PDA

View Full Version : [Law] I hate these weird touch scenarios !



crossref
24-09-17, 09:09
From my game yesterday, green kick for touch , black 11 jumps from the field of play to try and knock the ball back in play , but his knock is unsuccessful, the ball still lands in touch (as does black 11)

So whose throw is it ?
It all depends on whether the ball had passed the plane, doesn't it ?

I was 30m away and in field , there was no way I was in a position to tell and the TJ was clueless...

irishref
24-09-17, 09:09
Where was the ball when black tried to keep it in?

Christy
24-09-17, 10:09
Hi cross ref .
Your description reads that you saw everything that you needed to know . .
Black line out . ( providing ball had crossed , before black makes contact )
Was TJ apointed with your self ,,or was he club volunteer .

Or are you stating , that when black jumped ,
You couldnt tell did he infact take ball out of field of play .
Or did he catch it out of field of play .
If thats the case , & if i had no appointed society TJ .
If it was that close a decision ,
i would favour non kicking team .
And still award line out to black .

crossref
24-09-17, 10:09
Where was the ball when black tried to keep it in?

That's the point , I couldn't tell which side of the plane it was...


I gave the lineout to black.

Paule23
24-09-17, 12:09
Let's face it, no-one with any authority is going to be able to be absolutely sure whatever you give is wrong. The only person who could is the TJ, and if they are clueless you go with your gut. There might be others who have a different opinion but they won't be any more sure than you are, and luckily for us it is only the referee's opinion that really matters here.

ChrisR
24-09-17, 12:09
CR, you and I have complained about the invisible plane of touch on multiple occasions but WR have chosen to ignore us so let it go.

There are two ways of looking at your scenario.

First: The Black player would not have leaped from the field of play to bat the ball (and then fall into touch) unless the ball was out (or clearly headed that way) so your call was likely correct if you are to judge it on the plane of touch. And, I bet there were no complaints from green.

Second: You got it wrong. The plane of touch only comes into play when the ball is played by a player who is in touch. That is standing in touch. In your scenario the player leaps from the field of play to bat the ball. He is not in touch and so, when he plays the ball, the ball is not in touch. When the ball fails to make it back into the FoP the last player to play it was Black. Lineout Green.

crossref
24-09-17, 13:09
Itexhnically think your second paragraph is wrong , I think it all depends on whether or not the ball had passed the plane when he battled it.

In the circumstances I think lineout black is the safe decision .. after all its what green was expecting when he made the (very long) clearance kick

ChrisR
24-09-17, 13:09
Then you will forever be subject to the plane of touch judgement.

Consider this: Black player, standing in the FoP, attempts to field a Green kick. The ball goes through his hands and lands in touch. Who put it in touch?

We can remove the plane of touch from some of these scenarios if you consider the ball to be in play (and not in touch) until it is played by a player in touch.

Christy
24-09-17, 13:09
Second: You got it wrong. The plane of touch only comes into play when the ball is played by a player who is in touch. That is standing in touch. In your scenario the player leaps from the field of play to bat the ball. He is not in touch and so, when he plays the ball, the ball is not in touch. When the ball fails to make it back into the FoP the last player to play it was Black. Lineout Green.[/QUOTE]

Hi chris r .
I dont agree with your 2nd choice , i also firmy beleive it is incorrect by what we were told .

The black player didnk kick the ball . & he is now allowed to jump from field into touch , hit ball back and then land in touch .

If he was standing in field of play & lent over to catch ball & is sucsesfull in catching ball & or possibly juggles ball . And ball doesnt make it back into field , because he dropped it / lost via juggle only
ON THIS EXAMPLE ,,BLACK TOOK IT OUT & IT WOULD BE GREEN PUT IN .

But providing ball HAS CROSSED LINE OF TOUCH
By black leaping over line & making contact with ball whilst black is still in air , does not by defination means he took it out .
If it re enters field back wards = play on .
If it re enters forwards = knock on by black = green scrum .
If it doesnt re enter field , it is still his line out ( he can also go quick if he wants )

OB..
24-09-17, 13:09
Two possible inferences:
(1) If a player jumps from the FoP across the touchline, it is surely because he thinks the ball has crossed the plane.
(2) Apparently he is considered to be still in the FoP until he lands, so if the ball goes forward from him, why is that not a knock-on (whether the ball goes back into the FoP or not)?

crossref
24-09-17, 14:09
In this instance he knocked it backwards ..

Christy
24-09-17, 14:09
Two possible inferences:
(1) If a player jumps from the FoP across the touchline, it is surely because he thinks the ball has crossed the plane.
(2) Apparently he is considered to be still in the FoP until he lands, so if the ball goes forward from him, why is that not a knock-on (whether the ball goes back into the FoP or not)?

Hi OB .
Its simply because we are told , that the new law states that if the ball doesnt re enter .
This does not mean , that the player who whilst is in air , some how takes the blame for ball having already crossed touch line .
And as such , it is still his line out .

ChuckieB
24-09-17, 16:09
Hi OB .
Its simply because we are told , that the new law states that if the ball doesnt re enter .
This does not mean , that the player who whilst is in air , some how takes the blame for ball having already crossed touch line .
And as such , it is still his line out .
,
Christy, I am not sure you haven't contradicted your own guidance from another thread? A player in the air, or so I thought you indicated, is deemed to have been the last to have played it, if it isn't returned to the field of play, and in this instance he is the player who is then deemed to have taken it into touch, caught, knocked forward or otherwise. It makes no difference as to whether it had crossed the plane or not. He will not get possession as a result, scrum option for a knock on or LO for carrying not touch, both to the opposition.

which is it?

Pegleg
24-09-17, 17:09
CR, I think you made a perfectly reasonable call. Be happy and move on to next week

Christy
24-09-17, 17:09
,
Christy, I am not sure you haven't contradicted your own guidance from another thread? A player in the air, or so I thought you indicated, is deemed to have been the last to have played it, if it isn't returned to the field of play, and in this instance he is the player who is then deemed to have taken it into touch, caught, knocked forward or otherwise. It makes no difference as to whether it had crossed the plane or not. He will not get possession as a result, scrum option for a knock on or LO for carrying not touch, both to the opposition.

which is it?

Hi chuckie .
I would say you have mixed me up with another .
Or miss read what i posted .
Ill go again below . ( this is what we were told at society briefing )

1 ) Player with both feet in field of play , if he catches a ball over touch line .whilst he still in field of play
He can play on .
But if he CATCHES / JUGGLES ball whilst ball is still over touch line & then looses posession of ball , so ball is on floor & still out side field of play = catcher / juggler law says he took posession so he took it out .

2) if player with both feet in field of play attempts to catch a ball which has crossed touch line .
But he only manages to touch or slap ball & ball did not make it back into field of play
= law says its still his line out as he did not qualify to take possesion .

3 ) if ball is in air hanging over touch line & player jumps from field of play & is himself over touch line in the air .
A) if he gets ball back into field of play before he lands on ground = play on ( providing it doesnt re enter field of play from a knock or throw forward as that is a scrum to opposition )
B) if he again jumps out of field of play & whilst in air touches ball / catches ball / juggles ball / kick ball . ...if the ball does not re enter field of play = its still his line out ( even if he throws ball forward ) .

4 ) if catcher has 1 foot in field & 1 foot out side field of play .
A) if catcher catches ball before ball has crossed touch line = he took it out
B) if catcher catchex ball once it has crossed touch line = he did not take it out .

OB..
24-09-17, 18:09
1 ) Player with both feet in field of play , if he catches a ball over touch line .whilst he still in field of play
He can play on .
But if he CATCHES / JUGGLES ball whilst ball is still over touch line & then looses posession of ball , so ball is on floor & still out side field of play = catcher / juggler law says he took posession so he took it out .Surely if he took possession and lost the ball forward, it was a knock-on into touch? Therefore options.

Christy
24-09-17, 19:09
Surely if he took possession and lost the ball forward, it was a knock-on into touch? Therefore options.

Hi OB .
I understand the logic of why you quiery same .

My understanding is .
If a Player is standing at touch line facing out wards with his feet close to touch line , but not actually in touch
He has leaned over touch line to catch a ball that has crossed plane of touch . ( he doesnt have to , he can just let ball go out , but he might decide to keep game alive ,,,rather than the other option he has with 1 foot in & 1 foot out & simply catch ball once its passed line of touch , do a quick throw in & if ball has travelled the required 5 meters he can regather him self & play on )

But If he was to catch ball as suggested with both feet still in field of play , bring ball back in side field of play , turn around & face opposition goals & then dropped the ball in front of him self ,,,yes this is clearly lost forward .

But as rugby is mainly lawed regarding forward pass or knock on , inside the playing field .
I can only conclude , thst a ball that is knocked on or passed forward out side the playing area ,
With the end result that the ball never actually made it back into the playing field .

Then all we are left with , is game restarts with line out .
And the new laws , simply tells us who gets to throw in & who doesnt .

ChuckieB
24-09-17, 21:09
Words from Chris R in the other thread about law 22.4 (g) and given a like by Damo

"Hi Christy, let us say a player jumps, catches a ball that has crossed the plane and attempts to throw it back into the field of play. If he succeeds we play on unless he throw it forward in which case he concedes a scrum.

WR has modified the laws to allow this by not considering the ball to be in touch until the ball contacts a player or object grounded in touch. So, if the ball is in play while he is in the air then if a. he goes to ground before passing it or b. plays the ball such that it lands in touch then the ball is in touch last played by that player. Should we consider the outcome to change because he slapped instead of catching?"

as such i am I am reading this that they are saying it is not his throw which is different to your interpretation? . As such it is still up in the air for me

Dickie E
25-09-17, 03:09
If player (outside his 22) jumps over touchline and knocks the ball backwards such the ball lands inside his 22, has he taken it back?

There may be several answers depending on your view of the concept of an imaginary extension of the 22 past the touchline.

ChrisR
25-09-17, 11:09
From Christy post 15:
2) if player with both feet in field of play attempts to catch a ball which has crossed touch line .
But he only manages to touch or slap ball & ball did not make it back into field of play
= law says its still his line out as he did not qualify to take possesion .

3 ) if ball is in air hanging over touch line & player jumps from field of play & is himself over touch line in the air .
A) if he gets ball back into field of play before he lands on ground = play on ( providing it doesnt re enter field of play from a knock or throw forward as that is a scrum to opposition )
B) if he again jumps out of field of play & whilst in air touches ball / catches ball / juggles ball / kick ball . ...if the ball does not re enter field of play = its still his line out ( even if he throws ball forward ) .

Christy, please reference law that supports this.

The problem with your argument is that you are introducing a reference to the PoT where it doesn't belong. Take this statement. You are implying that the ball has crossed the PoT. By your reckoning if the ball had not crossed the PoT he (jumping player) would have put the ball in touch.

You are introducing the PoT where it is not needed. You are making it more difficult than it has to be. Start again from scratch.

1. When a ball, played by a player in the field of play, goes to touch that player is deemed to have put the ball into touch.

2. When a player leaps from the field of play to play the ball he is deemed to be in the field of play until he lands in touch.

See? We've removed the invisible plane of touch from the equation.

Christy
25-09-17, 13:09
hi chris r
i have replied { not argued } in green
so it will stand out .



From Christy post 15:
2) if player with both feet in field of play attempts to catch a ball which has crossed touch line .
But he only manages to touch or slap ball & ball did not make it back into field of play
= law says its still his line out as he did not qualify to take possesion .

3 ) if ball is in air hanging over touch line & player jumps from field of play & is himself over touch line in the air .
A) if he gets ball back into field of play before he lands on ground = play on ( providing it doesnt re enter field of play from a knock or throw forward as that is a scrum to opposition )
B) if he again jumps out of field of play & whilst in air touches ball / catches ball / juggles ball / kick ball . ...if the ball does not re enter field of play = its still his line out ( even if he throws ball forward ) .

Christy, please reference law that supports this.
​can you show me 1 that doesn't

The problem with your argument is that you are introducing a reference to the PoT where it doesn't belong. Take this statement. You are implying that the ball has crossed the PoT. By your reckoning if the ball had not crossed the PoT he (jumping player) would have put the ball in touch.
if a player caught the ball in field of play & took it out , of course he took it out .
if jumper took possession before ball crossed plain of touch & lands in touch .

You are introducing the PoT where it is not needed. You are making it more difficult than it has to be. Start again from scratch.

1. When a ball, played by a player in the field of play, goes to touch that player is deemed to have put the ball into touch.
correct , once ball hits the ground or a player with foot in touch on the ground , i dont believe i implied differently

2. When a player leaps from the field of play to play the ball he is deemed to be in the field of play until he lands in touch.
no , he is simply allowed to in mid flight over touch line , make contact with a ball
and keep it alive if he gets it back into field of play . { before he hits the deck }
he doesn't take owner ship of same by doing so
PLEASE CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS HE DOES .

See? We've removed the invisible plane of touch from the equation.
SEE , YOU HAVE REMOVED THE PLANE OF TOUCH FROM THE EQUATION ...

im simply letting you know what we were told ,
its not in law book granted , but a lot of rules in law book are now incorrect , due to law changes

chbg
25-09-17, 14:09
hi chris r
i have replied { not argued } in green
so it will stand out .


No it doesn't!

ChrisR
25-09-17, 16:09
Christy, I think that we can agree that Law 19 could do with a tune up and remove some of the ambiguity.

I'm choosing my line of reasoning because a. I believe it to be supported in law and b. because it reduces the decision making down to this: Was the player who last contacted the ball standing in (or leaping from) the field of play?

Your reasoning demands that you judge that a. had the ball crossed the plane of touch and b. did he catch it (or attempt to catch with a bobble).

The player must judge risk against reward. It makes absolute sense to try to play an opponents PK for touch back into play. It makes no sense to try to do that to an opponents general play kick from in front of his 22 (Yes, there is one exception). In the second example you'll not get sympathy from me if you try, fail and give the ops the throw where you played it into touch.

Christy
25-09-17, 22:09
If player (outside his 22) jumps over touchline and knocks the ball backwards such the ball lands inside his 22, has he taken it back?

There may be several answers depending on your view of the concept of an imaginary extension of the 22 past the touchline.

For me , i would say yes , taken back .
If the ball was in front of 22 before it gets knocked backwards inside 22 .

Similar to line out , crosses touch line out side 22 .
Player decides to do a quick throw between where ball should of been thrown in & his own goal line .
If he throws in lets say 10 meters from his goal line quickly , as he is allowed , providing line out conditions not yet met .
If his team mate then kick out on full ,,the opposition line out would come all way back to where ball was kickec .

ChrisR
26-09-17, 12:09
If player (outside his 22) jumps over touchline and knocks the ball backwards such the ball lands inside his 22, has he taken it back?

There may be several answers depending on your view of the concept of an imaginary extension of the 22 past the touchline.

If you are refereeing to the 'plane of touch' then you'd also be refereeing to the 'plane of 22'. Good luck on making that call.

I'd make the call based on where did he leap from and where did the ball land. In your scenario he took it back.

It does raise another question. If the ball lands behind (goal-side) of the 22 but in touch, where is the line of touch? Where the ball lands (my choice) or where the referee thinks it crossed the PoT?

chbg
26-09-17, 19:09
It does raise another question. If the ball lands behind (goal-side) of the 22 but in touch, where is the line of touch? Where the ball lands (my choice) or where the referee thinks it crossed the PoT?

Which will lead to a kick-fest, and less time in play, as players punt the ball as far as possible with little care where the ball crosses the TL, because that gains them certain significant ground.

VM75
26-09-17, 19:09
That's the point , I couldn't tell which side of the plane it was...


I gave the lineout to black.

If it's not C&O then go with your gut - who can argue with that 'FACT' , this change is for pro games with AR's who straddle the line, & IMO is much better than having a guy stretching a stride 1.5m to take a ball out that wasn't going to be so.

ChrisR
27-09-17, 12:09
Which will lead to a kick-fest, and less time in play, as players punt the ball as far as possible with little care where the ball crosses the TL, because that gains them certain significant ground.

Yes, I was only thinking of the situation where a player attempts to knock it back into the FoP but fails. Change my choice to where the player who last played the ball stood or leaped from.

- - - Updated - - -


Which will lead to a kick-fest, and less time in play, as players punt the ball as far as possible with little care where the ball crosses the TL, because that gains them certain significant ground.

Yes, I was only thinking of the situation where a player attempts to knock it back into the FoP but fails. Change my choice to where the player who last played the ball stood or leaped from.

ChuckieB
27-09-17, 13:09
Yes, I was only thinking of the situation where a player attempts to knock it back into the FoP but fails. Change my choice to where the player who last played the ball stood or leaped from.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I was only thinking of the situation where a player attempts to knock it back into the FoP but fails. Change my choice to where the player who last played the ball stood or leaped from.

A welcome change of tune in my opinion.

ChrisR
28-09-17, 12:09
Christy, you've posted that "simply letting you know what I've been told".

I assume that comes from a training session and/or society meeting. Did that come down in a formal communique or was it a local decision?

Christy
28-09-17, 13:09
Christy, you've posted that "simply letting you know what I've been told".

I assume that comes from a training session and/or society meeting. Did that come down in a formal communique or was it a local decision?

hi chris r
yes came from a society meeting .

ChrisR
28-09-17, 14:09
I submitted the following question to RFU Laws, USA Laws and SA Referees:

"A player leaps from the field of play in an attempt to play a ball back into the field of play.
He makes contact with the ball but the ball falls in touch.
Is that player then responsible for putting the ball into touch?"

That's about as neutral as I can pose it. Let's see where it goes.

crossref
28-09-17, 14:09
My expectation is that two out the three responses will reference whether the ball has passed the plane when he knocks it, but one of them will focus on the position of the player's feet

Good question . Interesting to see what comes back

Sooner or later World Rugby need to have a hot line

Lee Lifeson-Peart
28-09-17, 14:09
My expectation is that two out the three responses will reference whether the ball has passed the plane when he knocks it, but one of them will focus on the position of the player's feet

Good question . Interesting to see what comes back Sooner or later World Rugby need to have a hot line


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJu23YZBpw

ChrisR
28-09-17, 14:09
Thanx LLP. Now I have a video I can't play coz I live on dial-up. But . . . the phone is red, that looks like the presidential seal, I see "Flint Hotline" so it must be a humorous (it's from LLP) clip about people getting poisoned by their water and getting no help from the Feds.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
28-09-17, 17:09
Flint Derek as opposed to Flint Michigan.

ChrisR
28-09-17, 18:09
I need to get out more. Had no idea who Derek Flint is. Maybe Netflix.

didds
28-09-17, 21:09
I had to google him too.,

The fact that he appears to have been invented in 1965, in a major film studio, and has never made any impact on my memory seems to suggest it was an abject failure of a project/franchise/series...

didds

ChrisR
04-10-17, 11:10
Crossref, you are halfway there. From USA Rugby:

"You hint at, but don't state explicitly, the key point in this scenario.....that is, had the ball crossed the plane of the touch line before it was played by the player who jumped?

If the ball did cross the plane of touch first, then the player who last played it in the field-of-play is responsible.

If the ball had not yet crossed the plane of touch, then the player who jumped and touched it is responsible."

Haven't heard from RFU Laws yet and the SAReferees will take about a month.

Dickie E
05-10-17, 01:10
Doesn't this from WR answer the question?

The process used to decide who has taken the ball into touch changes for 2017. Previously whether
the ball was rolling or stopped was relevant, now the question is: did the ball reach the plane? 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.

ChuckieB
05-10-17, 10:10
Crossref, you are halfway there. From USA Rugby:

"You hint at, but don't state explicitly, the key point in this scenario.....that is, had the ball crossed the plane of the touch line before it was played by the player who jumped?

If the ball did cross the plane of touch first, then the player who last played it in the field-of-play is responsible.

If the ball had not yet crossed the plane of touch, then the player who jumped and touched it is responsible."

Haven't heard from RFU Laws yet and the SAReferees will take about a month.


So, USA Rugby have effectively set aside your own interpretation, which is essentially as follows, if I read you correctly?

A player leaping from the field of play and failing to get it back into the FOP is deemed to have taken it into touch.
A player leaping from touch and being unsuccessful at keeping it in play is not deemed to have taken it into touch.
The PoT does not come in play in these circumstances.

I see it as being much easier to see where the player has started from, as compared to where the ball is, i.e. which side of the plane, when that player touches it. So much merit in your ineterpretaion.

Wait and see now on other responses!

ChrisR
05-10-17, 11:10
Doesn't this from WR answer the question?

The process used to decide who has taken the ball into touch changes for 2017. Previously whether
the ball was rolling or stopped was relevant, now the question is: did the ball reach the plane? 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.

Actually, no. That bit from WR refers to a ball caught or picked up by a player in touch. Therefore the ball is in touch. The scenario under discussion is where the ball is still in play.

I think the first question to be answered is this: Prior to the 2017 law change if a player, standing in the field of play, attempted to catch a ball but failed and the ball fell into touch was he deemed to have put the ball in touch? I can't recall the 'plane of touch' ever being brought into play but I may well be wrong on that.

This is an important point because the 2017 law change only addresses a player with a foot in touch and should not implicitly change other laws.

Dickie E
05-10-17, 11:10
Actually, no. That bit from WR refers to a ball caught or picked up by a player in touch. Therefore the ball is in touch. The scenario under discussion is where the ball is still in play.



So ball hasn't crossed plane of touch and player is in FoP. What's the question?

crossref
05-10-17, 11:10
the question was a leaping player, who leaps and while in the air knocks the ball which falls in touch.

- does it matter which side of the line the player leaps from and/or which side he lands?
- or is it the case that the only thing that matters is which side of the plane does the knock happen ?

(I think it's all about the plane)

ChrisR
05-10-17, 13:10
So ball hasn't crossed plane of touch and player is in FoP. What's the question?

Not quite. The player is in the FoP or jumps from the FoP, attempts to play the ball back into the FoP but the ball falls in touch. Does it matter whether the ball has crossed the plane of touch or not?

To answer that question we have to answer this one first: Prior to the 2017 law change if a player, standing in the field of play, attempted to catch a ball but failed and the ball fell into touch was he deemed to have put the ball in touch? I can't recall the 'plane of touch' ever being brought into play but I may well be wrong on that.

ChrisR
06-10-17, 12:10
SAReferees (http://www.sareferees.co.za/ref-replies/duty-ref-539--jaco-van-heerden/2829678/) answered.

Question: A player leaps from the field of play in an attempt to play a ball back into the field of play. He makes contact with the ball but the ball falls in touch. Is that player then responsible for putting the ball into touch?
Jaco van Heerden: Hi Chris
This happens quite often. The plane of touch is the key here. If the ball has crossed the plane of touch, then the player is not responsible for touch, conversely if the ball has not cross the plane then the player is responsible for touch.
Good question!
Jaco
OK, crossref etc. two out of three going your way. RFU Laws hasn't responded yet.

didds
06-10-17, 13:10
and as a ref 30+ metres away at an angle to the PoT, reliant on a squad substitute as TJ who doesn't understand this stuff anyway and is probably not concentrating either, you can make thius call?

Good luck guys. I really, honestly feel fro you

didds

ChuckieB
06-10-17, 13:10
SAReferees (http://www.sareferees.co.za/ref-replies/duty-ref-539--jaco-van-heerden/2829678/) answered.

Question: A player leaps from the field of play in an attempt to play a ball back into the field of play. He makes contact with the ball but the ball falls in touch. Is that player then responsible for putting the ball into touch?
Jaco van Heerden: Hi Chris
This happens quite often. The plane of touch is the key here. If the ball has crossed the plane of touch, then the player is not responsible for touch, conversely if the ball has not cross the plane then the player is responsible for touch.
Good question!
Jaco
OK, crossref etc. two out of three going your way. RFU Laws hasn't responded yet.


You made a compelling case. Not looking good though!

That an elite ref recognises it happens quite often, perhaps WR should include such clarification when they finalise the amendment.

ChrisR
06-10-17, 14:10
The elite refs have ARs to make that call. As didds points out, good luck making that call.

What surprised me on this thread was the non-response to this question:

Prior to the 2017 law change: If a player, standing in the field of play, attempted to catch a ball but failed and the ball fell into touch was he deemed to have put the ball in touch? I can't recall the 'plane of touch' ever being brought into play but I may well be wrong on that.
That's an 'old laws' question that should have an answer.

That's a laws question that should have an answer and it impacts on this thread.

ChrisR
11-10-17, 12:10
Got the answer from Laws@rfu.com. Same as USA Rugby and SAReferees. The outcome of a player in the FoP attempting to play the ball, but having it go to touch, depends on the position of the ball relative to the LoT. If the referee judges that the ball had not crossed the Po T then the receiving player put it to touch.

I'm disappointed that these august bodies don't share my insight into the Laws and how they can be effectively applied.

So here is the next question: A player in the FoP, or leaping from the FoP, attempts to catch/play the ball but knocks it forward into touch. You judge that when he played the ball that the ball had crossed the plane of touch. Do you order a lineout to that player's team or a scrum to the opponents for the knock-on?

Phil E
11-10-17, 13:10
Got the answer from Laws@rfu.com. Same as USA Rugby and SAReferees. The outcome of a player in the FoP attempting to play the ball, but having it go to touch, depends on the position of the ball relative to the LoT. If the referee judges that the ball had not crossed the Po T then the receiving player put it to touch.

I'm disappointed that these august bodies don't share my insight into the Laws and how they can be effectively applied.


I suspect they may be disappointed that a referee does not share their stated application of the laws?

ChrisR
11-10-17, 13:10
Nah, they don't give a shit. And my refereeing days are behind me and I'm now just a lowly coach.

ChrisR
17-10-17, 12:10
Just had another thought on this (do I hear a collective groan?).

What if the Red player in the FoP (or leaping from the FoP) bats the ball, kicked by Blue, and it goes forward and lands in touch?

If you deem the ball to have crossed the plane of touch when Red plays it is it then a Line-out to Red (ball played to touch by Blue) or a scrum to Blue (knock-on by Red)?

ChuckieB
17-10-17, 14:10
Just had another thought on this (do I hear a collective groan?).

What if the Red player in the FoP (or leaping from the FoP) bats the ball, kicked by Blue, and it goes forward and lands in touch?

If you deem the ball to have crossed the plane of touch when Red plays it is it then a Line-out to Red (ball played to touch by Blue) or a scrum to Blue (knock-on by Red)?

If it's in touch, it's in touch as the ball has crossed the plane and the ball is dead. Of course you don't know for sure until the leaping player (1) then himself lands in touch (2) thereby confirming it is in touch (3) by which point he might have also knocked it forward (4). 4 comes before 3, yet gets ignored!

....Good Grief!

ChrisR
17-10-17, 23:10
If it's in touch, it's in touch as the ball has crossed the plane and the ball is dead. Of course you don't know for sure until the leaping player (1) then himself lands in touch (2) thereby confirming it is in touch (3) by which point he might have also knocked it forward (4). 4 comes before 3, yet gets ignored!

....Good Grief!

No, the ball is not dead. Crossing the plane doesn't make it dead. It has to land in touch or contact a player/object in touch. (Consider a ball kicked into the wind that crosses the plane and gets blown back).

The player who plays the ball is not in touch until he lands there so it is still a live ball when he knocks on.

If a player, in the playing area knocks a ball (that has not crossed the plane) forward and it lands in touch it is still a knock-on. Or, does it have to land in the field of play and then go into touch. In either case the opponents get a choice of scrum or lineout.

So, what is it?

ChuckieB
18-10-17, 00:10
No, the ball is not dead. Crossing the plane doesn't make it dead. It has to land in touch or contact a player/object in touch. (Consider a ball kicked into the wind that crosses the plane and gets blown back).

The player who plays the ball is not in touch until he lands there so it is still a live ball when he knocks on.

If a player, in the playing area knocks a ball (that has not crossed the plane) forward and it lands in touch it is still a knock-on. Or, does it have to land in the field of play and then go into touch. In either case the opponents get a choice of scrum or lineout.

So, what is it?

I did say you won't know for sure until he lands!

ChrisR
18-10-17, 12:10
Why does it matter where the player lands after he has played the ball?

OB..
18-10-17, 14:10
Why does it matter where the player lands after he has played the ball?
Some argue that if jumping from touch, you remain in touch until you land in the FoP, and vice versa.

crossref
18-10-17, 15:10
The Law makes no logical sense, so I don't think we can make reliable inferences to cover any scenario that is not expressly covered.

Let's at the answer that SARefs, USARefs and RFU, all gave, consistently to ChrisR, and look at the the specific case --

- blue kick the ball
- red player leaps from FoP
- ball crosses the plane
- red player bats it backwards and the ball lands..

1 - if ball lands in touch then all three unions agreed BLUE put it there, by kicking it over the plane
2 - but if the ball lands in the FoP then, somehow, despite blue kicking it over the plane, it was never in touch at all .... play on (Law Amendment Trial - see L19 defintions)

So after red bats the ball, the ball is in a twilight zone, it might be in touch, it might not be in touch, it depends where it lands..
and if it lands in touch then ... despite red being the last person to play it it's going to be a red line out.


So from this I would suggest that the Law makes no sense and for any particular scenario not explicitly covered in the Law or in a WR judgement, we can't really know the answer for sure.

ChuckieB
18-10-17, 15:10
Some argue that if jumping from touch, you remain in touch until you land in the FoP, and vice versa.
It remains an argument as regards the jumping from touch because sadly the law is silent on that one.

Phil E
18-10-17, 15:10
and if it lands in touch then ... despite red being the last person to play it it's going to be a red line out.


Which bit of law says that?

The new bit of law about who gets the lineout (depending on which side of the plane the ball is caught) only applies if the ball is caught or held.

The law doesn't mention some bits of your scenario so we are still in the dark, but your assumptions are not all correct.

crossref
18-10-17, 15:10
Which bit of law says that?


this is the question that ChrisR asked to SARefs, USARugby and the RFU (see posts 39, 46, 50 above, do keep up, Phil!) all gave the same answer -- here's SARefs as it is on-line


SAReferees (http://www.sareferees.co.za/ref-repl...erden/2829678/) answered.

Question: A player leaps from the field of play in an attempt to play a ball back into the field of play. He makes contact with the ball but the ball falls in touch. Is that player then responsible for putting the ball into touch?
Jaco van Heerden: Hi Chris
This happens quite often. The plane of touch is the key here. If the ball has crossed the plane of touch, then the player is not responsible for touch, conversely if the ball has not cross the plane then the player is responsible for touch.
Good question!
Jaco

NB - see above RFU gave the same answer, and I know you won't claim they got it wrong.

Phil E
18-10-17, 16:10
this is the question that ChrisR asked to SARefs, USARugby and the RFU (see posts 39, 46, 50 above, do keep up, Phil!) all gave the same answer -- here's SARefs as it is on-line

NB - see above RFU gave the same answer, and I know you won't claim they got it wrong.

Yes I understand that (despite your sarcasm), but I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


So after red bats the ball, the ball is in a twilight zone, it might be in touch, it might not be in touch, it depends where it lands..
The ball is always in this twilight zone because it's not in touch until it touches something or someone in touch.
If the ball is 100 feet up in the air we can't decide if it's in touch or not until it comes down. It's the same if its 1 foot in the air.

crossref
18-10-17, 16:10
the point I am making is that the Law, as explained by RFU et al doesn't make sense

- blue kick the ball
- red player leaps from FoP
- ball crosses the plane
[ball is now in twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- red player bats it backwards ....
still in the twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- it lands in touch

Despite red being the last person to play it it's going to be (per RFU, SARefs, USARugby) a red line out.

I don't think that makes sense - do you ?

Phil E
18-10-17, 16:10
the point I am making is that the Law, as explained by RFU et al doesn't make sense

- blue kick the ball
- red player leaps from FoP
- ball crosses the plane
[ball is now in twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- red player bats it backwards ....
still in the twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- it lands in touch

Despite red being the last person to play it it's going to be (per RFU, SARefs, USARugby) a red line out.

I don't think that makes sense - do you ?


There are lots of pieces of law that don't make sense to me.
I try not to worry about them, just apply them.

I am a referee not a lawmaker.

ChrisR
18-10-17, 19:10
Which bit of law says that?

The new bit of law about who gets the lineout (depending on which side of the plane the ball is caught) only applies if the ball is caught or held.

The law doesn't mention some bits of your scenario so we are still in the dark, but your assumptions are not all correct.

This is a critical point. As crossref noted all three bodies that I sent the question to referenced the plane of touch when determining who put the ball in touch when the ball is played, but not caught, and it falls in touch.

Personally, I think they are digging a hole for themselves, and for their referees, by incorporating the plane of touch into the decision making. I'm sending this follow-up question to all three:

Blue kicks toward touch. Red, leaping from the playing area attempts to play the ball that has crossed the plane of touch. The ball bounces off his hands towards the opponent’s goal. If the ball lands in the playing area it will be a knock-on. What if the ball lands in touch?

Is it a line-out to Red as the ball, having crossed the plane of touch before it was played, was put into touch by Blue. Or is it a scrum to Blue for the Red knock-on as the ball was still in play when last touched by Red?

crossref
18-10-17, 19:10
I hope they will say lineout to red, as that's consistent with their answer to your previous question

ChrisR
18-10-17, 20:10
If a player in the playing area knocks on and the ball flies directly to touch (not landing in the FoP rolling) do you offer a choice of LO or scrum?

crossref
18-10-17, 20:10
If a player in the playing area knocks on and the ball flies directly to touch (not landing in the FoP rolling) do you offer a choice of LO or scrum?

I do.

And I see your point precisely - consistency with that would lead to an answer to the qu of the same - scrum/line to blue.
but consistency with their answer to your other qu is lineout red.

they have boxed themselves into a bit of a corner...

ChrisR
18-10-17, 21:10
Xactly, Zachary

. . . and all because someone didn't like a player reaching a foot over to the touch line as he caught the ball . . .

Dickie E
18-10-17, 21:10
So after red bats the ball, the ball is in a twilight zone, it might be in touch, it might not be in touch, it depends where it lands..


Now Schrödinger has a cat, plates ... and a ball!
3630

Pinky
19-10-17, 18:10
the point I am making is that the Law, as explained by RFU et al doesn't make sense

- blue kick the ball
- red player leaps from FoP
- ball crosses the plane
[ball is now in twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- red player bats it backwards ....
still in the twilight zone, might end up in touch, might not]
- it lands in touch

Despite red being the last person to play it it's going to be (per RFU, SARefs, USARugby) a red line out.

I don't think that makes sense - do you ?

i'm happy with this because red only was the last person to play the ball after it had crossed the plane of touch and that is in touch unless it is played by a player in the fop or in the air having jumped from the fop and the ball is actually returned to the fop, when it is play on and decision about whether it is KO or not is appropriate. If the ball does not make it back into the fop then it is touch and a red lineout. For me red playing only matters if the ball is returned to the fop by the red player before he lands in touch.

ChrisR
19-10-17, 20:10
A quick response from USA Rugby:

"That would be lineout to red as the ball had crossed the plane of the touchline and was not returned to the playing area, which is the only way that particular trial amendment is in effect."

Now there's a thought.