PDA

View Full Version : question re. touch



Dickie E
08-08-11, 03:08
had this on Saturday (I was AR):

ball was stationery 1/2 metre from touch line. Player with one foot in touch and one if FoP scooped the ball back between his legs to a team mate.

Law 19 says: A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not
crossed the plane of the touchline.

Is a 'scooping' action a subset of knocking the ball?

I allowed play to continue.

Taff
08-08-11, 09:08
Isn't "scooping" just a form of holding?

I would vote for a LO - put in to the non-scooping side.

menace
08-08-11, 09:08
law 19.5 (a) say "If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up
the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, that player has picked up the ball in
the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)"

So for mine the scooping is a form of 'picking up' - so I would flag for touch and L/O to 'non-scooper'

Drift
08-08-11, 10:08
Although in this case it's better to make no decision than the wrong on.

I probably would've raised my flag as I like to do that kind of thing.

OB..
08-08-11, 11:08
He did not pick it up because he was never actually holding the ball.
He did not knock it back because there was relatively prolonged contact.

It is a grey area with no right answer. I would not fault an official either way, but it could be an interesting discussion afterwards. Personally I prefer play on, because that is more in the spirit of the game.

Simon Thomas
08-08-11, 15:08
Like OB I would be open minded and go with a decision either way.

Was it a fast 'scoop' with momentary contact, or a longer scoooooooooooooooop ?
Was the foot on the line or fully in touch ?

It is going to be a judgement call by the referee and I would be happy to see it played on as positive play.

If an appointed AR flagged it, then it is a Team of 3 decision, do referee should blow it and discuss in the bar afterwards.

ddjamo
08-08-11, 15:08
he did not hold it. play on.

The Fat
08-08-11, 19:08
law 19.5 (a) say "If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up
the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, that player has picked up the ball in
the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)"

So for mine the scooping is a form of 'picking up' - so I would flag for touch and L/O to 'non-scooper'

I'm with you menace. I would have definitely flagged for LO to "non-scooper".

OB..
08-08-11, 19:08
Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

chopper15
08-08-11, 20:08
Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

The law only allows a 'knock' which it specifies.

I raised that same scoop action query some time back regarding the static/moving action back over the 22. So, touch, 22 and goal-line should be taken into consideration. I tried to locate that thread with the search facility but no joy . . . not unusual!

The Fat
08-08-11, 21:08
Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

I would say that a scoop involves the hand supporting the ball for a period of time, regardless of how long that is, which is the equivalent of holding the ball. If he knocks or kicks it then fine. If he chooses to scoop it, then he has held the ball as far as I'm concerned and therefore has put the ball in touch.

OB..
08-08-11, 22:08
I would say that a scoop involves the hand supporting the ball for a period of time, regardless of how long that is, which is the equivalent of holding the ball. If he knocks or kicks it then fine. If he chooses to scoop it, then he has held the ball as far as I'm concerned and therefore has put the ball in touch.You are ducking my point. The wording does not force either interpretation on you, so which one do you think best serves the game?

The Fat
08-08-11, 23:08
You are ducking my point. The wording does not force either interpretation on you, so which one do you think best serves the game?

The one that I have stated. Taken into touch by the scooper. LO to non-scoopers. Otherwise we may as well adopt AFL rules where a player can run with his whole body outside the boundary (touch) line except for the hand holding the ball and the still have the ball in play and play on.

chopper15
08-08-11, 23:08
What about if you shove (corruption of shovel?), push or guide a ball lying or rolling loose in the FoP to a team mate with the side or toe of the boot or the hand?

PS . . . nudge, roll, prod, poke, slap, whack, truckle, slice, flick, swipe? (grinning face thingy)

OB..
09-08-11, 00:08
The one that I have stated. But your decision was based on the way you have chosen to interpret the wording of the law. You said nothing about what would be best for the game.
Taken into touch by the scooper. LO to non-scoopers. Otherwise we may as well adopt AFL rules where a player can run with his whole body outside the boundary (touch) line except for the hand holding the ball and the still have the ball in play and play on.False argument. You have used the word holding, and we know that is illegal.

Interestingly, in the nineteenth century a player was considered to be in touch if any part of his body broke the plane.

ddjamo
09-08-11, 02:08
the holding/catching is consistent with other situations. example: player with one foot in touch fumbles a kick forward in a scooping motion as he tries to catch the ball - knock on. but if he catches it on the full -touch. TF by your interpretation the former would be in touch as he scooped the ball....and not a knock on?

can't have it both ways matey...

menace
09-08-11, 06:08
But your decision was based on the way you have chosen to interpret the wording of the law. You said nothing about what would be best for the game.

I didn’t think he was ducking your point either when Fat explained in his opinion that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object. I would have thought that most people think that when you ‘pick up’ something that you apply a grasp of some sort to raise/lift the object off the ground and a scoop fits that general definition. To me it is clear too that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object. The flinging of that object as DickieE eludes with his example, is more a secondary action - as opposed to a kick or knocking of the ball (which is not a picking up action).

To suggest that ‘scooping’ is not an act of picking up an object up seems to be playing with semantics to the nth degree and causes more confusion than necessary. But seeing how we are on that path - after extensive searching through thesaurus etc (ie Macquarie :hap:) nowhere could I find that ‘scoop’ is a synonym of ‘knock’ Therefore I would deduce that a ‘scoop’ in not an action of knocking and therefore ‘scooping’ does not form part of the exceptions in the law 19 definitions, as such this action would fall in 19.5 (a). On the basis that Fat defined what he deemed to be picking up (or even momentarily ‘holding’ which surely incorporates a ‘pick-up’), and I agree with him, it is clear and precise to me what the law requires and what the outcome is and therefore it does not require that I interpret it as to “what would be best for the game”.

OB – I do note your opinion that either ‘play on’ OR ‘touch’ is not an unreasonable call considering the vagueness of the law 19 definitions although you tend to favour the ‘scoop’ as a form of ‘knocking’ as it is better for the game. Pity that if the law lords meant that scooping was a form of ‘knocking’ that they didn’t add that action to the list in law 1aw 19 definitions.

Taff
09-08-11, 09:08
he did not hold it. play on.He didn't tap or kick it back either.


... Was the foot on the line or fully in touch?Sorry, but I don't get your point. On the line is in touch; what difference does it make? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

OB..
09-08-11, 12:08
I didn’t think he was ducking your point either when Fat explained in his opinion that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object. He was making an assertion about what the word "scoop" means. I am trying very hard to get away from semantics in this case because I don't think it helps.

Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call.

The Law only becomes definitive after you have decided how you want to classify a particular scoop.

chopper15
09-08-11, 12:08
He was making an assertion about what the word "scoop" means. I am trying very hard to get away from semantics in this case because I don't think it helps.

Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call.

The Law only becomes definitive after you have decided how you want to classify a particular scoop.


I just bought some loose dog biscuits and the lady used a scoop to transfer them from bin to bag. It's got to mean 'to hold' aswell as 'pick up', surely?

If so, wouldn't that make it OK to scoop the ball (moving or static) back-over the 22 or goal-line?

menace
09-08-11, 14:08
Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call.

The Law only becomes definitive after you have decided how you want to classify a particular scoop.

Agreed.

For 19.5a to apply we only need to establish if a scoop is a form of picking up the ball. I've stated my reasons why I think it is. QED. The scooper put the ball in touch.
If the player doesn't like it then he should keep both feet in the FoP so there is no risk. :-)

Dixie
09-08-11, 16:08
I tried to locate that thread with the search facility but no joy . . . not unusual! I expect you were using your iPad - when are you going to take it down the charity shop with all the other junk?:biggrin: (note use of facey thing to show not wholly serious, Chopper - a facility available to those of us not chucking ca$h down Steve Job's trousers)

Simon Thomas
09-08-11, 16:08
Chopper - bring your i-pad up to London. There are thousands of nice young people who will relieve you of it in seconds.

OB..
09-08-11, 16:08
Agreed.But you don't!


For 19.5a to apply we only need to establish if a scoop is a form of picking up the ball. I've stated my reasons why I think it is. QED. You are still arguing that a "scoop" is a particular action that you have decided to classify as holding. My point was that there is (I think I have said this sort of thing before) a continuum from knock to hold with varying degrees of contact and control.

Given your position, where does knock end and scoop begin? Whatever a referee's opinion of a scoop, a knock, or a hold, at some point he has to make a judgement call. The extremes are easy. It is the in-betweens that cause problems and trying to home in on "the" meaning of scoop does not help too much.

Taff
09-08-11, 17:08
... Whatever a referee's opinion of a scoop, a knock, or a hold, at some point he has to make a judgement call. The extremes are easy. It is the in-betweens that cause problems ....So what you're saying is it could go either way depending on whether a particular ref on a particular day reckons "scooping" is holding.

chopper15
09-08-11, 17:08
. . . . so how does all this affect a ball (moving or static) scooped back-over the 22 or goal-line and subsequent play, please?

As Taff mentioned, at some point he has to make a judgement call.

chopper15
09-08-11, 17:08
Chopper - bring your i-pad up to London. There are thousands of nice young people who will relieve you of it in seconds.

Doubt it, Simon, mine's the old model . . . . bought it 'bout a month before they launched the faster, slimmer, lighter model complete with front and back cameras.:sad: And you can have it in white.:hap:

OB..
09-08-11, 18:08
So what you're saying is it could go either way depending on whether a particular ref on a particular day reckons "scooping" is holding.The word "scoop" was used to give some idea of the action. In reality you decide if the actual play was a knock (play on) or a hold (in touch). You do not wonder if scoop = hold.

The value of these sorts of discussion is in drawing attention to the criteria involved, and the uncertainties in the laws. You are then better able to exercise your judgement since you have thought about the problem beforehand. The precise action when it happens to you may well be rather different from the OP.

menace
10-08-11, 06:08
But you don't!

You are still arguing that a "scoop" is a particular action that you have decided to classify as holding (I am doing no such thing). My point was that there is (I think I have said this sort of thing before) a continuum from knock to hold with varying degrees of contact and control.


OB said: "Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call."



Agreed.

For 19.5a to apply we only need to establish if a scoop is a form of picking up (i'm not talking about a 'hold') the ball. I've stated my reasons why I think it is. QED. The scooper put the ball in touch.
If the player doesn't like it then he should keep both feet in the FoP so there is no risk. :-)


law 19.5 (a) say "If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up
the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, that player has picked up the ball in
the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)"

So for mine the scooping is a form of 'picking up' - so I would flag for touch and L/O to 'non-scooper'

But I do agree OB - 'between' means non-inclusive of the end values ie mathematically: knock < scoop < hold..so a scoop is not = to a knock and it's not equal to a 'hold'. Thats' what I'm agreeing to based on your own words.

I think you're misquoting me - never have I said that a scoop is a 'hold'..you're focusing on the 'hold' whereas I'm only worried about defining a 'pick-up'. Perhaps I wasn't so clear but because I think a scoop is neither a 'knock' nor a 'hold' then it is not covered by Law 19 definitions...but it is covered by Law19.5a as it is a 'pick-up'. I hope that clear up where I'm coming from.

Dickie E
10-08-11, 09:08
so you're saying:knock < scoop = pick-up < hold?

I can't buy that. Surely 'pick-up' and 'hold' are synonymous.


Based on a further browse of Law 19 Definitions I note:

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.

Not only may he knock the ball back into the playing area, he can also run with it.


A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.

Yes, he can hold it. It's just that the ball is in touch.


I think this law needs a re-write.:bday:

OB..
10-08-11, 11:08
But I do agree OB - 'between' means non-inclusive of the end values ie mathematically: knock < scoop < hold..so a scoop is not = to a knock and it's not equal to a 'hold'. Thats' what I'm agreeing to based on your own words.

I think you're misquoting me - never have I said that a scoop is a 'hold'..you're focusing on the 'hold' whereas I'm only worried about defining a 'pick-up'. Perhaps I wasn't so clear but because I think a scoop is neither a 'knock' nor a 'hold' then it is not covered by Law 19 definitions...but it is covered by Law19.5a as it is a 'pick-up'. I hope that clear up where I'm coming from.I am trying to persuade people to stop taking the semantic approach to this. It will not present itself as "was that a scoop?" There will be an action that is not a clear knock, nor a clear hold. You will have to decide how to apply the law, because those are the only two options it offers. I would incline towards "play on" because I think that improves the game.

This is not mathematics. I was trying to stress the fact that there is a continuum from the merest contact to a firm grasp. The law arbitrarily splits it into two ill-defined phases with a gap between them.

Let me use the analogy of a rainbow. The colours come from the continuously varying frequency of the light waves. We arbitrarily split it into 7 colours. Each merges imperceptibly into the next. Indeed different cultures see different numbers of colours - it varies from 3 to 9. There are no sharp cut-offs. Seven was chosen by Newton and he included indigo in order to bring the number up to 7 for entirely non-scientific reasons.

menace
12-08-11, 06:08
so you're saying:knock < scoop = pick-up < hold?

Not exactly.

I can't buy that. Surely 'pick-up' and 'hold' are synonymous.



I think this law needs a re-write.:bday::clap::clap::clap:

You can hold something without picking it up.

I'm merely suggesting that you can 'scoop' something as a form of picking up (which would satisfy that law) and do I really need to asses the 'hold'?

I'm comfortable with any AR making a judgment call as to asessing whether any 'scoop' being a knock or a hold. It's up to them. But if the bl@@dy players just kept their feet on FoP then there'd be no issue! :hap:

chopper15
12-08-11, 23:08
Pick-up = Ball scooped onto cupped hand or palm, held and lifted. Ball grasped with fingers or hand and lifted.

Hold/held = Ball supported on palm or cupped hand. Ball grasped by hand or fingers.

Wouldn't these definitions allow 'scoop' to be interchangeable with 'hold' and 'pick up' when interpreting the relevant laws?

For example, if a player with one or both feet inside the 22, 'scoops up' (ie., picks up) the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line and kicks direct into touch it would be a gain in touch?

OB..
13-08-11, 11:08
Why are people still trying to decide the "meaning" of scoop? It was used in the OP to describe a particular action, which we have not seen. Would we also have described it as a scoop? Who knows? Why should we care?

That is tackling the problem backwards. The law gives us a choice of knock or hold, thus leaving a gap. The referee has to decide how to classify what he sees. Giving it a label and then trying to decide what that label "really means" is not the way to deal with it. You just make a decision one way or the other. I suggest that we should incline towards "play on" unless we think the action was too close to holding.

chopper15
14-08-11, 20:08
Why are people still trying to decide the "meaning" of scoop? *It was used in the OP to describe a particular action, which we have not seen. *Would we also have described it as a scoop? Who knows? *Why should we care?

That is tackling the problem backwards. *The law gives us a choice of knock or hold, thus leaving a gap. The referee has to decide how to classify what he sees. *Giving it a label and then trying to decide what that label "really means" is not the way to deal with it. You just make a decision one way or the other. I suggest that we should incline towards "play on" unless we think the action was too close to holding.

To start with I think we can take 'knock' out of the discussion OB . . . 'scoop' it is not.

Then it should be confirmed how refs are supposed to interpret 'pick-up' and 'hold' when contacting the ball for consistency . . . I think at least one ref stated he would allow scoop.

If it is only to be, 'Hold = Ball grasped by hand or fingers, Pick-up = Ball grasped by hand or fingers and lifted', then surely the law lords should be asked to confirm that the ball must be grasped; the request could be justified by pointing out that Hold and Pick-up can also embrace a ball supported on a cupped palm or cupped hand, and that a ball can be scooped onto a cupped hand or palm, then held and lifted without grasping.

Simon Thomas
16-08-11, 12:08
No Chopper we have got more improtant issues to spend our time on off the pitch - tackle, ruck, maul and scrum for starters.

And each referee will judge each incident as he or she sees it.

Was the ball knocked or was it held is the key and a scooping action that controls the direction/ height of the knock is fine, whereas I would suggest a "scoop" that has finger pressure on the ball to semi-hold it is not ?

How long should the contact be for - rhetorical question cos there is no single definitive answer.

Having played a lot of Fives in my school days, I am very aware of what is a knock and what is a hold - a scoop shot is totally legal if executed correctly, but not allowed once fingers are moved & used.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
16-08-11, 13:08
Having played a lot of Fives in my school days, I am very aware of what is a knock and what is a hold - a scoop shot is totally legal if executed correctly, but not allowed once fingers are moved & used.

Euphamism?

crossref
16-08-11, 13:08
I think this is one of those things where you have to see it. 'scoop' can encompass a range of actions..

In my mind's eye I can imagine an action that could easily be called a 'scoop' , but an action that I would judge essentially similar to a knock and I would allow it.. play on

I can also imagine a type of scoop that I would judge amounts essentially to a (very swfit) pick up and pass... which is touch..

I think it depends on the type of contact with the hands and fingers, the speed of the action, the length of time the ball id in contact with the player, how much control of the ball is achieved things like that. If a player scooped it and it came out tumbling end over end in a lobbed-trajectory, that's one thing, if it is scooped and emerges stable and spinning on its own axis at 40deg that's another...

chopper15
16-08-11, 23:08
SimonT quote: No Chopper we have got more improtant issues to spend our time on off the pitch - tackle, ruck, maul and scrum for starters.

Dickie raised this thread as a topic for discussion, Simon. So for consistency, I just queried how are refs supposed to interpret 'hold' and 'pick-up' when contacting the ball?

Should it to be judged simply by a grasp?

'Hold = Ball grasped by hand or fingers. Pick-up = Ball grasped by hand or fingers and lifted'.

or can the alternative also be used?

‘Hold = Ball supported on a cupped palm or cupped hand without grasping. Pick-up = Ball scooped onto a cupped hand or palm, then held and lifted without grasping.

For example, if a player with one or both feet inside the 22, 'scoops up' (ie., picks-up, as defined) the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line and kicks direct into touch would it be a gain in touch?

Adam
17-08-11, 00:08
SimonT quote: No Chopper we have got more improtant issues to spend our time on off the pitch - tackle, ruck, maul and scrum for starters.

Dickie raised this thread as a topic for discussion, Simon. So for consistency, I just queried how are refs supposed to interpret 'hold' and 'pick-up' when contacting the ball?

Should it to be judged simply by a grasp?

'Hold = Ball grasped by hand or fingers. Pick-up = Ball grasped by hand or fingers and lifted'.

or can the alternative also be used?

‘Hold = Ball supported on a cupped palm or cupped hand without grasping. Pick-up = Ball scooped onto a cupped hand or palm, then held and lifted without grasping.

For example, if a player with one or both feet inside the 22, 'scoops up' (ie., picks-up, as defined) the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line and kicks direct into touch would it be a gain in touch?

Please use the quote function. The new forum even comes with multi-quote to make it easy.

SimonSmith
17-08-11, 01:08
I'll know it when I see it. And it won't be via a parsing of language

and what ST said

OB..
17-08-11, 11:08
I'll know it when I see it. And it won't be via a parsing of language
Exactly.

chopper15
17-08-11, 23:08
Please use the quote function. The new forum even comes with multi-quote to make it easy.

Be grateful if you would tell me how, Adam.

Any view on the query I posed? Would you accept the 'non-grasping' hold as defined?

chopper15
17-08-11, 23:08
I'll know it when I see it. And it won't be via a parsing of language

and what ST said


Exactly.

Just in case you all forgot what 'parsing' is.

Parsing a sentence involves the use of linguistic knowledge of a language to discover the way in which a sentence is structured. Exactly how this linguistic knowledge is represented and can be used to understand sentences is one of the questions that has engaged the interest of psycholinguists, linguists, computational linguists, computer scientists and rugby union referees.

PS Found the multi-quote function, Adam. Thanks for the prompt I didn't know.

Adam
18-08-11, 00:08
Be grateful if you would tell me how, Adam.

Any view on the query I posed? Would you accept the 'non-grasping' hold as defined?

Click 'Reply with Quote' on the bottom left of the post you want.

If you want to quote more than one post click the button to the right of that which has quotation marks inside a speech bubble and a 'plus' sign.

There was a tutorial on the website on how to do it I think.

chopper15
18-08-11, 00:08
Click 'Reply with Quote' on the bottom left of the post you want.

If you want to quote more than one post click the button to the right of that which has quotation marks inside a speech bubble and a 'plus' sign.

There was a tutorial on the website on how to do it I think.

Got it. Thanks, Adam.

chopper15
19-08-11, 13:08
So, to conclude::hap:

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 scoops up a ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line with a cupped palm without grasping it and kicks direct into touch, would it be a gain in touch?

Dickie E
19-08-11, 13:08
So, to conclude::hap:

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 scoops up a ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line with a cupped palm without grasping it and kicks direct into touch, would it be a gain in touch?

yes. msf

menace
19-08-11, 14:08
So, to conclude::hap:

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 scoops up a ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line with a cupped palm without grasping it and kicks direct into touch, would it be a gain in touch?

For me the answer is YES.
ie
19.1 (e) If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was in
motion outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch from within the 22 metre
area, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.

He's picked it up - a foot was on or behind the 22m line (ie on the 22m line is part of the 22 area) - then he satisfies the elements of the law and gain in ground he will get.

chopper15
19-08-11, 19:08
Thank you both for your positive answer.:hap: FWIW I agree.