PDA

View Full Version : When is a player who is in the air ''in touch'' ?



wrighty
21-10-15, 09:10
I was running touch at weekend when I gave touch after yellow winger who was defending a penalty kick for touch , jumped up from his position on the pitch , crossed plane of touch and knocked the ball after it had crossed plane of touch back onto pitch , Winger claimed as he was in air he wasnt in touch ?
Could someone please clarify , as I know in Basketball , the ball is still in play .

crossref
21-10-15, 09:10
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.

don't quite cover it ...

FlipFlop
21-10-15, 09:10
All about where he lands. If he lands in touch, then he is in touch from the moment he takes off. So if the ball has crossed the plane of touch, then as he is in touch, the ball is in touch. Of course if the ball hadn't of crossed the plane, then it is irrelevant where the player is if all he does is knock it.

Or at least that is how I see it.... So you got it right.

(I disagree with this ruling, I would prefer the player to be in the last state until they land (i.e. jump from field of play - are not in touch until they land, or start in touch, they stay in in-touch until the land in the field of play))

crossref
21-10-15, 09:10
All about where he lands. If he lands in touch, then he is in touch from the moment he takes off.

Law reference?
I know we have been down here before, and it may well be in some guidelines, but is there an actual Law or Clarification that says that?

OB..
21-10-15, 11:10
Law reference?There isn't one.

When I asked for official advice some years ago I was told that once the player has crossed the plane he is in touch. That may be out of date, but who knows?

crossref
21-10-15, 11:10
So I think the answer to wrighty's question is that the Law doesn't say ....

The Fat
21-10-15, 12:10
I was running touch at weekend when I gave touch after yellow winger who was defending a penalty kick for touch , jumped up from his position on the pitch , crossed plane of touch and knocked the ball after it had crossed plane of touch back onto pitch , Winger claimed as he was in air he wasnt in touch ?
Could someone please clarify , as I know in Basketball , the ball is still in play .

The ball is in-touch.
Lineout to kicking team (i.e. the team taking the PK)

The umpire
21-10-15, 19:10
Try thinking of it the other way round. If the ball is over the line but the player holding or batting it back has his feet in the field of play, then the ball is not in touch. Feet not in contact with the field of play? Then it's out.

The Fat
23-10-15, 21:10
Try thinking of it the other way round. If the ball is over the line but the player holding or batting it back has his feet in the field of play, then the ball is not in touch. Feet not in contact with the field of play? Then it's out.

Don't agree with this.
If the ball has crossed the plane-of-touch and the player jumps in the air from the field of play with an arm outstretched and bats the ball back into the FoP and then lands with feet in the FoP (i.e. he basically jumps straight up and down rather than with any horizontal movement), it is still play on.

chrismtl
24-10-15, 04:10
Your call was correct. The "Line Ball Your Call" document/presentation seems to be what WR and everyone else is going with on touch calls. Look it up if you haven't heard of it, but I would hope that the experienced refs on here know the document and its contents.

For this scenario, it's pretty simple.

Has the ball crossed the plane of touch? YES
Has the player crossed the plane of touch? YES
Then the ball is in touch and it makes no difference if the guy is on the ground or not.

Now if people want to discuss if that's how it should be, go ahead. We spend enough time discussing what WR should do. The simple fact is that this is how WR currently view it, so this is the correct way to referee it, at this point in time, until things get changed.

Camquin
24-10-15, 09:10
Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but surely this should be in the LotG not in some memo in a locked cupboard behind a sign saying Beware of the Leopard.

The definitions miss this case, they cover a player on the ground knocking the ball back and a player jumping and catching the ball.
And that means this case is unclear.

Personally without reading Line Ball Your Call, I would have reasoned that even if the ball crosses the line of touch, it is not "in touch" until it actually touches something. If the wind blows it back, play on. Also a player is not in touch until he touches the ground in touch. So if a player jumps from the field of play (not in touch) and deflects the ball (at that point still not "in touch") so it lands in the field of play (not in touch) I would play on.

But this would not match other officials interpretation.

But in the games I am involved, the girls have only just started to kick the ball, so it unlikely to be an issue.

crossref
25-10-15, 17:10
Exactly the scenario in the OP just happened in Aus v Arg. .
Touch given

OB..
25-10-15, 17:10
Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but surely this should be in the LotG not in some memo in a locked cupboard behind a sign saying Beware of the Leopard.Of course.


The definitions miss this case, they cover a player on the ground knocking the ball back and a player jumping and catching the ball.
And that means this case is unclear.Agreed.


Personally without reading Line Ball Your Call, I would have reasoned that even if the ball crosses the line of touch, it is not "in touch" until it actually touches something. If the wind blows it back, play on. Also a player is not in touch until he touches the ground in touch. So if a player jumps from the field of play (not in touch) and deflects the ball (at that point still not "in touch") so it lands in the field of play (not in touch) I would play on.

You are assuming that a player is not in touch until he lands in touch. I was officially told (years ago) that he is in touch when he crosses the plane.

The Fat
29-10-15, 14:10
Exactly the scenario in the OP just happened in Aus v Arg. .
Touch given

Ball and player's body beyond the plane-of-touch.
Correct call.

crossref
29-10-15, 14:10
Ball and player's body beyond the plane-of-touch.
Correct call.

It's a sensible call, and I agree it's the way most people would call it now.
It's the way I would call it


but it can only be defintively "correct" if that's what the Laws say, and the Laws don't cover it.

"Line Ball Your Call" covers it - p50 onwards - but that's an Aussie RFU document, isn't it, not a WR one, so not a definitive document. It has the same sort of status as the opinions from SARFU on SA Referees - influential but not definitive.

http://www.arra.org.nz/cms/media/uploads/Line-Ball-Your-Call-Auckland-June-20151.pdf

BTW I think this is a great document.
It would be improved by footnotes with precise Law reference for each scenario
I think that giving unambiguous direction for scenarios the Law doesn't quite address is a good idea. And personally I'd follow it. Why not?

Wedgie
29-10-15, 19:10
This is one if the law trials (http://pulse-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/test/worldrugby/document/2015/09/05/0b9c59b0-bd64-449d-94be-6d6ef938f7f2/150906_Law_Trials.pdf) that is currently under investigation and would change the decision to be made in the OP to play on. One can only hope that if this does become law then it will be explicitly written into the law book.