PDA

View Full Version : Law 19 Amendment Trial



The Fat
21-02-17, 20:02
Thoughts on the wording of this one please.

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.
LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case, if the ball has reached 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 reached 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.

Dickie E
21-02-17, 20:02
Thoughts on the wording of this one please.

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.
LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case, if the ball has reached 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 reached 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.

and also noting the associated 2016 clarification:

://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2016&clarification=1022

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line. Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.

OB..
21-02-17, 21:02
In close cases, it is a lot easier for an AR to see if a player has a foot on the line than if the ball had reached the plane of touch at the moment it was caught.

It does have the advantage of meaning that you no longer have to decide if a ball on the ground was still moving.

The Fat
21-02-17, 22:02
OK, so now apply the new Law Trial Amendment to the following scenario.
Red kick from their 10m line. Blue player in the field of play but with one got on or beyond the touch line catches the ball on the full.

In 2016, the decision here would be that the red kicker has put the ball in touch and the blue lineout would be back on the red 10m line.
Is the new trial saying now that because the ball hadn't reached the plane of touch when blue caught it that blue has put the ball in touch and we now give the lineout to red where blue caught the ball?

crossref
21-02-17, 22:02
OK, so now apply the new Law Trial Amendment to the following scenario.
Red kick from their 10m line. Blue player in the field of play but with one got on or beyond the touch line catches the ball on the full.

In 2016, the decision here would be that the red kicker has put the ball in touch and the blue lineout would be back on the red 10m line.
Is the new trial saying now that because the ball hadn't reached the plane of touch when blue caught it that blue has put the ball in touch and we now give the lineout to red where blue caught the ball?

yes.

and as a grassroots referee with no AR, you will not normally be in a position where you can judge where or not the ball has passed the plane of touch, so will have no idea what the decision should be.

ctrainor
21-02-17, 23:02
More crap for Tmo at top level with key decisions that could take a long time to review.
At grass roots, the existing law is clear and easy to ref

chbg
21-02-17, 23:02
More crap for Tmo at top level with key decisions that could take a long time to review.
At grass roots, the existing law is clear and easy to ref

My understanding is that the intent is to encourage keeping the ball in play - not making it too easy to cause the opposition to have put the ball in touch, when it hasn't reached / gone over the touch line. Therefore there are likely to be less close reviews / decisions required.

crossref
22-02-17, 07:02
My understanding is that the intent is to encourage keeping the ball in play - not making it too easy to cause the opposition to have put the ball in touch, when it hasn't reached / gone over the touch line. Therefore there are likely to be less close reviews / decisions required.

they could achive the same thing by making the pitch 2m wider and leaving the Laws the same

DocY
22-02-17, 09:02
they could achive the same thing by making the pitch 2m wider and leaving the Laws the sameI think this would improve the elite game no end, as a spectacle. We'd probably need a few stadiums to be bigger, though!

The Fat
22-02-17, 09:02
and also noting the associated 2016 clarification:

://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2016&clarification=1022

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line. Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.

So I just had a look at Clarification 5-2016.
In it WR give some examples using 3 videos and state that the video linked to Law 22.9(c), where a defender plants one foot in in-goal and picks up a rolling ball, half a metre forward of the goal line, that has been kicked by the opposition, will now be a 5m attacking scrum and not a 22m DO. That's all well and good except that 22.9(c) still says that in such a case, the ball has been picked up in-goal.

(c) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in motion within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball within in-goal.

didds
22-02-17, 09:02
moving deckchairs on the titanic.

why don't they concentrate on stuff that really REALLY does need addressing instead of tinkering and achieving nothing but even more controversial incidents.

how many times can we collectively recall a controversy over whether a ball was moving or not when picked up with a foot in touch etc? How problematical is it really that a poorly directed kick by A is made in touch by B in this manner? Maybe A should kick better in the first place?

didds

The Fat
22-02-17, 10:02
moving deckchairs on the titanic.

why don't they concentrate on stuff that really REALLY does need addressing instead of tinkering and achieving nothing but even more controversial incidents.

how many times can we collectively recall a controversy over whether a ball was moving or not when picked up with a foot in touch etc? How problematical is it really that a poorly directed kick by A is made in touch by B in this manner? Maybe A should kick better in the first place?

didds

I agree.
The problem I have is that they have changed the definitions of Law 19 which have a flow-on effect in Law 22 and they haven't bothered to note the changes in Law 22.
I can hear the arguments now that the ref will have to explain in the bar afterwards.

Coach: So why did you give their guys a 5m scrum when it should have been our 22m DO?
Ref: Because that's what the new Law Amendment Trials says the decision is now.
Coach: But look here in Law 22. Law 22.9(c) says my player has picked the ball up in in-goal. Therefore their team has put the ball into our in-goal!!!
Ref: Nah, you have to read the Definitions in Law 19 and then apply Law 19 to Law 22.
Coach: But Law 19 is Touch and Lineout isn't it? What the f#$% has that got to do with Law 22?
Ref: Is that the time?
Ref exits stage left.

didds
22-02-17, 10:02
Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

didds

The Fat
22-02-17, 10:02
Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

didds

And all relevant Law Clarifications be absorbed into the rewrite i.e. adopt into Law where practicle and list others, that are still relevant but are too lengthy to add, in an appendix in the back of the book. That appendix could simply be updated each year.

Ian_Cook
22-02-17, 10:02
Its really frustrating to watch WR making a complete pig's breakfast of something that is so simple to solve, thereby adding complexity where they need to be removing it.

I said before, and I'll say again, that WR need to swallow their pride and just adopt Rugby League touch laws in their entirety (leaving out the parts that are not applicable to Rugby Union such as the play the ball and scrum restarts)

Here, I have condensed the relevant Rugby League touch laws down to make my revised Law 19 Definitions;

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 dead-ball line or the ground beyond, or any object (other than a player) therein.

2. Jumping Player.
The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back, and 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 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 put in touch-in-goal or made dead by the player who last played it.

These four definitions are simple, easy to adjudicate, cover all the bases and contain no ambiguity.

The Fat
22-02-17, 12:02
Practical:wink:

ChrisR
22-02-17, 13:02
What I don't understand is the purpose of the changes. What problem are they trying to solve? Has WR relocated to Mars? As for keeping the ball in play? Not gonna happen and we'll just get more delays as the TMO reviews all the angles to see if the ball crossed (touched?) the invisible 'plane of touch'.

OB..
22-02-17, 13:02
Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

diddsDid the 2000 re-write solve all the problems arising from the 1969 re-write?

I have a suspicion that their methodology is wrong. For example there is no clear evidence that they have considered transitions between phases holistically, or that they have analysed ball-in-touch situation to cover all options. Some aspects are covered in two separate places - as all good data base admins know, once is enough. Elsewhere use cross-references.

didds
22-02-17, 14:02
Did the 2000 re-write solve all the problems arising from the 1969 re-write?.

If it didn't (which i am assuming is the correct position ;-) ) all that means is that the 2000 re-write was poorly done presumably.

didds

OB..
22-02-17, 19:02
If it didn't (which i am assuming is the correct position ;-) ) all that means is that the 2000 re-write was poorly done presumably.

diddsI think another significant factor is that the game keeps evolving and law-makers have to play catch-up. As soon as they do, coaches/players try to find new loopholes.

beckett50
22-02-17, 20:02
I think another significant factor is that the game keeps evolving and law-makers have to play catch-up. As soon as they do, coaches/players try to find new loopholes.

As in any elite sport

didds
22-02-17, 22:02
I think another significant factor is that the game keeps evolving and law-makers have to play catch-up. As soon as they do, coaches/players try to find new loopholes.

Oh absolutely. Which is why aside from ELVs etc whoever draws law changes up needs to do some serious brainstorming as to any unintended consequences.


And also to check that changes to one law fdon;t make a mockery of another existing law.

didds

ChrisR
23-02-17, 13:02
Rugby is a contest between 'evolutionists' (coaches) and 'intelligent designers' (WR lawmakers). We'll not discuss 'creationists' who decry lifting in the lineout. Not sure if "Intelligent Design" means anything outside of the USA.

The Lawmakers have in mind a concept of how they would want The Game to be played and introduce untested versions to fit their visions. They shouldn't be too surprised and disappointed when their fiddling goes for naught; or worse, producing something that is unsustainable.

Coaches, on the other hand, introduce small incremental changes. These changes face two survival tests. The first comes at the hands (or whistle) of the referee and then against the opponents. If it survives both then it becomes an adaption. Sometimes the modification is too radical and would produce a totally unattractive species if allowed to flourish. Then the Lawmakers will jump in with to do some gene editing. Unfortunately they frequently do this with a blunt instrument and wearing a blindfold.

DocY
23-02-17, 14:02
I do think coaches (retired ones) need to have more of an input in law updates. If nothing else to tell the lawmakers what they'll do to take advantage of the new laws!

ChuckieB
13-03-17, 00:03
Er guys. There seems consensus on this from what i am seeing and even though I was late to the party it didn't even take me long to smell a rat!

Might seems a daft question but with this obviously causing much consternation how do we go about changing it?

Somtimes the law is an ass and needs changing.

We could all then feel self righteous about what we have contributed to the development of the game!

Or Am I being naiive?

ChuckieB
14-04-17, 00:04
So I just had a look at Clarification 5-2016.
In it WR give some examples using 3 videos and state that the video linked to Law 22.9(c), where a defender plants one foot in in-goal and picks up a rolling ball, half a metre forward of the goal line, that has been kicked by the opposition, will now be a 5m attacking scrum and not a 22m DO. That's all well and good except that 22.9(c) still says that in such a case, the ball has been picked up in-goal.

(c) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in motion within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball within in-goal.

I am still totally perplexed by this one and time is ticking in towards July and changes that we will be seeing in the NH. For us it is not yet too late but we're getting close!

Since its introduction has there been any observable instances, or fallout I dare to suggest, on this one in practice? Notably with regards to balls rolling rather than being caught?

I am in absolute agreement with by The FAT with his example , one of two that I see as incorrect. I can see no clear link between 2 of the examples offered up in the Law clarification that relate to the ball being in motion along the ground against the law amendment trial that I understands relate to a ball being caught?

As a result we are now getting 2 new decisions that are in my view totally beyond comprehension. If they now supposed to be treated similarly. i.e. the ball not moving is no longer relevant, how can how can they then retain wording that is in open conflict with their on new communications on this.

I am actually comfortable with the prospect of having to apply to the ball in flight concept, as difficult as might be to judge, but these 2, I just can't fathom!

Should one ignore elements of the clarification and stand by what is still retained in the laws or vice versa?

I feel this one has slipped on to the back burner for the timebeing, without getting the ongoing challenge it so clearly deserves!

winchesterref
24-08-17, 14:08
I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

Phil E
24-08-17, 14:08
I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

Still in play on. The point of the wording below is that it's the players feet that determine if the ball is in or out.

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.

Rich_NL
24-08-17, 14:08
I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

I don't see why it would be -

"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."

If he'd jumped from the FoP and knocked it back in it would be play on, why should it be out just because his feet are touching the ground? The ball crossing the plane of touch doesn't count as in touch, until it touches something/someone that's not in play.

The point of the new laws are to encourage continuous play, as I see it. I'd say play on without hesitation.

crossref
24-08-17, 14:08
The point of the new laws are to encourage continuous play, as I see it. I'd say play on without hesitation.

which is funny, as I think the new Laws will lead to more stoppage, as catchers have lost the option to place a foot in touch, catch the ball, and then take QTI ... All those balls will now be left to go out/

winchesterref
24-08-17, 16:08
Still in play on. The point of the wording below is that it's the players feet that determine if the ball is in or out.

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.

Perfect, thank you. That was my understanding, so I can't quite fathom why there are confusing messages coming at me.

Pinky
24-08-17, 17:08
As Phil says it is the player's feet that determine if the ball is in touch. However I think part of the problem with the whole change here is that where the player has a foot or foot in touch and catches the ball whether he took it out or it was kicked out is determined by whether the ball passed the plane of touch before he caught it (or played it). Also this is not entirely consistent with the idea that you can jump from the field of play, catch the ball over the plane of touch and throw it back into play before you land and it is play on.

didds
24-08-17, 18:08
I must say this just seems an attempt to simplify matters by making them differently difficult.

That bloody 12 year old again.

didds

Rich_NL
25-08-17, 08:08
which is funny, as I think the new Laws will lead to more stoppage, as catchers have lost the option to place a foot in touch, catch the ball, and then take QTI ... All those balls will now be left to go out/

He can catch the ball with feet in play and pass it anyway - does he get any benefit from the QTI?

Placing the foot in touch was more useful to prevent gain in ground or get a scrum back, so the players have an incentive to keep the ball in play rather than risk giving up the ground or having the ball bounce further along the touchline - and if they choose not to do so, there'd be a stoppage anyway one way or another.

ChrisR
25-08-17, 10:08
From Law 19 Definitions:

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.


LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case , if the ball has reached 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 reached
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.

This is the stupid part. And it applies to the goal line, dead ball line and the 22.

crossref
25-08-17, 10:08
He can catch the ball with feet in play and pass it anyway - does he get any benefit from the QTI?

Placing the foot in touch was more useful to prevent gain in ground or get a scrum back, so the players have an incentive to keep the ball in play rather than risk giving up the ground or having the ball bounce further along the touchline - and if they choose not to do so, there'd be a stoppage anyway one way or another.

well you may be right -- it's good to have a trial to see what the impact is.

but I do think the new Law is worse -- neither the ref nor the players are normally in a good position to judge the plane of touch, so everyone on the pitch will be guessing somewhat.
Position of the feet (standing/landing inside/outside the line) is MUCH easier for everyone to see, and that's what we should be using for these decisions, IMO.

Rich_NL
25-08-17, 11:08
I agree with that; reffing without TJs is already tough enough on positioning work to see the touchlines when play is close to the touchlines, without having to bear in mind the possibility of covering kicks from the middle of the pitch.