
08-05-11, 06:05
Something else I have posted previously on here which is relevant to the discussion.

OB..
08-05-11, 17:05
The_Fat - I like that flow chart because it takes the "correct" view (= mine :wink: ) of the man in the air.

Robert Burns
08-05-11, 20:05
Lol. I like your style OB.

First questions a bit Misleading.

For our scenario:-

Was the ball carried, held or caught by a player? Yes

And now we've gone the wrong way.....?

OB..
09-05-11, 14:05
SArefs view
In or out?
The Highlanders play the Blues. Stephen Brett of the Blues kicks the ball down to the touchline on his right. The ball bounces and Kade Poki, the Highlanders' wing, knocks the ball infield. Play goes on.
Should it have?
Law 19 DEFINITIONS
A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.
Did the ball cross the line of touch?
Yes.
Was Poki in touch?
Yes. Even if he was airborne when he played the ball he was in touch.
The ball was out and play should not have gone on.
http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2731221.htm

chopper15
11-05-11, 17:05
Something else I have posted previously on here which is relevant to the discussion.

If relevant to the dicussion why didn't the first question include 'a loose ball'?:sad:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
11-05-11, 17:05
SArefs view
http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2731221.htm


In or out?
The Highlanders play the Blues. Stephen Brett of the Blues kicks the ball down to the touchline on his right. The ball bounces and Kade Poki, the Highlanders' wing, knocks the ball infield. Play goes on.
Should it have?
Law 19 DEFINITIONS
A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.
Did the ball cross the line of touch?
Yes.
Was Poki in touch?
Yes. Even if he was airborne when he played the ball he was in touch.
The ball was out and play should not have gone on.
This is the incident I was on about in post #7.:bday:

I was confused :confused: because the result was play on. Now the SA refs have suggested it shouldn't have been so, I am less confused - although Law 19 is still a bit of a mess.

nealed
15-05-11, 16:05
Saracenns v Gloucester 25 mins
gloucester kick
saracens winger catches ball in the field of play both feet in air, lands in touch
kick given to .......

gloucester

Adam
15-05-11, 16:05
Saracenns v Gloucester 25 mins
gloucester kick
saracens winger catches ball in the field of play both feet in air, lands in touch
kick given to .......

gloucester

Wrong!

One swallow doesn't make a summer!

nealed
15-05-11, 16:05
Wrong!

One swallow doesn't make a summer!

well thats the question
is it wrong or correct
i think it should have gone to saracens, but i can see the viewpoint that it could go to gloucester
there are clearly 2 views

chopper15
15-05-11, 17:05
well thats the question
is it wrong or correct
i think it should have gone to saracens, but i can see the viewpoint that it could go to gloucester
there are clearly 2 views

Sarry in FoP caught ball in FoP and landed in touch. LO to Gloucs.

Sarry took ball into touch.

As an aside if he had shouted Mark (if I remember correctly he was in his 22) he would've been allowed the FK . . . but then I expect you would've known that.:hap:

nealed
15-05-11, 18:05
[QUOTE=chopper15;161544]Sarry in FoP caught ball in FoP and landed in touch. LO to Gloucs.

Sarry took ball into touch.

that is 1 argument
the other is the one that andy and i prefer

SimonSmith
15-05-11, 18:05
Sarry in FoP caught ball in FoP and landed in touch. LO to Gloucs.

Sarry took ball into touch.

As an aside if he had shouted Mark (if I remember correctly he was in his 22) he would've been allowed the FK . . . but then I expect you would've known that.:hap:

I have sympathy with this point of view

OB..
15-05-11, 18:05
Saracenns v Gloucester 25 mins
gloucester kick
saracens winger catches ball in the field of play both feet in air, lands in touch
kick given to .......

gloucesterWrong!

One swallow doesn't make a summer!
I start with the assumption that experience ARs at that level are making such decisions in the way they are taught to.

You may not personally like their view but I think it makes more sense than the alternative.

OB..
15-05-11, 18:05
As an aside if he had shouted Mark (if I remember correctly he was in his 22) he would've been allowed the FK
Didn't that actually happen later on?

chopper15
15-05-11, 21:05
Didn't that actually happen later on?

Don't recall, OB, but there were two incidents when the fielder had the opportunity of taking the ball with a foot deliberately placed in touch to secure the throw.

chopper15
15-05-11, 21:05
[QUOTE=chopper15;161544]Sarry in FoP caught ball in FoP and landed in touch. LO to Gloucs.

Sarry took ball into touch.

that is 1 argument
the other is the one that andy and i prefer

The other is a no- no according to the LoG,:hap:

nealed
15-05-11, 22:05
no i think thats the problem
the law is not clear

Pinky
15-05-11, 23:05
I'm with Nealed on this one. Law 19 definition -

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

Seems to suggest that the ball is in touch but there is another thread where a good question is being drafted for the Law folks to consider and clarify.

Camquin
16-05-11, 00:05
Is there a clarification on the Free kick issue.

I believe a mark can only be made in the field of play.

If a play jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the FoP or he is in touch.

So you could argue that when you catch the ball you are in a quantum state - neither in play or in touch - and the mark is not completed unless they land in the FoP.

Similarly a player not making a mark is in the same state. Therefore it is the person who propelled the ball who put it into touch.

I assume, by analogy with the goal line rules, that if I am in touch and pick up a moving ball, I have not put it into touch, but if I pick up a stationary ball I have. Would others agree?

Camquin

OB..
16-05-11, 01:05
I believe a mark can only be made in the field of play.

If a play jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the FoP or he is in touch.Law 18 shows a player in the air making a Mark. This is not Law 19, so those criteria do not apply.


I assume, by analogy with the goal line rules, that if I am in touch and pick up a moving ball, I have not put it into touch, but if I pick up a stationary ball I have. Would others agree?

Camquin

Law 19.5 says you are right.

Robert Burns
06-06-11, 11:06
Mark Lawrence agrees with me too:

I'm getting more comfortable with the strength of the support for my view. :biggrin:


3. Name: Claudio Cattivelli

Question: Blue player kicks a ball, and Black player jumps, catches the ball in the air before it crosses the vertical plane and lands over the touchline (outside the field of play). Is it correct to say that Blue player puts the ball into the line-out?

Thanks.

Mark Lawrence: Hello Claudio,

Yes, you are quite correct. Blue has kicked the ball so that it has touched someone or something that is in touch. It is where he lands that matters.

Law 19 Touch definitions are quoted below.

If a player jumps and catches the ball , both feet must land in the playing area, otherwise the ball is in touch.

The touch laws are quite tricky. I set up a law exam on our website in 2007 and of the 500 odd answers received , just less than 5% passed! That’s one of the reasons we have a specialised Touch Judge, or rather, assistant referees' panel.

Keep well and thanks for your question

Regards, Mark

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.
The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball-carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball-carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch.
The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal.
Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

Phil E
06-06-11, 13:06
Mark Lawrence agrees with me too:

I'm getting more comfortable with the strength of the support for my view. :biggrin:

Not exactly. He quotes the law which states the ball is in touch.
What the law does not state is who gets the throw in, so it is still ambiguous.

Robert Burns
06-06-11, 13:06
Look again:

Question is:


Blue player kicks a ball, and Black player jumps, catches the ball in the air before it crosses the vertical plane and lands over the touchline (outside the field of play). Is it correct to say that Blue player puts the ball into the line-out?

Mark says:


Yes, you are quite correct. Blue has kicked the ball so that it has touched someone or something that is in touch. It is where he lands that matters.

Matters not where it is caught, just where they land.

Phil E
06-06-11, 13:06
Look again:

Matters not where it is caught, just where they land.

But the law doesn't state that, regarding who gets the put in.

I thought we had agreed further back in this thread that yours and his was a SH interpretation???

Robert Burns
06-06-11, 14:06
It can't be, these are IRB test referees, so the interpretation must be that of the IRB.

Surely the IRB and SANZAR don't apply the same law differently, do they? :rolleyes:

Davet
06-06-11, 14:06
ML's (and Robbie's) view works for me.

No need to dance on hot coals worrying was it wasn't it over plane of touch - 'cos sure as eggs the ref hasn't a scooby - you are almost certainly infield of the scene looking across, rather than looking down the line. Just worry about where the player's feet land - much more obvious than a ball 5 feet off the ground near the touchline.

Take the easy option, why create problems?

OB..
06-06-11, 15:06
Back in2007 I had an email exchange with Mark Lawrence on this very point in his quiz. I point ed out the corollary that if a player in touch who caught the ball after it had crossed the plane and landed in the field of play, then the ball would not be deemed to have been in touch. He agreed it would be in touch because the player was in touch initially, and accepted that it was an anomaly.

The law does not say whether the player still has the ball when he lands. What if a lineout player jumps from the field of play, catches the ball and passes it down to a team-mate, just as at a lineout. When he lands one foot just touches the touchline although neither he nor the ball ever broke the plane earlier. The ball may be some distance away by the time it is later decided that the ball was deemed to have been in touch.

I don't like decisions that are retro-active. It's a rugby ball, not Schrödinger's cat.

Robert Burns
06-06-11, 15:06
Yes, always exceptions to spoil the rule.