PDA

View Full Version : To be in touch or not to be in touch....



FightOrFlight
16-12-14, 14:12
So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

Browner
16-12-14, 15:12
So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

You're correct.
The supporters don't appreciate that ...... ]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. [/COLOR]

AR'ing, lol, get used to it, high level players don't always have high level supporters!!!!

Lee Lifeson-Peart
16-12-14, 15:12
In Law I think you are correct.

The trouble is Law 19 is not the greatest Law to use if you want short, sharp, easily understood points to support your decision.

Somewhere in the definitions and other stuff you are correct IMHO.

I can see why red supporters would be cross but when does being wrong ever make supporters change their mind.

Jacko
16-12-14, 16:12
Deliberate knock on?? (Not a serious suggestion, but always a fun debate).

crossref
16-12-14, 17:12
So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

OK then - here's the counter argument

- so he's running along the touchline and receives a pass
- he doesn't catch the pass cleanly, he juggles and gathers
- in the act of juggling he makes a touch on the ball, with his foot in touch
- if he had made a one handed catch, he would have been in touch
- but because he is only juggling you are counting this as a 'knock' under the Law and it's OK

Hmmm. I don't think so.

We often have discussed whether a player juggling the ball is in possession of the ball and can be legally tackled.
We all agree that it must be the case that he can be tackled, else he could juggle all the way to the tryline. Ie a juggling player is in possession of the ball.

this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...

OB..
16-12-14, 17:12
this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...
What constitutes "juggling"?

A matter of judgement.

Adam
16-12-14, 17:12
I don't think anyone would have moaned if you had judged that he was in touch.

Browner
16-12-14, 17:12
We often have discussed whether a player juggling the ball is in possession of the ball and can be legally tackled.
We all agree that it must be the case that he can be tackled, else he could juggle all the way to the tryline. Ie a juggling player is in possession of the ball.

this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...

That scenario partly depends on it being 'unreasonable' to expect a potential tackler to pull out of a tackle if a slight ball juggle is happening, so its not a similar mindset Crossref.

He's not in possession, he's attempting to gain possession, and as long as its not C&O then all BoD to the attackers, gets my vote.

I see the OP situation having a different set of determinations, ie...bonafide or not, but let's follow your thought through, for fun, if this was the 'critical' moment at the end of a major cup final, what would the TMO likely decide ?

crossref
16-12-14, 18:12
well I would put my flag up.

anyone that keeps flag down is relying on

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.

I don't think that covers the scenario described - I don't think he was knocking it in the sense envisaged by the Law, which is to knock it to stop it going into touch, I don't think he was knocking it at all, I think he was attempting to catch it and I'd put my flag up.

C&O is a red herring : the facts are C&O, it's the meaning of the Law that's in question.


knock : verb (used with object)
6. to give a sounding or forcible blow to; hit; strike; beat.
7. to drive, force, or render by a blow or blows: "to knock a man senseless."
8. to make by striking a blow or blows: ;to knock a hole in the wall."
9. to strike (a thing) against something else.

OB..
16-12-14, 18:12
I don't think he was knocking it in the sense envisaged by the Law, which is to knock it to stop it going into touch,

That is a restrictive interpretation, since the reason for knocking the ball is not mentioned.

He might well have realised his foot was in touch and knocked upwards a perfectly good pass in order to re-gather it infield.

Unfortunately this one is very much down to the individual judgement of the referee. We have two grey areas: what is the best interpretation of Law 19; and what constitues juggling under law 12 - or indeed what constitues a deliberate knock forward.

ChrisR
16-12-14, 20:12
If I remember correctly: At one time the law required the ball to be caught cleanly, ie. without a juggle, and did not require the ball to strike another player or the ground to be deemed "knocked on". Then the law was amended to allow "adjustment".

Crossref, you make a good case. Well done. But I can't fault FoF's decision either.

ctrainor
16-12-14, 21:12
In touch for me. And don't think anyone I ref as a player our supporter would argue.
Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch

OB..
16-12-14, 22:12
Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch
Why would that be a reason for the referee to ignore it? I expect a referee to allow the play and explain later if necessary.

OB..
16-12-14, 22:12
If I remember correctly: At one time the law required the ball to be caught cleanly, ie. without a juggle

In 1949 there was no provision for juggling. By 1959 the law had changed... provide that a movement of the ball in the player's grasp which is inthe nature of a steadying or re-adjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control is not a knock-on.

Personally I think the current law has gone too far

crossref
16-12-14, 22:12
He might well have realised his foot was in touch and knocked upwards a perfectly good pass in order to re-gather it infield..

You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up

Dickie E
16-12-14, 23:12
You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up

Aha, so we DO referee based on player intent :)

crossref
16-12-14, 23:12
Of course we do :-)

FightOrFlight
17-12-14, 00:12
In touch for me. And don't think anyone I ref as a player our supporter would argue.
Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch

It was a pretty high level with a national panel referee and many of the defending players did not question the decision. It was only the supporters that were unhappy, although there were 2 from the home club who are referees that I know and they both immediately queried if it was a juggle in the club house after the game.

In a high 1sts game you cannot always count on the "ah sure nobody will question that". The referee was also being assessed as a matter of course and we would both get hammered at this very competitive standard we just let it go with a shrug.

The Fat
17-12-14, 00:12
The inference in the laws that allow a player to knock or kick a ball that has not crossed the plane of touch is that the knock will be either "flat" or towards his own DBL where as the kick may be in any direction. Would we allow a player who is about to receive a hospital pass to deliberately knock the ball forward over the head of the would be tackler then run forward and catch the ball before it touches another player or the ground?
A player reaching behind himself whilst running forward is more likely to "drag" the ball forward rather than get his hand even further behind the ball to effectively "knock" it.
If in the OP the winger dragged (i.e. Momentary contact with the ball longer than a hit or knock) the ball which then left his hand before catching it, would we deem that at the time of the dragging motion he was in possession of the ball and therefore in touch?

talbazar
17-12-14, 07:12
You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up
Option 1:
Call time off, ask the player what he actually wanted to do.
Then analyse what he did.
Have a polls amongst the supporters behind you.
And then decide...

Option 2:
Find a legal way not to blow the whistle (or in that case raise your flag) and allow play to continue.


Personally, I'd go with option 2. Because it's accurate in the current state of the law.
So I reckon FoF did the right thing in the OP...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

crossref
17-12-14, 09:12
let's go back to the scenario actually posted (because of course if we change the scenario we may change the decision)


When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line

so a man is receiving and controlling a poor pass --- with his foot in touch.

Now, I completely understand the reading of Law 19 that led ForF to keep his flag down, but I think it's a Jesuitical reading of the Law - that breaches common sense and led to the wrong decision.

The Fat
17-12-14, 09:12
Option 1:
Call time off, ask the player what he actually wanted to do.
Then analyse what he did.
Have a polls amongst the supporters behind you.
And then decide...

Option 2:
Find a legal way not to blow the whistle (or in that case raise your flag) and allow play to continue.


Personally, I'd go with option 2. Because it's accurate in the current state of the law.
So I reckon FoF did the right thing in the OP...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

I am not saying if FoF was correct or incorrect as I would need to see exactly how it happened, but try the following.
At normal walking pace walk along a straight line and at the same time have someone gently pass a ball to you but slightly behind you. As you keep walking forward, try to get the hand nearest the thrower behind the ball and attempt to knock/hit it forward such that whilst continuing to walk forward, you have been able to knock the ball with enough control to now catch it.

Now try doing it at pace.

I don't know if the player in the OP was able to execute such a move by only knocking the ball forward rather than "dragging" it forward which would give more control as you would possibly see when a player juggles the ball while attempting to catch it.

If he dragged it forward to then catch it, I would raise my flag having deemed the player was in possession of the ball. Now before everyone starts howling me down for my interpretation of what constitutes being in possession, consider the Law Clarification relating to Law 22.4(g) and the player who guides a ball that is in the air to the ground by only having a hand on top of the ball.

Just throwing it out there.

Stanc
17-12-14, 09:12
The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores.

is this not classed as a knock on? if the ball has gone behind the player and he knocks it up to himself?

crossref
17-12-14, 10:12
The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores.

is this not classed as a knock on? if the ball has gone behind the player and he knocks it up to himself?

Law 12 : Knock On
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

menace
17-12-14, 12:12
let's go back to the scenario actually posted (because of course if we change the scenario we may change the decision)



so a man is receiving and controlling a poor pass --- with his foot in touch.

Now, I completely understand the reading of Law 19 that led ForF to keep his flag down, but I think it's a Jesuitical reading of the Law - that breaches common sense and led to the wrong decision.

For some it may also breach common sense that a player can be standing in-touch and bat the ball before it crosses the line and its play on? But yet the law says it's ok. So I don't know how you can say that ForF was having a Jesus complex and was wrong? I think based on law he was (as he described it) correct in every way.
On the plus, the attacking side was potentially given the benefit of any doubt when there was not clear and obvious reason not to reward them. You seem to be finding a pedantic way not to reward the attacking side?

crossref
17-12-14, 12:12
no, not a Jesus complex. Apologies perhaps I was being obscure.
Jesuitical. Like the Jesuits - closely reading the rules in a way to find a justification for what you wanted to do anyway, a justification thar wasn't intended by the rules

dictionary.com
jesuitical (often lowercase) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.


In short: I don't thnk that what the player did in the scenario is what is meant by 'knocking' the ball in the Laws.

FightOrFlight
17-12-14, 13:12
Perhaps it is worth me clarifying the nature of the control of the ball. With his foot on the line he knock the ball up much as you could do in volleyball.

crossref
17-12-14, 13:12
Perhaps it is worth me clarifying the nature of the control of the ball. With his foot on the line he knock the ball up much as you could do in volleyball.

yes, that clarification/change makes it sound more like one of these -
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.

but then introduces whole other problem : are players allowed to deliberately knock the ball forward, in the way you might a volleyball, with the intention of catching it again -- ie different from a fumble and re-gather.

We've discussed that quite a few times before as it's not really covered by the Law, and I think generally agreed that you can't do that.


So I think we are back to intention.
- If he is just doing his best to catch it, then (IMO) he was in touch.
- If he was not catching it, but first knocking the ball to keep it in play, then (IMO) he has to knock it backwards

menace
17-12-14, 14:12
(Sorry crossref, I know, I was being a little naughty playing on your words)

SimonSmith
17-12-14, 14:12
Crossref, I think you're miscasting here.

FoF applied the laws as they are written. FWIW, I'd have made the same call. For that we are Jesuitical.

To continue the biblical talk, I think we are at least using the Gospel as writ, rather than using an interpretation of the written word that is subjective and can't be found in the texts themselves.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
17-12-14, 14:12
Look it's here - Law 19 - now p*** off! Amen!

3121

The umpire
17-12-14, 15:12
If it hadn't involved a touch line, would you have penalised someone who tackled the 'batter' for tackling a player without the ball or would you accept that they were fair game as juggling it equals possession? If the former, then as per OP it's play on and a try. If the latter, then it is in touch.
I know which I'd choose (now)

crossref
17-12-14, 15:12
for me : he's receiving a pass, from the moment he first touches it he's fair game to be tackled.

OB..
18-12-14, 15:12
In short: I don't thnk that what the player did in the scenario is what is meant by 'knocking' the ball in the Laws.
AIUI your justification for that is to make it consistent with your view that as soon as a player tries to catch the ball, he can be tackled.

What we actually have is a mess with no good solution. People have their preferences, but none really fit the laws perfectly. It's a tough life.

crossref
18-12-14, 15:12
AIUI your justification for that is to make it consistent with your view that as soon as a player tries to catch the ball, he can be tackled. .

not really, that's a side issue.


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.

I think knocking the ball is a deliberate action different from attempting to catch it and fumbling.

let's say the original incident was indeed a knock: Well, I think if a player knocks the ball - anywhere on the pitch - it has to be backwards - I don't think you can deliberately knock a ball forwards with the intention of catching it (can you?)

Ah, you say but when trying to catch a ball you may well accidentally knock it forwards, and then it's OK to regather. Indeed, but if, it wasn't a knock, but just a fumbled catch then he was in touch.