PDA

View Full Version : [Law] Corner flags not in touch?



Rich_NL
20-09-16, 12:09
https://streamable.com/dpap

In the above link, a kick hits the corner post and bounces back into the FOP, is picked up and a try is scored. It's interesting for being rare; the ref clearly explains "post's not in touch", and on reflection no-one would disallow a diving try because the player touched the post on the way over.

But my initial reaction (and I think after running around for an hour on a hot day I'd have probably gone with it) was "in touch". So I looked in the laws for Touch and the Ground, and all I could find was

Flag posts must be positioned at the intersection of touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines and at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines. These eight flag posts are outside the in-goal area and do not form part of the playing area.

... which implies to me that they're out of the FOP and in touch (or TIG?), because...

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.

What am I missing?

Pegleg
20-09-16, 12:09
Law 22.12

BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the
intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touchin-
goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the
ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

DocY
20-09-16, 12:09
I guess the thinking is that the flags aren't beyond the touch line?

I wonder how deliberate the different wordings are: when a player is carrying the ball he mustn't touch the ground beyond the touchline, rather than the ball can touch anything beyond the touchline. Seems the intention could be that hitting the flag should put the ball in touch, but I don't think it'd be wise to hold the wording of the lawbook too strictly.

Can't recall or find any clarification.

Pegleg
20-09-16, 12:09
The reason was, if my memory is correct, that the flags are normally 2 mtrs from the lines but the goal in and DBL flags are on the line. There are "good " reasons why that is (in the mind of IRB - t'was called that at the time). As there is an inconsistency in their placement that fact had to be taken into account when assessing the ball in or not in touch issue.

Can't be bothered to look through the IRB / WR archives for details.

didds
20-09-16, 13:09
i just always thought it was the flagposts are actually only there to help everyone with apatial awareness. At any other place on the pitch, running very close to the touchlne, feet remaining withing the line, biut shoulders and warms etc extended over the touchline would not be "in touch" normally. So this law just covers the fact that in some ways the flagpost is not really there. the caveat on "base of post" etc is just to cover the fact that the base of the post is actually the line anyway.

??

didds

crossref
20-09-16, 13:09
both team playing in black and yellow. I felt sorry for the ref. In the professional game why can't they sort that out and either plan ahead or find some spare shirts.

crossref
20-09-16, 14:09
i just always thought it was the flagposts are actually only there to help everyone with apatial awareness. At any other place on the pitch, running very close to the touchlne, feet remaining withing the line, biut shoulders and warms etc extended over the touchline would not be "in touch" normally. So this law just covers the fact that in some ways the flagpost is not really there. the caveat on "base of post" etc is just to cover the fact that the base of the post is actually the line anyway.

??

didds

The corner flags are precisely at the corner so that when a ball goes past the flag makes it obvious whether its touch, or touch in goal.

(although by that argument it would be useful to have the 22m flags precisely on the touchline, rahter than a metre back)

Christy
20-09-16, 14:09
surely the 1st player in was off side .{ looks like nr 14 }
he was 1st player in , then ball bounced off flag ,,then his team mate scores
he couldn't of got there that quick ??

DocY
20-09-16, 15:09
both team playing in black and yellow. I felt sorry for the ref. In the professional game why can't they sort that out and either plan ahead or find some spare shirts.

Were they playing at a neutral ground?

This was the motivation behind the home changing if there was a clash, rather than having distinct home and away kits (though that horribly practice seems to be becoming the norm). The thinking being that the away team take one load of kit with them and, if there's a clash, the home team already have their alternative kit ready.

crossref
20-09-16, 16:09
in the premiership as I understand it you have to have home and away strips, but you can have more than one of both.
the away strips have to be predominantly pale, the home strips predominantly dark.

here we have
- Wasps, home, playing in Black, with Yellow trim
- Bristol, away, playing in Yellow with Black trim

In the premiership the dark/pale thing is supposed to avoid any clashes. If there is a clash the away team have to change.

when this pale thing started, may teams played in white, but recently thay have started to be more imaginitive.

Phil E
20-09-16, 16:09
I was there. Right in that corner in fact. The teams were easily distinguishable. It may have looked different on tv.

crossref
20-09-16, 16:09
I was there. Right in that corner in fact. The teams were easily distinguishable. It may have looked different on tv.

well you can judge for yourself on the video -- certainly they could have been more different! the shade of yellow is even the same.

Phil E
20-09-16, 16:09
Like I said, in real life they were easily told apart. The human eye has a much larger range than a camera.

Camquin
20-09-16, 20:09
I know they are trying to sell extra strips.
But it is a case that Bristol's home strip would have been less confusing.
And given the TV audience pays the wages

chbg
20-09-16, 20:09
well you can judge for yourself on the video

Easily distinguishable on my screen. Time for a trip to the opticians for a colour blindness test?

Phil E
21-09-16, 09:09
I know they are trying to sell extra strips.
But it is a case that Bristol's home strip would have been less confusing.
And given the TV audience pays the wages

There is probably a contract clause with their shirt sponsors to wear the away strip whenever possible. There may be different sponsor on the away shirt to the home shirt. Plus, you cant sell any in the shop f the team don't wear it, fans just wouldn't want a shirt that's not worn.

crossref
21-09-16, 09:09
Easily distinguishable on my screen. Time for a trip to the opticians for a colour blindness test?

Let's rank it on a scale of 1-5 where

5 - completely contrasting colours (like blue v red)
4 - colours are different but with some similarities that can confuse (eg blue v red but both teams have white sleeves and shorts)
3 - colours are a bit similar - eg a somewhat darker blue v a somewhat lighter blue.
2 - teams are the same colours but with different balance : eg black/yellow v yellow/black
1 - two teams in pretty much identical kit : eg black v black, or both in black/red hoops

That game was a 2. . So if you call that 'easily distinguishable' what's the phrase you would use for 3, 4 & 5 ?


At grass root level - 2+ is acceptable, but in the professional world, where they have plenty of money and plenty of kit, and we have people watching in the ground (close and far) on the TV and on-line all of ehom are important - I think ALL games should be at least a 4 .

Pegleg
21-09-16, 10:09
The two kits are clearly different and easily distinguishable. I see no issue here at all.

As a ref I'm not bothered about sponsors etc. If the kits clash then one side is changing. But here it is Black Vs Yellow (albeit with a little bith of the other). nothing to worry me about nor the spectators (in ground or on TV).

Phil E
21-09-16, 10:09
3465



msf

crossref
21-09-16, 10:09
so you agree that it was a problem -- but don't think it was an important one :)

didds
21-09-16, 11:09
The two kits are clearly different and easily distinguishable. I see no issue here at all. .

totally off topic but it reminded me of an occassion yonks ago (by definition) when running the line on a blue plkaying shirt watching our 3rds (black and white) play the oppo (red and black). We had an injury and I came on and just played on in my blue shirt (canl;t recall why!).

Ref pinged me for handling in the ruck - I hadn't incidentally. He then continued, pointing at me "I saw black on your sleeve".

I pointed at my short sleeved all blue shirt... smiled and jogged back ten...

didds

Camquin
21-09-16, 11:09
Which is why Harlequins now how an away strip - even though their home strip is distinctive.
I would be interested to know if it actually makes them any money.

crossref
21-09-16, 11:09
Which is why Harlequins now how an away strip - even though their home strip is distinctive.
I would be interested to know if it actually makes them any money.

they have had one for a while, so a number of different version - some are more popular, ie sell more replicas, than others.
With sublimated printing shirts are so cheap to produce nowadays, I don't suppose you have to sell very many at all to be profitable.

Indeed seeing as any club can design and order their own shirt, we know it must be profitable to sell just 22 !

KML1
23-09-16, 23:09
Few things: I was there and watching on TV (oh come on, you work it out...) and at no point was there any colours issue!

- AR in best place to judge offside. No issue. No camera angle to show otherwise

- TMO made great call knowing laws of the game...

Ian_Cook
24-09-16, 01:09
This was a change that was part of the 2008 ELVs. Prior to that if the ball or a player carrying the ball touched the corner post, it was TiG.

Interestingly, when this idea was first mooted, the idea was that it would only be NOT TiG if the player carrying the ball touched the flag post. If the ball touched the flag post, it was still TiG

Here is the exact wording of the ELV...

1. Posts and flags around the field.

a. Corner posts will be positioned at the outside junction of the goal line and the touch line.

i. If a player is in possession of the ball and touches a corner post he will not be in touch unless he touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

ii. If the ball is not being carried by a player and it touches the corner post the ball will be deemed to be touch in goal.

Somewhere along the line, a change was made to include the ball touching the post.

Also, note it that it says "outside junction of the goal line and the touch line.". New Zealand was one of the first places to trial these ELVs and we took this literally.....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/cornerflag.jpg



... this made a lot of sense to me, and it still does. Positioned like this, the flag posts are still close enough to help judge TiG v in-touch, but they clearly do not form part of the touch line. If the ball is "grounded against the base of the post" then it must be touching the touchline.