PDA

View Full Version : Player knocks ball back into field of play.



Andymac
27-04-14, 17:04
Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

crossref
27-04-14, 17:04
isn't this exactly the same question as yesterday's thread?
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17656-In-Touch-or-Not

i

Andymac
27-04-14, 17:04
Yes it does appear to be the same question and there does seem to be many different opinions on the matter!

OB..
27-04-14, 18:04
Yes it does appear to be the same question and there does seem to be many different opinions on the matter!I presume Somerset will be advised to follow the same guidance as we were given: it depends where the player's feet were in relation to the plane of touch when he first played the ball.

Andymac
27-04-14, 19:04
The players feet were over the plain of touch.
The difficulty I have is relating the interpretations in this and other similar threads to law and the definitions within the relevant law.
For example I can see no reference to where the players feet are when he is in mid air.

Dixie
27-04-14, 20:04
Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.

Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.

Wait and see, I'm afraid. Not good for uniformity, but the RFU needs to get its act together now it has disbanded its referees unit.

OB..
27-04-14, 20:04
Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.Yes, indeed. Welcome. Very remiss of me.


Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.I replayed that several times, and decided he was not over the FoP! The AR would have received the same guidance as we did ... but there will always be marginal decisions.

Perhaps the important point about that case was that the player did not station himself in touch and try to jump into the FoP. That implies he was not in the "it is where you land that counts" school.

Ian_Cook
27-04-14, 21:04
Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

Welcome to the forums

You might find this little booklet useful

http://www.brumbies.com.au/Portals/13/Files/Community%20Rugby/Referees/Development%20Resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf

This is what all referees in Australia and NZ use, although I understand one or two of the scenarios in it are not universally accepted in England

Your situation is on Page 13 "player & ball outside plane-of-touch" Scenario 1

RobLev
28-04-14, 00:04
Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

Assuming he was out of play when he hit the ball; isn't this the one bit of Law 19 that does admit of a pretty certain answer? The Definitions section includes:

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.

So the ball went into touch, placed there by the kicking team.

And of course, since nothing is that easy, this bit of Law is contradicted by the "Line ball your call" booklet cited by the SH types...

Oops - I'm wrong on that last, although in fairness I was misled by Ian's identification of your situation as that on page 13 - it isn't.

See page 20 of the booklet, which summarises the position:


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 team.

Dixie
28-04-14, 10:04
Assuming he was out of play when he hit the ball; isn't this the one bit of Law 19 that does admit of a pretty certain answer? The Definitions section includes:

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.

So the ball went into touch, placed there by the kicking team. RobLev, the player was not in touch, in that no part of him was grounded on or beyond the touchline. While your comment is perfectly accurate for the player in touch, it does not necessarily hold true for the player in mid air above or beyond the touchline. Hence the OP's question.

The Fat
28-04-14, 15:04
Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.

Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.

Wait and see, I'm afraid. Not good for uniformity, but the RFU needs to get its act together now it has disbanded its referees unit.

I watched quite a few games over the weekend so may have my games mixed up but was this from a PK and the defender looked to have been inside the FOP and jumped over the plane of touch and batted the ball back behind him into the FOP? If it is the one I'm thinking of, the replay showed that the player was standing on the touch line before he jumped and was therefore jumping from in-touch, knocking a ball that had crossed the plane of touch back to the FOP. Ball is out put there by the kicking team. If we adopt the Line Ball Your Call approach it is simple. The ball and the player were both past the plane of touch so the ball was in-touch put there by the kicker.

OB..
28-04-14, 15:04
I watched quite a few games over the weekend so may have my games mixed up but was this from a PK and the defender looked to have been inside the FOP and jumped over the plane of touch and batted the ball back behind him into the FOP? If it is the one I'm thinking of, the replay showed that the player was standing on the touch line before he jumped and was therefore jumping from in-touch, knocking a ball that had crossed the plane of touch back to the FOP. Ball is out put there by the kicking team. I checked his feet placing, but the only view was from too far away to be sure. I was certainly suspicious, but players usually position their feet quite carefully in such situations.

Ian_Cook
29-04-14, 13:04
Oops - I'm wrong on that last, although in fairness I was misled by Ian's identification of your situation as that on page 13 - it isn't.

See page 20 of the booklet, which summarises the position:

I beg to differ. Page 20 doesn't have a scenario, its the back cover of the booklet!!

The OP says

"Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?"

runs from the field of play I take to mean he is outside the plane when he knocks the ball back
He lands, both feet, outside the field of play. implies he was in the air when he batted the ball back

Apart from inside/outside the 22m, this is the same scenario 1 on page 13, as shown here....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LBYC-page13S1.png

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 the field-of-play leaps in the air
and after he crosses the touch-line slaps the ball back into the field of play.

(a) Is the ball in touch? YES

(b) Where is the line-out? The line-of-touch is where the red player kicked the ball

(c) Team to throw in Blue

Page 17 scenario 5 is probably more accurate as it specifies outside the 22m like the OP

Ian_Cook
29-04-14, 14:04
How strange!!

The LBYC Booklet displays differently when downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader when compared with how I was doing it; opening it online in a Firefox Tab. The page numbering is different.

The OP's situation is on page 19 scenario 5

Fatboy_Ginge
27-05-14, 13:05
OK... I haven't read the other thread so this is my interpretation of the law.


Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

As the ball has been kicked this applies


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.

Ergo as it's in mid air it is technically NOT in touch despite having crossed the plane of touch.


a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play.

This IMPLIES to me. the player concerned touched the ground OUTSIDE the field of play before touching the ball therefore putting himself in touch and the moment he made contact with the ball the ball is therefore in touch.

Line-out against the kicking team.

Now if the player had jumped from INSIDE the FOP and not touched the ground or anything else before he batted the ball back he himself is NOT in touch and therefore neither is the ball.

Play on.

This may be nit-picking but that's how I interpreted the LOG.

Feel free to shoot me down if I got it wrong.

itin
27-05-14, 15:05
OK... I haven't read the other thread so this is my interpretation of the law...

Now if the player had jumped from INSIDE the FOP and not touched the ground or anything else before he batted the ball back he himself is NOT in touch and therefore neither is the ball.

Play on.

This may be nit-picking but that's how I interpreted the LOG.

Feel free to shoot me down if I got it wrong.

Look back to post #13 of this thread.

Browner
21-04-15, 13:04
Bump ....... Here is a recent leap from inside the pitch.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/jonny-mays-brilliant-leap-to-save.html

Listen to the crowd, they expect that if the ball can be gotten back into the FoP with it (or a player NOT in contact with the ground when he knocks it) not touching the ground then its play on.

Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play.

OB..
21-04-15, 14:04
Bump ....... Here is a recent leap from inside the pitch.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/jonny-mays-brilliant-leap-to-save.html

Listen to the crowd, they expect that if the ball can be gotten back into the FoP with it (or a player NOT in contact with the ground when he knocks it) not touching the ground then its play on.

Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play.Would you also allow play to continue if a player in touch ran, jumped, caught the ball after it had crossed the plane, and landed in the field of play?

I wouldn't agree with that either. For me they both go too far.

ChrisR
21-04-15, 16:04
Would you also allow play to continue if a player in touch ran, jumped, caught the ball after it had crossed the plane, and landed in the field of play?

I wouldn't agree with that either. For me they both go too far.

.... and OB and I will continue to have opposite opinions of this as I would allow both.

The one thing we agree on is a rewrite of Law 19 for clarity.

ctrainor
21-04-15, 18:04
Getting back to the question for me this is always easy especially if the ball is clearly outside the plane of touch.
If the player is in the air and doesn't land in the field of play it is out.
If the player is stood in the field of play, stretches out and plays the ball and it comes back into play without touching the ground, play on even if he subsequently tumbles out of play.
Always sold it like that and never had a complaint with my explaination.

Dixie
21-04-15, 18:04
Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play. I have a lot of sympathy with this. It's not dissimilar to catching the ball that has crossed the plane if you yourself remain infield. The logic is surely that the ball never hit anything in touch, so was itself not in touch. If the diving player has not yet touched the deck, he's not in touch (just like the hands that catch beyond the plane while the feet remain infield). So the ball is not in touch either, not having touched anything in touch.

Like marauder and Browner, I'd also allow a player in touch to bring the ball back into play as long as he was in the air at the time. Why not - surely a tap'n'go in such situations is better than yet another long drawn out lineout?

OB..
21-04-15, 19:04
If the diving player has not yet touched the deck, he's not in touchThat is your assertion, not what I was told officially a decade or so ago. Nor is it the LBYC view.

Do I assume you would not allow a player starting in touch to jump, catch, and land in the field of play?
(just like the hands that catch beyond the plane while the feet remain infield).The distinction is that the player with feet on the ground is clearly not in touch. The fact that the law allows this but does not specify the same for a player in the air at least allows the inference that the latter is not "play on".

Dixie
22-04-15, 10:04
That is your assertion, not what I was told officially a decade or so ago. Nor is it the LBYC view. We've gone over the page, so forgive me if I remind readers about the context. Browner bumped the thread to note that current law and practice is out of line with the expectation of even quite knowledgeable spectators, and could do with a rewrite to reward skill and athleticism while meeting spectator (and indeed player) expectations:


Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play.

So my assertion was not a statement of where we currently are, but where in my view and Browner's we should be.


Do I assume you would not allow a player starting in touch to jump, catch, and land in the field of play? The distinction is that the player with feet on the ground is clearly not in touch. The fact that the law allows this but does not specify the same for a player in the air at least allows the inference that the latter is not "play on". Again, answering for where I think we should be rather than where we are, I take the view that any action that prevents the ball touching the ground or an immovable thing that is in touch should be play on, provided the normnal givens of rugby (backward, not dangerous etc) are met.

Dan_A
22-04-15, 11:04
I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level).

crossref
22-04-15, 12:04
the first thing I would do, if re-writing the Law would be to resolve the self-contradiction in the definitions


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 and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line.
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.

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.

the two definitions in bold contradict each other !

convention is that the second one takes priority and that's what we follow, but I would remove it as to me makes no sense.

Dixie
22-04-15, 14:04
I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level). So if a guy does it today, perhaps under a misapprehension of under current laws ... do you penalise him? Or are you just saying that if the law were to change, many games that currently go ahead you would have to stop, because there isn't the space to land safely? If the latter - do you stop them currently on safety grounds because of the possibility that a winger might get tackled from the side?

Browner
22-04-15, 15:04
I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level).

Do you work in widening H&S to the endth degree of remote possibility ? C'mon!!! ...you're not actually being serious? ..... ???
97% of players at grassroots wouldn't even attempt it!

OB..
22-04-15, 16:04
Dixie,

Thank you for clarifying what point you were addressing.

Again, answering for where I think we should be rather than where we are, I take the view that any action that prevents the ball touching the ground or an immovable thing that is in touch should be play on, provided the normnal givens of rugby (backward, not dangerous etc) are met.
That would allow a player many metres into touch to catch the ball without it being in touch (he is not an immovable object.) What if a spectator catches the ball and throws it back?

At one time the ball was in touch if it crossed the plane, even if it came back in again (before it touched ...etc). i think we all agree changing that was a good move.

If a player is on the ground, I think the current laws make sense. The problems arise when he is in the air - when is he in touch? There seem to be three options:-
1) when he crosses the plane himself;
2) when he has landed in touch;
3) if he jumped from in touch and has not landed in the field of play.

As I said on previous occasions when we went over this, I think 2 and 3 lead to oddities that would confuse spectators (and players). I agree 1 is tricky to judge, but so are eg forward passes. For me it is the best compromise.