PDA

View Full Version : RB recommended . .



chopper15
22-07-11, 12:07
C. Should 'TOUCH' and being 'IN-TOUCH' be defined in the LoG?

Reference # 18: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?12685-New-site-open&p=169080&highlight=#post169080

Robert Burns
22-07-11, 13:07
I believe they are defined in Law 19, but as to who gets the throw in isn't as clear.

chopper15
22-07-11, 18:07
I believe they are defined in Law 19, but as to who gets the throw in isn't as clear.

That's my point, Robert.

To help determine when a ball or ball-holder is in touch I thought it would help if TOUCH and CONTACT LIABILITY was defined and when IN TOUCH is actually triggered. eg.,

TOUCH: That area of ground bounded by and including the touch-line immediately adjacent to the playing area.
With the exception of the referee, linesmen, players in contact with a ball-holder and corner flags, TOUCH will include anything or anybody, permanent, transitory or partially, within or beyond an imaginary plane rising vertically from the touch-line.

'IN TOUCH': A loose ball or ball-holder in contact with that area defined as TOUCH.

CONTACT LIABILITY: A loose ball on or above the FoP in passing contact with a player in touch (ie. not taken hold of) will be deemed NOT to be in touch.
A loose ball moving on or above the FoP taken hold of by a player in contact with touch will deemed to have been put into touch by the player previously in contact with the ball.
A stationary loose ball in the FoP taken hold of by a player in contact with touch will be deemed to have been taken into touch by that player.
A directly flighted kick caught by an opposing player in contact with touch will be deemed to have been put into touch by that kicker.

Incidentally, regarding that last sentence, why is that fielder deemed to be a 'player' when technically he is deemed to be TOUCH?

This would then allow an attacking player to take a QT and not a LO.

OB..
22-07-11, 20:07
Incidentally, regarding that last sentence, why is that fielder deemed to be a 'player' when technically he is deemed to be TOUCH?Why would he stop being a player when he steps into touch?
Law 19.2 (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play ...

OB..
22-07-11, 20:07
I think my earlier proposed rewrite covers the point, since we have already agreed that intentional vs unintentional contact needs to be sorted out across the laws.

DEFINITIONS
"Kicked directly into touch" means that the ball was kicked into touch without landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee.
"The 22" is the area between the goal-line, the 22-metre line, and the touch lines, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal-line and touch lines.
The line-of-touch is an imaginary line in the field-of-play at right angles to the touch-line through the place where the ball crossed the touchline, or as other wise specified by law.
Touch includes touch-in-goal wherever appropriate.
The plane of touch is the vertical space rising immediately above the inside edge of the touch-line.

The ball is IN when it is entirely between the two planes of touch.
The ball is IN TOUCH when it touches the touch-line or anything or anyone (except a player) on or beyond the touch-line, whether on the ground or in the air.
The ball is OUT when it has crossed or is crossing the plane of touch, but it is not necessarily 'IN TOUCH'.
If the ball goes OUT and then comes back IN without touching anything, play continues.

A player is IN TOUCH if any part of him is on the ground on or over the touch-line.
A player is IN PLAY If both feet are on the ground in the field of play.
A player is still IN PLAY if, standing with both feet on the ground in the field of play, he reaches across the plane of touch.
If a player is in the air when he plays the ball, he is IN TOUCH if his torso has broken or crossed the plane of touch, but is otherwise IN PLAY. [Comment: this point is not universally agreed – but needs to be!]

If a player goes IN TOUCH while carrying the ball, the ball is IN TOUCH.

If a player IN TOUCH plays a ball that is OUT, the ball is IN TOUCH.
If a player IN TOUCH catches a ball that is IN, the ball is IN TOUCH.
If a player IN TOUCH plays, otherwise than by catching, a ball that is IN, play continues.

If a player IN PLAY plays a ball that is OUT, he may attempt to bring it back into play by kicking, catching, or knocking it. If in so doing he knocks it forward, Law 12 applies.
A player is either IN PLAY or IN TOUCH.
If the ball is IN TOUCH, the person responsible is the last player IN PLAY to have contact with the ball.

chopper15
22-07-11, 23:07
Why would he stop being a player when he steps into touch?
Law 19.2 (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play ...

Sorry. OB, I was referring to 19.2(d) . . . . A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch.

It was stated in a past thread that when a player catches a PK with one foot in touch his opponent wasn't then allowed to take a QT. The reason given was that 'another person has touched the ball'.

My point is, that when he fields the ball he technically IS touch, unless, of course, he steps back into the FoP and then returns the ball into touch.

chopper15
22-07-11, 23:07
Why would he stop being a player when he steps into touch?
Law 19.2 (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play ...

Sorry. OB, I was referring to 19.2(d) . . . . A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch.

It was stated in a past thread that when a player catches a PK with one foot in touch his opponent wasn't then allowed to take a QT. The reason given was that 'another person has touched the ball'.

My point is, that when he fields the ball he technically IS touch, unless, of course, he steps back into the FoP and then returns the ball into touch.

PS. How do you capture LoG in the yellow boxes, please?

OB..
23-07-11, 00:07
I am not at all clear what you are getting at. "Persons" is a category that includes all "players", but not every person is a player eg a spectator or TJ.


PS. How do you capture LoG in the yellow boxes, please?
Click Go Advanced. The very last edit symbol just above where you type is a miniature RugbyRefs logo. That puts laws brackets round selected text. The symbol to its left does the same for text areas (green).

chopper15
24-07-11, 00:07
Technically no person/player actually touched the ball. For the simple reason it was deemed to be put directly into touch by the kicker . . . in effect the fielder WAS touch.

To stop the QT in that particular scenario the fielder would have to move his foot back into the FoP then, and only then, release the ball for a LO throw.

OB..
24-07-11, 00:07
I really have no idea what you are getting at. Could you please spell out the scenario that you think is problematic?

Rit Hinners
24-07-11, 02:07
I believe his argument is that since a player who catches the ball while in touch is not the one who carried the ball into touch he must qualify as someone other than the player that did so or throws the ball back in and so, therefore, no QT may be taken.

OB..
24-07-11, 12:07
I believe his argument is that since a player who catches the ball while in touch is not the one who carried the ball into touch he must qualify as someone other than the player that did so or throws the ball back in and so, therefore, no QT may be taken.That doesn't make sense to me. If a player in touch catches the ball he can be the player who throws it back in.
Law 19.2 (d)[...] A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart form the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]

Where is the problem?

Robert Burns
24-07-11, 14:07
I'm with OB..

Simon Thomas
24-07-11, 15:07
That doesn't make sense to me. If a player in touch catches the ball he can be the player who throws it back in.
Law 19.2 (d)[...] A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart form the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]

Where is the problem?

In most cases it is the catcher or ball retriever who takes the QT - as OB says where is the problem as they are the player throwing it in ?

chopper15
25-07-11, 00:07
If a fielder catches a PK falling into touch interpretation of 19.2 d. does not allow the kicking side to take a QT because the fielder was not the 'opponent who carried it into touch' , he was the player standing in touch who played the ball.

If, however, a fielder catches a PK falling into the FoP with one foot in touch, the ball is deemed to have been kicked directly into touch ie. it made 'direct contact' with touch and not the player who is, in effect, an extension of touch into the FoP.

My contention is that for scenario (ii) a QT should be allowed as the ball, technically, wasn't in contact with a player/person.

And in (i) if he's standing in touch and deliberately catches, or even touches the ball, why isn't he penalised for interferring with or stopping the kicking side from taking a QT? . . . . he would be if he kicked it away.

OB..
25-07-11, 03:07
If a fielder catches a PK falling into touch interpretation of 19.2 d. does not allow the kicking side to take a QT because the fielder was not the 'opponent who carried it into touch' , he was the player standing in touch who played the ball.
If the player who catches the ball is somehow a team mate of the kicker, then he can take a quick throw-in.
If not, no QT.


If, however, a fielder catches a PK falling into the FoP with one foot in touch, the ball is deemed to have been kicked directly into touch ie. it made 'direct contact' with touch and not the player who is, in effect, an extension of touch into the FoP.No different from the previous situation.


My contention is that for scenario (ii) a QT should be allowed as the ball, technically, wasn't in contact with a player/person.
I don't understand how you have persuaded yourself that the catcher is not a player or person.
I assume here he is not a team mate of the kicker, but he is not the person throwing in, nor is he a player who carried the ball into touch. Therefore he is "another person", which means no QT.

And in (i) if he's standing in touch and deliberately catches, or even touches the ball, why isn't he penalised for interferring with or stopping the kicking side from taking a QT? . . . . he would be if he kicked it away.You have this notion that the opposition should not attempt to touch the ball simply because they will not get the throw in. I see no basis for that at all. When you refer to kicking the ball away, I presume you have in mind occasions when a player physically tries to prevent an opponent from taking a throw in. However that is quite different from catching the ball with no one near and thus under law disallowing a QT.