PDA

View Full Version : Global Law Changes for 2017



The Fat
27-11-16, 10:11
Discuss

World Rugby - previously the IRB - has made known five law changes which will be introduced by way of a trial on 1 January 2017 in the Southern Hemisphere and on 1 August in the North..


The Global Changes for 2017

1. Law 3 Number of Players – The Team
3.6 (Uncontested Scrums)
Add (h) Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from going to uncontested scrums.

2. Law 5 Time
Add to 5.7 (e) If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.

3. Law 8 Advantage
Add to 8.1 (a) When there are multiple penalty infringements by the same team, the referee may allow the captain of the non-offending team to choose the most advantageous of the penalty marks.
Reasoning: To discourage repeat offending when advantage is already being played and to reward teams against whom repeat offending has taken place.

4. Law 9 Scoring Points
9.A.1 Points Values
Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded. No conversion is attempted.
Value: 7 points
Reasoning: To discourage teams from illegally preventing a probable try from being scored while also saving time on the clock by negating the need for a conversion.

5. Law 19 Touch and line-out

Add to definitions
* A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball.
Reasoning: This brings into law something that is already applied in practice. It means that a player "juggling” the ball does not have to be in contact with it at the exact moment of touching the touchline or the ground beyond it for the ball to be deemed to be in touch. This makes it easier for the match officials to adjudicate.

Amend eighth definition
* If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Add to definitions
* If the ball-carrier reaches the plane of touch but returns the ball to the playing area without first landing in touch, play continues.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Add to sixth definition
* In this case, if the ball has passed the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not passed the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.

Affected Laws in 2016

Law 5.7 (e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or line-out has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, line-out, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.

Law 8.1 Advantage in practice
(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

Law 9.A.1 POINTS VALUES
Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.

Law 19
Touch
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.

**Sixth** 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.

**Eighth** 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.

Additional Sevens Changes, Starting in December 2016

These law changes apply only to Sevens.

* Finals should last no longer than seven minutes each half (rationale is player welfare – the evidence shows that a disproportionate number of injuries take place in the second half of finals. Injuries per minute are higher in the second half of finals as opposed to the first half and throughout normal matches of seven minutes each way.)

* Referee Video Referral (RVR) to be taken out of the on-field referee's hands with the ultimate decision being taken by the TMO (rationale: it is often difficult to see the screen and make a call. The RVR protocol remains unchanged. The TMO will be one of the pool of tournament referees

* The restart kick must be taken within 30 seconds of a penalty kick or dropped goal being attempted where the kick is successful or goes dead.

* Teams must form a line-out within 15 seconds from the time the referee indicates the place where the throw-in will take place.

* Teams must be ready to form a scrum within 15 seconds from the time the referee indicates the mark of the scrum.

* A penalty or free-kick must be taken within 30 seconds of being awarded.

talbazar
27-11-16, 16:11
All seem in line with what has happened to the law recently.

I like the simplification of the touch / line-out decisions.

Now my main concern is...
It's already extremely difficult to apply law 5.1, but soon, we won't be able to stop a game :wtf:

5.1 Duration of a match
A match lasts no longer than 80 minutes plus time lost, extra time and any special conditions. A match is divided into two halves each of not more than forty minutes playing time.

OB..
27-11-16, 17:11
1, 3, 4 look fine.

2. Law 5 Time
Add to 5.7 (e) If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.If a team chooses a lineout and the opponents commit a penalty offence, does that make the ball dead under this paragraph? It needs to be clear that the current conditions in 5.7 (e) still apply. Add "under this law"?


5. Law 19 Touch and line-out

Add to definitions
* A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball.
Reasoning: This brings into law something that is already applied in practice. It means that a player "juggling” the ball does not have to be in contact with it at the exact moment of touching the touchline or the ground beyond it for the ball to be deemed to be in touch. This makes it easier for the match officials to adjudicate.This needs to be universal eg applies to attempts to recover a knock-on as well


Amend eighth definition
* If a player jumps from the field of play and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.I think the extra bit in blue (added by me) is needed. As written, a player in touch could jump and knock the ball back into play.
The bit in red (original) should surely give "... whether the ball had reached ..." If the ball is knocked after crossing the plane of touch, it cannot be "play on" unless it crosses back into the field of play while in the air. The caveat is only needed to let the TJ/AR know that in this case the plane of touch is irrelevant.


Add to definitions
* If the ball-carrier reaches the plane of touch but returns the ball to the playing area without first landing in touch, play continues.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.Not sure what this adds, given the previous one.


Add to sixth definition
* In this case, if the ball has passed the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not passed the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.
Reasoning: To simplify law and to increase ball-in-play time.This actually complicates the officials' decision making process. Currently all that matters is whether the player has a foot in touch when he catches the ball. It also makes life more difficult for the catcher, who would have to judge where the ball was in relation to the plane of touch when deciding whether to catch it.


Affected Laws in 2016This section simply quotes the currrent laws to save you looking them up.

Ian_Cook
27-11-16, 19:11
5. Law 19 Touch and line-out

Add to definitions
* A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball.
Reasoning: This brings into law something that is already applied in practice. It means that a player "juggling” the ball does not have to be in contact with it at the exact moment of touching the touchline or the ground beyond it for the ball to be deemed to be in touch. This makes it easier for the match officials to adjudicate.

Does this put into Law the the current practice applied everywhere else on the field, so a player juggling the ball can be legally tackled even if at the moment of the tackle, he isn't actually holding the ball?

The Fat
27-11-16, 19:11
Does this put into Law the the current practice applied everywhere else on the field, so a player juggling the ball can be legally tackled even if at the moment of the tackle, he isn't actually holding the ball?

If they actually knew what was in the Law book, They would have added that to the DEFINITIONS section at the front of the book. Sadly, they don't think of such things.

Guyseep
28-11-16, 03:11
Do we know who the "they" are? Who is making these changes? Is it a panel and if so who is on this panel?

Dickie E
28-11-16, 04:11
Plus

Additional Sevens Changes, Starting in December 2016

These law changes apply only to Sevens.

* Finals should last no longer than seven minutes each half (rationale is player welfare – the evidence shows that a disproportionate number of injuries take place in the second half of finals. Injuries per minute are higher in the second half of finals as opposed to the first half and throughout normal matches of seven minutes each way.)

* Referee Video Referral (RVR) to be taken out of the on-field referee's hands with the ultimate decision being taken by the TMO (rationale: it is often difficult to see the screen and make a call. The RVR protocol remains unchanged. The TMO will be one of the pool of tournament referees

* The restart kick must be taken within 30 seconds of a penalty kick or dropped goal being attempted where the kick is successful or goes dead.

* Teams must form a line-out within 15 seconds from the time the referee indicates the place where the throw-in will take place.

* Teams must be ready to form a scrum within 15 seconds from the time the referee indicates the mark of the scrum.

* A penalty or free-kick must be taken within 30 seconds of being awarded.

menace
28-11-16, 12:11
I think the extra bit in blue (added by me) is needed. As written, a player in touch could jump and knock the ball back into play.
The bit in red (original) should surely give "... whether the ball had reached[COLOR=#000000] ..." If the ball is knocked after crossing the plane of touch, it cannot be "play on" unless it crosses back into the field of play while in the air.



I think that's the point OB? I suspect it allows players to jump whether in field or in touch to knock the ball bsck in...it appears to align with rugby league?

I must say in grassroots level without ARs it makes it easier for the ref who isn't in a position to judge yhe plane of touch!

OB..
28-11-16, 12:11
I think that's the point OB? I suspect it allows players to jump whether in field or in touch to knock the ball bsck in...it appears to align with rugby league? A player several metres in touch can jump and knock the ball back into the field of play? Not what I want to see.

The Fat
28-11-16, 19:11
A player several metres in touch can jump and knock the ball back into the field of play? Not what I want to see.

before landing in touch

This bit suggests to me that the player must start from the field of play.
It was how I interpreted it on first reading.

OB..
28-11-16, 20:11
before landing in touch

This bit suggests to me that the player must start from the field of play.
It was how I interpreted it on first reading.
But that is an inference. We should not have to do that, when it is simple enough to spell it out. If the player puts a foot on the touchline when jumping for the ball, then he cannot save the ball from going into touch.

crossref
28-11-16, 20:11
Well, perhaps they meant exactly what they said.

It's actually quite common for a player expecting to receive a kick to station himself a metre or so in touch, so that he can see both the ball and the touchline

This new law enables him to jump in the air and bat the ball back into the FoP.

That isn't what I expected - but I assume it IS what the IRB want, as that's what they have written, and they must have had plenty of pairs of eyes reviewing that text.

Dixie
28-11-16, 20:11
I don't really see the need for 2:

2. Law 5 Time
Add to 5.7 (e) If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.

The problem apparently exists, so presumably the offenders have not been deterred from offending by the fact that the PK must be taken, giving the oppo a chance to score either a penalty goal or a try. Why does WR believe that this will change if the game restarts closer to the try line? Ireland showed clearly that a 5m lineout will fail to produce a score more often that it succeeds. Also, OB's comment on further penalties is a sound one.

On the question of touch, I like the proposed changes and would have no worries about a player jumping from touch to knock a ball back. While OB doesn't like it, I think the advantage of simplicity outweighs the potential for some spectators to be discomfited. No doubt if it were being proposed for the first time today that a player in touch might be able to ground the ball for a try, the same objection might be put forward. We'll soon get used to it, and TJs/ARs will know that whatever scenario they face, if man and ball don't touch the ground together, the ball is not yet in touch.

OB..
29-11-16, 00:11
I don't really see the need for 2:

2. Law 5 Time
Add to 5.7 (e) If a penalty is kicked into touch after time has elapsed without touching another player, the referee allows the throw-in to be taken and play continues until the next time the ball becomes dead.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from infringing in the dying moments of the game.
I think they are probably remembering the famous Italy v Wales occasion when James Hook delayed too long in kicking to touch so time expired and Wales lost.

Dickie E
29-11-16, 02:11
before landing in touch

This bit suggests to me that the player must start from the field of play.
It was how I interpreted it on first reading.

Yeah, that is how I read it too.

Otherwise a player could stand on a chair in the tech zone and jump off and bat the ball back into FoP. :holysheep:

damo
29-11-16, 08:11
Replace the definitions with:

The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line.

The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks the ball back while off the ground touches the ball. The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touch line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground after jumping from the field of play.

Simple.

menace
29-11-16, 11:11
Yeah, that is how I read it too.

Otherwise a player could stand on a chair in the tech zone and jump off and bat the ball back into FoP. :holysheep:

That's ridiculous! Have you tried jumping high from a chair?! It's impossible without the chair flipping out under you!

ChrisR
29-11-16, 13:11
The missing piece can be found in the current Law 19 definitions: If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing areaotherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

If a player jumps from beyond touch and either catches the ball or knocks it back into the FOP he must land with both feet in the FoP. This adds a sufficient degree of difficulty to leaping from a chair on a table to make that a rare occurrence.

As crossref noted current law allows a player to jump from touch into the FoP as he catches the ball. OB will disagree on this point but it's a practice I encourage.

DocY
29-11-16, 17:11
and they must have had plenty of pairs of eyes reviewing that text.

What on earth gives you that idea?

The Fat
29-11-16, 20:11
The missing piece can be found in the current Law 19 definitions: If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing areaotherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

If a player jumps from beyond touch and either catches the ball or knocks it back into the FOP he must land with both feet in the FoP. This adds a sufficient degree of difficulty to leaping from a chair on a table to make that a rare occurrence.

As crossref noted current law allows a player to jump from touch into the FoP as he catches the ball. OB will disagree on this point but it's a practice I encourage.

I know I'll probably regret opening this discussion again, but where do you get the idea that the definition is referring to a player who starts his jump from touch? The current definitions depend on the position of the ball in relation to the plane-of-touch. The revised Law Trials for 2017 will alter this of course.

OB..
29-11-16, 20:11
The missing piece can be found in the current Law 19 definitions: If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing areaotherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
But the proposals is* If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.
Are we really saying that if a player is standing in touch, he is no longer considered to be in touch if he jumps in the air?

Dickie E
29-11-16, 21:11
[/COLOR]Are we really saying that if a player is standing in touch, he is no longer considered to be in touch if he jumps in the air?

I, for one, am not

ChrisR
30-11-16, 02:11
The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP. Therefore, until he lands in touch, he is still considered to be in the FoP.

I'm saying that I'd like to see that expanded to a jumping player starting in touch being able to put a ball back into the FoP if both of his feet land in the FoP.

Then get rid of this piece in the Law 19 definitions: 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 Fat
30-11-16, 06:11
The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP. Therefore, until he lands in touch, he is still considered to be in the FoP.

I'm saying that I'd like to see that expanded to a jumping player starting in touch being able to put a ball back into the FoP if both of his feet land in the FoP.

Then get rid of this piece in the Law 19 definitions: 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.

In ALL cases? i.e. Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate. I definitely don't want to see that type of scenario.
If they were to allow a player to start from in-touch, just like the current paragraph in the Definitions (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.), for me, he would have to catch or knock or tap or Dosey Doe the ball before it crossed the plane-of-touch. Therefore, I'm quite happy with what they have provided in the wording for this bit.

OB..
30-11-16, 12:11
The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP.
Much better to state it, which was all I proposed.

ChrisR
30-11-16, 12:11
In ALL cases? i.e. Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate. I definitely don't want to see that type of scenario.

But we see that scenario now! From current law definitions: 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. I coach it and some referees on this forum will allow it.


If they were to allow a player to start from in-touch, just like the current paragraph in the Definitions (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.), for me, he would have to catch or knock or tap or Dosey Doe the ball before it crossed the plane-of-touch. Therefore, I'm quite happy with what they have provided in the wording for this bit.

The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. If a player catches a kick to touch and lands with both feet in the FoP then I don't give a rat's ass as to the plane of touch or where he took off from, it's "Play on!".

The Fat
30-11-16, 13:11
But we see that scenario now! From current law definitions: 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. I coach it and some referees on this forum will allow it.



The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. If a player catches a kick to touch and lands with both feet in the FoP then I don't give a rat's ass as to the plane of touch or where he took off from, it's "Play on!".

So you are saying that currently, you would allow the following scenario believing that it is backed by the LoTG?

Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate.

crossref
30-11-16, 13:11
The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. .

I agree with this. Anything that references the plane of touch is effectively useless unless you have ARs.

As a referee I hope I am not glued to the centre, but I am rarely/never stood on the actual touchline, which is where you need to be to judge plane of touch properly.

but you can very often see their feet, and the touchline, from any angle and from quite a long way away.

The Fat
30-11-16, 13:11
I agree with this. Anything that references the plane of touch is effectively useless unless you have ARs.

As a referee I hope I am not glued to the centre, but I am rarely/never stood on the actual touchline, which is where you need to be to judge plane of touch properly.

but you can very often see their feet, and the touchline, from any angle and from quite a long way away.

So would you also allow the scenario in my post #27? I am a little confused if you are saying that because you only want to be looking at the feet, does that mean it is possible that you would play on in the case of my scenario?

crossref
30-11-16, 13:11
So would you also allow the scenario in my post #27? I am a little confused if you are saying that because you only want to be looking at the feet, does that mean it is possible that you would play on in the case of my scenario?

No, I was discussing how I would like the Laws to be.

My point is that Laws which reference the position of the feet are a LOT easier to referee than Laws which reference the plane of touch.

As it is, of course in some circumstances I have to base a decision on my judgement of whether the ball crossed the plane or not (and because of where I am standing normally I will have no idea, and make a guess)

In terms of scenario #27 - I actualyl don't think these extreme examples are very helpful.

A more normal scenario is that
- a player is standing about 0.5 metre in touch
- and as the ball comes down he leaps, catches it, and lands inside the FoP
- as a referee I have no idea which side of the plane he caught it
- but I could see that he landed in the FoP

- did the TJ flag? if he did - peep
- TJ didn't flag - or no TJ - Play on!

ChrisR
30-11-16, 14:11
So you are saying that currently, you would allow the following scenario believing that it is backed by the LoTG?

Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate.



The problem is the part in red. A player 1m in touch who jumps and lands in the FoP will be catching the ball somewhere in the vicinity of the LoT. Without ARs and TMOs to assist him the referee, unless he is positioned on the LoT, will not have a clue as to whether the ball has crossed or not. I agree with crossref that you have a far better chance of seeing where he lands.

The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

OB..
30-11-16, 18:11
Do we see professional players jumping from in touch to catch the ball and land in the FoP? No.

I understand the arguments in favour of allowing it to help the referee at lower levels, but the fact that nobody does it suggests that it is not accepted as valid.

If we are going by position of the feet, we have to decide if what matters is where you start or where you land. I favour the former because with the latter the ball could have been passed well in field when the player lands, and that is awkward for the referee at our levels.

The Fat
30-11-16, 20:11
Originally posted by ChrisR:
The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

I don't really want to start this argument but we all know that the intent of that law was never to have a player in-touch jump, catch a ball that may have already passed the plane-of-touch, and land in the FoP and play on.
To that end, I don't believe the Laws support your view

crossref
30-11-16, 20:11
Originally posted by ChrisR:
The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

I don't really want to start this argument but we all know that the intent of that law was never to have a player in-touch jump, catch a ball that may have already passed the plane-of-touch, and land in the FoP and play on.
To that end, I don't believe the Laws support your view

on the one hand I completely agree that players starting 5m in touch and taking running jumps landing in the FoP, was not what anyone ever envisaged; and no doubt if we saw it we'd call touch. (except that if we did see it, it would probably be in the beer-leg of a social 7s, so in fact we'd probably allow it!)

but on the other hand if a player was standing with one foot on the touchline (ie in touch) and leapt and caught the ball, landing both feet in in FoP, I am sure we'd all play on, and no one would be worrying about whether the ball had passed the plane of touch before the catch was made (even if they were in a position to be able to tell)

In Law the two things are the same, players leaping from touch to the FoP - but in practice they are different.

ChrisR
30-11-16, 23:11
Do we see professional players jumping from in touch to catch the ball and land in the FoP? No.

.... and every now and again a pro team will put a new wrinkle into the game and the reaction is "Wow, that was creative!"


I understand the arguments in favour of allowing it to help the referee at lower levels, but the fact that nobody does it suggests that it is not accepted as valid.

Frankly, the biggest obstacle to creativity in this game are referees that just whistle anything up that they haven't seen before. Nobody does it only means that you haven't seen it. A player can reach out into touch to catch a ball that has crossed the plane. Now, give me a good reason why that same player couldn't jump from 1m, catch and land in the FoP?


If we are going by position of the feet, we have to decide if what matters is where you start or where you land. I favour the former because with the latter the ball could have been passed well in field when the player lands, and that is awkward for the referee at our levels.

Why does it have to be a choice? Either take off in the F0P or land in the FoP. Both keep the ball in play. Isn't that positive rugby?

The Fat
01-12-16, 00:12
If we allow players to jump from in-touch, catch a ball that has crossed the plane-of-touch and then land in the FoP, it will become the norm at PKs. So a team is guilty of a penalty infringement but still have the opportunity to negate the PK?
Sorry if some see that as positive play. I don't.

SimonSmith
01-12-16, 01:12
Frankly, the biggest obstacle to creativity in this game are referees that just whistle anything up that they haven't seen before. Nobody does it only means that you haven't seen it. A player can reach out into touch to catch a ball that has crossed the plane. Now, give me a good reason why that same player couldn't jump from 1m, catch and land in the FoP?


Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

Dickie E
01-12-16, 04:12
* Finals should last no longer than seven minutes each half (rationale is player welfare – the evidence shows that a disproportionate number of injuries take place in the second half of finals. Injuries per minute are higher in the second half of finals as opposed to the first half and throughout normal matches of seven minutes each way.)


We will see this for the first time in Dubai

didds
01-12-16, 09:12
well presumably kickers will just learn to kick the ball further than (say) 5m deep from touch.

I am however ambivalent generally speaking about this.

didds

- - - Updated - - -


Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

its such a shame that that is the case!!

didds

The Fat
01-12-16, 09:12
Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

Our Referee's Association offers all of our local clubs the services of 1 or 2 refs to attend their club training upon request so that they can be brought up to date on any law changes at the start of each season, or if they generally just want clarification of anything during the season. Prior to season kickoff, we have someone from NSWRU come up and present the GMGs for that year and ALL clubs are invited, (well actually expected), to send at least one coach along to that presentation.

Both services are poorly utilised by the club coaches, many of whom believe they know more than the referee anyway but who then squeal like a stuck pig when the ref pings them for something new from the GMGs.

If I come across a coach who is genuinely interested in expanding his grasp of the LoTG, I will go out of my way to help him out. It is so good to find one.

crossref
01-12-16, 09:12
it's very common for experienced refs to say that knowledge of the Laws is 10% of being a great referee - the other 90% is about other things, fitness, game and people management etc etc.
it's probably the same for playing and coaching

The Fat
01-12-16, 10:12
it's very common for experienced refs to say that knowledge of the Laws is 10% of being a great referee - the other 90% is about other things, fitness, game and people management etc etc.
it's probably the same for playing and coaching

Hard to compare apples to oranges.

That 10% Law knowledge by the ref may include being able to score 90% in a law exam whereas that 10% Law knowledge slice of the pie chart for the player or coach may only score them 30 & 50% respectively in the same Law exam:wink:

OB..
01-12-16, 12:12
Both services are poorly utilised by the club coaches, many of whom believe they know more than the referee anyway but who then squeal like a stuck pig when the ref pings them for something new from the GMGsSame here.

OB..
01-12-16, 13:12
ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.

I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch.

didds
01-12-16, 13:12
a long time ago now as part of a colts academy type set up I invited a local ref for an item of "ask the ref" for the colts players. To my immense embarrassment it turned into a grillathon from the couple of adults present about what had happened in the last 1st XV game.

It was woeful... I had to cut it short.

I do sympathise with you blokes, genuinely...

didds

OB..
01-12-16, 13:12
A maverick thought: we know that simply being in contact with a player in touch does not put another player in touch. If jumping means the player is not in touch (provided he lands in the FoP), would the same apply to being lifted?!

Scenario. Tom lifts Dick to catch a kick one metre in touch. Dick passes the ball infield and then Tom steps forward, lowering Dick on both feet in the FoP. Farcical? Agreed.

menace
01-12-16, 14:12
But the proposals is* If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.
Are we really saying that if a player is standing in touch, he is no longer considered to be in touch if he jumps in the air?
Admittedly that's what i thought it meant. I concede i may be wrong. But all the changes seem to lessen the impact of the plane of touch.
They all seem to fit in with the other defs and other proposed changes - as i read it.


ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.


h.
But that's because the plane of touch effectively stifles that strategy?
Though im sure it occured a bit in super rugby by brumbies julian huxley (???) a few years ago and it was permitted (cause he caught it before it crossed the plane )



I guess we will soon see here in SH what the interpretation will be. We all whine about hiw complex the touch laws are. ...perhaps this is a big shakeup of them ?

ChrisR
01-12-16, 15:12
ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.

Perhaps they have tried it and, having it disallowed, not tried it again and not challenged the call. That doesn't mean that it should be disallowed. The reason that I raise the point is a. I think it is a positive action as is diving across the line to bat the ball back into play and b. I'd like it to be codified into law so that it can become a valid practice. Not everyone will see this as positive but I think it has merit.


I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch.

Well, that action is now lawful. There was already a contradiction to that as a player can be in touch and keep a ball in the FoP.

ChrisR
01-12-16, 15:12
A maverick thought: we know that simply being in contact with a player in touch does not put another player in touch. If jumping means the player is not in touch (provided he lands in the FoP), would the same apply to being lifted?!

Scenario. Tom lifts Dick to catch a kick one metre in touch. Dick passes the ball infield and then Tom steps forward, lowering Dick on both feet in the FoP. Farcical? Agreed.

Farcical for sure.

The Fat
01-12-16, 16:12
Originally Posted by OB.

I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch


*Well, that action is now lawful.
**There was already a contradiction to that as a player can be in touch and keep a ball in the FoP.

* Will be lawful from Jan 1 2017 in SH and from July 1 2017 in NH
** Probably need a bit more clarification from OB re his description of this scenario. I believe he is talking about a player jumping from the field of play, his body crossing the plane-of-touch, and catching & throwing or knocking the ball (which had also crossed the plane-of-touch) back into the field of play before the player then lands in touch.
The contradiction you speak of is not really a contradiction to OB's scenario. In OB's scenario both the ball and the player have crossed the plane-of-touch whereas the player standing in-touch and knocking the ball back into play has to make contact before the ball crosses the plane-of-touch. They are different scenarios.

The Fat
01-12-16, 16:12
But that's because the plane of touch effectively stifles that strategy?
Though im sure it occured a bit in super rugby by brumbies julian huxley (???) a few years ago and it was permitted (cause he caught it before it crossed the plane )



The Julian Huxley incident was slightly different. He was running across field at pace and jumped from at least 2m inside the field of play, caught the ball well inside the FoP, and called for a MARK as he sailed across the plane-of-touch.

Could have been in his 1st game for the Melbourne Rebels.

DocY
01-12-16, 18:12
The Julian Huxley incident was slightly different. He was running across field at pace and jumped from at least 2m inside the field of play, caught the ball well inside the FoP, and called for a MARK as he sailed across the plane-of-touch.

Could have been in his 1st game for the Melbourne Rebels.

It's an interesting one - strictly the ball was in touch, but it somehow feels wrong not to award the mark if he caught the ball in the FoP. I don't think when he actually called the mark is relevant, just where he lands.

crossref
01-12-16, 18:12
a mark is quite interesting -- in real life we don't really see players leaping across touchline to land inside the FoP

but we might well see players leaping into the 22m, catching the ball in the air , and calling mark as they land in the 22m (I'd give it)

Ian_Cook
01-12-16, 20:12
Once again WR has missed the chance to really simplify and remove the anomalies from the touch Laws. Simply adopting the RL touch laws in their entirety (leaving out the parts that are not applicable to RU such as the play the ball and scrum restarts) would hace been a far better way yo go.

From ARL Laws of the Game: SECTION 9 TOUCH AND TOUCH IN-GOAL

1. Ball in Touch. The ball is in touch or touch in goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touchline or the touch-in-goal line or the ground beyond, or any object (other than a player) on or outside the touchline or touch-in-goal line.

2. Jumping Player. The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back while off the ground touches the ball. The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line or dead ball line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground after jumping from the field of play.

3. Point of Entry. When a ball has entered touch, the point of entry shall be taken as the point at which the ball first crossed the touch or touch in-goal line.

4. Stationary ball. Where the ball, which is stationary in the field of play or the in-goal area, is touched by a player in touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to have been put in touch or made dead by that player, otherwise it is deemed to have been made dead by the player who last played it.

These four definitions would cover everything.

crossref
01-12-16, 23:12
And no reference to the plane of the touchline :clap:

ChrisR
02-12-16, 00:12
TF, I wasn't contradicting OBs scenario but was commenting on this statement:

"I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch."

From Law 19 definitions:

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.

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 agree that the scenario is different but the cause and effect are the same: Player in touch contacts ball therefore ball in touch.

Also from Law 19 definitions:

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.

This definition makes no reference to the plane of touch or the field of play.

Ian_Cook
02-12-16, 01:12
And no reference to the plane of the touchline :clap:

There is, sort of, but its only to determine where the ball went into touch (point of entry) , not if it went into touch.

The Fat
02-12-16, 02:12
[QUOTE=ChrisR;323732]

Also from Law 19 definitions:

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.

This definition makes no reference to the plane of touch or the field of play.[/QUOTE

Sorry, my mistake for referencing the FoP as opposed to the Playing Area.
But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

DocY
02-12-16, 09:12
Sorry, my mistake for referencing the FoP as opposed to the Playing Area.
But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

I'm sure this came up in a society meeting where the consensus was that the player must start and end in the playing area.

ChrisR
02-12-16, 11:12
But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

No. I think otherwise. I think that they were not concerned with where he (the catcher) came from but where he landed and that's what they put in the Law.

I really don't understand why you have a problem with this. It takes skill and precise timing to jump, catch and land both feet in the FoP and it's one less stoppage in play.

OB..
02-12-16, 16:12
TF, I wasn't contradicting OBs scenario but was commenting on this statement:

"I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch."
I am not entirely sure what point you are making, but I thought the bit in blue showed the ball had crossed the plane of touch.


From Law 19 definitions:
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.Like others, I have always interpreted this to mean that the player must start from the field of play.


No. I think otherwise. I think that they were not concerned with where he (the catcher) came from but where he landed and that's what they put in the Law.

I really don't understand why you have a problem with this. It takes skill and precise timing to jump, catch and land both feet in the FoP and it's one less stoppage in play.As I said above, to know if the player landed in the FoP the referee must watch his feet. However the ball may well have been passed in-field some distance away by the time he lands, thus raising the prospect of the referee not seeing the recipient knock-on. I see it as an unnecessary complication.

The Fat
02-12-16, 19:12
No. I think otherwise. I think that they were not concerned with where he (the catcher) came from but where he landed and that's what they put in the Law.

I really don't understand why you have a problem with this. It takes skill and precise timing to jump, catch and land both feet in the FoP and it's one less stoppage in play.

The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play. There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.
With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.

ChrisR
02-12-16, 19:12
The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play.

Says you. Show me. Show me where it says "A player may not jump from touch, catch the ball and land in the FoP".


There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.

Not anywhere, just the playing area. Since, according to OB, nobody ever does this so it must be illegal how can you be so sure?


With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.

Agreed. But I'm still curious why you think it so illegal.

The Fat
02-12-16, 21:12
Says you. Show me. Show me where it says "A player may not jump from touch, catch the ball and land in the FoP".



Not anywhere, just the playing area. Since, according to OB, nobody ever does this so it must be illegal how can you be so sure?



Agreed. But I'm still curious why you think it so illegal.

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.


This is the only current example of when a player, who is in touch, may keep the ball in play and it is fully dependent of where the ball is in relation to the plane-of-touch.
A player who starts from touch and jumps in the air is still in touch. If he extends his arm so that he can knock the ball, before it crosses the plane-of-touch (thereby preventing the ball from effectively leaving the playing area), and the ball stays in the playing area it is play on. If under the same circumstances he knocks it after it crosses the plane-of-touch, the ball is in touch. Likewise, if the ball has crossed the plane-of-touch and he catches it rather than knock it, the ball is being held by a player who is in touch and the ball is deemed to be in-touch. The only way it can be returned to the FoP is by a lineout.
I realise you are not going to accept my explanation because every possible scenario that can happen on a rugby field is not exhaustively written to the last detail in the LoTG, but I can tell you that at every AR course and (referee's course if it is raised during discussion) I have attended, this is how it is to be adjudicated according to referee managers/education officers employed by NSWRU or ARU (who are way further up the food chain than this little black duck).

A player who starts in-touch and jumps in the air is still in-touch.
Currently, a player who starts from the playing area, jumps and catches the ball must throw the ball back to the playing area before he crosses the plane-of-touch (OB's scenario).
It is impossible for a player to leap from the playing area, have his body/torso cross the plane-of-touch, catch the ball (either before or after it crosses the plane-of-touch), and land with both feet in the playing area whether he releases the ball or not.
It IS possible for a player to start in the playing area (basically standing i.e. no or little momentum towards the touch line), jump vertically and catch the ball and land with both feet in 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


There is nothing more I can add to the discussion other than I believe the Law Trials for 2017 will simplify things somewhat and will allow OB's scenario to be a play-on situation.

OB..
02-12-16, 21:12
The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play. There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.
With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.
What's an AR?! Down at my levels we are lucky to have a TJ who knows the laws.

The Fat
02-12-16, 21:12
What's an AR?! Down at my levels we are lucky to have a TJ who knows the laws.

Luckily for us down here in the colonies, we strive to have as many ARs as possible appointed to games even at my local level which would cover England L13-L7 standard. We also allow, in my area at least and I believe Dickie E's area as well, an accredited AR who happens to be at a ground, but not already be officially appointed to a particular game, to help out and run a line for the referee and be able to perform ALL of the duties normally carried out by an appointed AR i.e. report foul play etc. Just common sense really.

ChrisR
02-12-16, 23:12
So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.

The Fat
02-12-16, 23:12
So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.

My short version is, if a player holds the ball while he is in touch, the ball is in touch. Simple.

"Looking forward to the 2017 amendments."

Amen.

SimonSmith
03-12-16, 01:12
So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.
This is a gap in the law that isn't expressed directly.

My opinion is that your status (in touch, in the 22, in goal) is driven by where you started and not where you end up. And even then there are gaps. If you start in touch, catch the ball on the 'in touch' side of the touch line and land in play, you're in touch. And I think there's adequate precedent for that

crossref
03-12-16, 09:12
If someone carrying the ball treads on touchline, it's touch

If some treading on the touchline leaps and catches the ball, landing in FoP, surely everyone would play on

Phil E
03-12-16, 15:12
If some treading on the touchline leaps and catches the ball, landing in FoP, surely everyone would play on

Depends on whether the ball crossed the plane of touch.

crossref
03-12-16, 18:12
Really?

ChrisR
04-12-16, 12:12
Depends on whether the ball crossed the plane of touch.

The plane of touch. The sooner this term disappears from the rugby lexicon the better.

Camquin
04-12-16, 19:12
The line out is formed at the point the ball crosses the plane of touch - which means you cannot lose it completely.

ChrisR
05-12-16, 13:12
The line out is formed at the point the ball crosses into touch - which means you cannot lose it completely.

Just did.

Camquin
05-12-16, 14:12
But the ball is not in touch when it crosses the plane - it is only definitely in touch when it lands or touches something ...
So you now need to define what you mean by passing into touch as separate from being in touch.

Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

Phil E
05-12-16, 16:12
Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

Same here.......woodwork CSE

ChrisR
05-12-16, 19:12
But the ball is not in touch when it crosses the plane - it is only definitely in touch when it lands or touches something ...
So you now need to define what you mean by passing into touch as separate from being in touch.

Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

From 2016 Law 19 definitions:

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.

None of the definitions above, with the exception of the last one, make any reference to "plane of touch". And the last one contradicts the first one and, because of that, I'd like to see it disappear.

We can get along just fine without the "plane of touch" and, hopefully, WR will be headed that way.

Planes are great, though I'd rather drive, but the PoT is invisible to the referee any more infield than 10m and I see no advantage in applying it.

OB..
05-12-16, 19:12
None of the definitions above, with the exception of the last one, make any reference to "plane of touch". And the last one contradicts the first one and, because of that, I'd like to see it disappear.

We can get along just fine without the "plane of touch" and, hopefully, WR will be headed that way.
You are looking at the wrong part of law 19. You need:19.3 On all other occasions, the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.That does not use the term "plane of touch", but I don't care what phrase is used. it is undeniably essential to have some convenient way of referring to it. I have no idea why you find that one so objectionable.

ChrisR
05-12-16, 22:12
OB, what is undeniably essential is a means of determining if a ball is in touch and, if so, who put it there. I believe that this can be done without reference to the "plane of touch".

My objection to the "plane of touch" is simple: It is an indistinct form to the referee and even to ARs.

The law change that allows a player to leap from the playing area and play a ball back into the playing area without reference to the plane of touch is a step in the right direction. The law writers will do the game a big favor if they keep this in mind.

OB..
05-12-16, 23:12
OB, what is undeniably essential is a means of determining if a ball is in touch and, if so, who put it there. I believe that this can be done without reference to the "plane of touch".Another essential element is knowing where the ball crossed the touchline. That cannot be done without the equivalent of "plane of touch.


My objection to the "plane of touch" is simple: It is an indistinct form to the referee and even to ARs. People manage to estimate the crossing point well enough. The problem remains whatever term you use.


The law change that allows a player to leap from the playing area and play a ball back into the playing area without reference to the plane of touch is a step in the right direction. The law writers will do the game a big favor if they keep this in mind.You are not really objecting to the term, but wanting a different law that does not need it. That probably means defining the matter by where the player starts or lands. However we still need "plane of touch" or an equivalent to decide where the line of touch is.

ChrisR
06-12-16, 13:12
I'm not concerned with where the ball went into touch but if it went into touch and who put it there.The location of the line of touch can be off a few feet and have very little impact on the game.However, if a player with a foot in touch catches a ball the proposed determination of who put the ball into touch will depend on whether the ball has reached the plane of touch. That can be a game changer and it is to be decided by the balls position relative to a virtual plane that is difficult to determine by a referee without ARs. This is the part I don't like.

menace
06-12-16, 23:12
Add to that, most punters (and TJs) don't know the vaguries of the invisible plane of touch and think youve got the decision wrong anyway.

FlipFlop
06-12-16, 23:12
I don't see why we can't get rid of the plane of touch. There is no need for it.

We can say a player is in touch if he is standing in-touch, and remains there until he re-establishes himself (i.e. has managed to get at least 1 foot completely into the playing area (on ground) while not having any other body part in touch).

And the reverse - a player in play, remains there until he touches ground etc. that is in touch.

This way a player jumping from touch, is still in touch until they land in the field of play, and a player jumping from the field of play is still in the field of play until they land.

Then get rid of distinction between playing and catching the ball.

Then take everything from that. Everything follows very logically.

You can even have a sensible "exception" that a player may ground a ball while in touch (ball on ground already etc) if you want to allow that.

Camquin
07-12-16, 01:12
Where it goes into touch can be vital - especially if it is a question of touch or touch-in-goal.

Dickie E
07-12-16, 01:12
Where it goes into touch can be vital - especially if it is a question of touch or touch-in-goal.

I'm sure nobody would dispute that but the risk assessment would tell me that, while the consequence of a wrong decision is high, the liklihood is low because of the presence of the corner post as a visual indicator. So risk would be no worse than moderate.

On the other hand, ChrisR is suggesting that the liklihood of a wrong touch call where a referee (often without AR/TJ) has to observe plane of touch, whether catcher is in the air, whether catcher has foot in touch or not, whether he catches or bats ball, etc is significantly higher.

crossref
07-12-16, 08:12
The problem with the plane of touch is not theoretical, it's practical... For a referee without ARs, you are never in a position to be able to see it.

The line on the other hand, is very useful

Dan_A
07-12-16, 12:12
Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

Dickie E
07-12-16, 21:12
Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

Maybe the Scottish thrower should have thrown it to his half back. "Peep, not straight, full time"

crossref
07-12-16, 22:12
Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

But it's not 2017 yet, so when they kicked the pk out, it was full time

Dickie E
07-12-16, 23:12
But it's not 2017 yet, so when they kicked the pk out, it was full time

I would guess (and it is only a guess) that they would want standard laws for the whole of the WR 7s season which started with Dubai. I was seperately informed that the 7 point penalty try came into force in Dubai.

ChrisR
07-12-16, 23:12
After a 7 point PT does the scoring team kick off with drop kick or a PK? I'm assuming a drop unless there was additional foul play after the PT.

Dickie E
08-12-16, 00:12
After a 7 point PT does the scoring team kick off with drop kick or a PK? I'm assuming a drop unless there was additional foul play after the PT.

Yes..

Mandrason
14-12-16, 21:12
Maybe the Scottish thrower should have thrown it to his half back. "Peep, not straight, full time"

Doesnt work that way, lineout cannot end on a crooked throw. The lineout can only end if one of the situations in 19.9 (b) occurs.
There has been a law clarification regarding this:

Unsuccessful end to a lineout.

A lineout cannot be ended on a crooked throw-in. The non-offending team has an option of another lineout with their team to throw in or a scrum 15 meters in through the line of touch.

Source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=19&clarification=1018

Lex Hipkins
18-12-16, 14:12
So the same thing happened in yesterday's Champions Cup match between Connaught and Wasps. In this case Connaught won penalty after time, checked with ref who confirmed time was up but the could have the line out, they kicked into touch, won line out and drove over for match winning (after successful conversion) try.

But isn't this the Northern Hemisphere.. does this not come into the laws in August 2017?

Mandrason
18-12-16, 22:12
http://www.planetrugby.com/news/connacht-try-shouldnt-have-stood/

The assitant ref who replaced Jerome Garces got it wrong, official statement by EPCR. So yes, it only comes into the laws in August 2017 in the NH