[Line out] new touch laws

[Dickie E]

OK. So we have the new touch law that allows a player (let's say Blue) to dive from FoP into touch and knock the ball into FoP after being kicked (let's say by Red) & before it (the ball) hits the ground.

Questions:
1. what if, as he is attempting to knock the ball back into FoP, he knocks it forward, into FoP. Scrum Red?
2. what if, as he is attempting to knock the ball back into FoP, he knocks it forward, but its stays in touch. Scrum for knock on or lineout (whose throw)?
3. what if he knocks it backwards, but before it crosses plane of touch back into FoP it is intercepted & caught by a Blue team mate who is in touch. Lineout but whose throw?

 

[ChrisR]

Good work, Dickie E!

1. Yes. If no advantage played scrum Red where ball lands in FOP. The ball is not in touch as it never landed in touch.

2. Tricky one. two lines of thought: a. Scrum/lineout option to Red as the ball is not in touch until it lands in touch, last played and knocked on by Blue or b. Lineout Blue as ball crossed the plane of touch and lands in touch put there by Red and KO not rel.

3. Tricky one. a. Blue lineout if you apply the plane-of-touch then the ball was played into touch by Red or b. Lineout Red as ball last played by Blue before it hit player in touch.

Me? I HATE the stinking plane of touch! So I'd rather consider the ball in play until it hits/lands in touch. So if you dive to save the ball from touch you'd better get it back into the FOP or you'll charged with putting it into touch.

But that isn't the way it will be ruled in the new laws.

 

[beckett50]

OK. So we have the new touch law that allows a player (let's say Blue) to dive from FoP into touch and knock the ball into FoP after being kicked (let's say by Red) & before it (the ball) hits the ground.

Questions:
1. what if, as he is attempting to knock the ball back into FoP, he knocks it forward, into FoP. Scrum Red?
2. what if, as he is attempting to knock the ball back into FoP, he knocks it forward, but its stays in touch. Scrum for knock on or lineout (whose throw)?
3. what if he knocks it backwards, but before it crosses plane of touch back into FoP it is intercepted & caught by a Blue team mate who is in touch. Lineout but whose throw?

Oh boy!!

1. Yes
2. Line out Red - assuming the ball has crossed the plane of touch
3. Yes, Red throw.

IMO

 

[Dickie E]

For 1. i think Red scrum is correct

For 2. and 3. I guess the saving grace is that the dive and tap strategy really only makes sense when Red have a penalty kick for touch (in general play the Blue player may as well take the safer option and catch the ball and take a quick throw). So for a Red penalty, it is always going to be Red's throw into the lineout anyway.

 

[OB..]

1. The ball is not in touch. Law 12 is not restricted to the playing area - scrum Red.

2. [LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a player jumps from the playing area 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 [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/FONT][/LAWS]
Surely this can only mean that the ball is now in touch. The last person to touch it was Blue. Since it was knocked forward into touch, Red have a choice of lineout or scrum.

3. Whether it was caught by a team mate in touch or simply landed in touch does not matter - the ball is in touch in both cases. Last played by Blue, therefore Red lineout.

 

[Dickie E]

3. Whether it was caught by a team mate in touch or simply landed in touch does not matter - the ball is in touch in both cases. Last played by Blue, therefore Red lineout.

But we have this from WR:
[LAWS]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. [/LAWS]

Is it not reasonable to infer from this that once ball crosses PoT then Blue cannot have taken ball into touch?


Tell me, if a player reaches over touchline to catch a kick that has crossed plane of touch, and only manages to touch the ball and not catch it ... who has put ball into touch?

 

[ChrisR]

Yesterday that would have been the player who attempted the catch. Today it would be the kicker.

 

[Dickie E]

so it appears that we may have this situation. Ball kicked through plane of touch by Red then:

1. Blue player leans over touchline and gets fingertip to ball. Restart: Blue lineout

2. Blue player dives over touchline and gets fingertip to ball. Restart: Red lineout.

Quite odd.

 

[Rich_NL]

2. [LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a player jumps from the playing area 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 [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/FONT][/LAWS]
Surely this can only mean that the ball is now in touch. The last person to touch it was Blue. Since it was knocked forward into touch, Red have a choice of lineout or scrum.

If the ball does not return to the playing area, the "If" statement is not activated. Touch is not part of the playing area, so the ball hasn't returned there. In which case, the blue clause can only apply to the flight outwards, surely? It's a very confusing addition.

 

[OB..]

If the ball does not return to the playing area, the "If" statement is not activated. Touch is not part of the playing area, so the ball hasn't returned there. In which case, the blue clause can only apply to the flight outwards, surely? It's a very confusing addition.

For the ball to be "knocked back into" the playing area, it had to have left it initially. However if that happens, then the final phrase "regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch" is pointless. My original assumnption was therefore that the writer should have put "knocks the ball back towards the playing area".

On reflection I now think it makes more sense to assume it is the final phrase that is misleading. It should have read "regardless of whether the ball had crossed the plane of touch."

 

[ChuckieB]

Can't we just simplify our thinking and:

It is a two step consideration;

1. A player not in touch (by contact with the line or foot in contact outside) can only be the field of play, (Covers DB line/IG as well)
2. Until the ball is in touch by contact or in touch as a result of possession by someone in in touch (incorporates new catcher in possession clarification), it is in play.

Yes this does mean that a person standing out side the line of touch can from outside in to keep/knock an arial bll in. But what harm that as he is keepng the ball in play (which is what they wanted) and the vertical plane isn't relevant and hence, whether the the ball is moving or not, is also not relevant.

I am trying to be positive and see how the laws are right and the clarification is wrong because the original question was irrelevant and induced an answer that has caused some clear law contradictions around about a stationary vs moving in a separate law.

In touch is in touch. Assess who put it there, then consider if if was inside the vercial or outside FoP if it was catch so as to determine the restart.

Note a moving ball is irrelevant as a kick to touch that bunces before is not covered

Defender, "Step into touch at your peril. If you choose to keep the ball in play (law makers objective on this) and you succeed we commend you!

The only question then for me is then a kick thorough by the attacker. If the ball falls stationary even though he was hoping to keep it in play and a defender is able to have his foot in touch and pick it up. He gets possession. It then becomes an exception (doesn't increase the opportunities to keep the ball in play) but it's not against the laws. The laws will never be perfect in all respects but the amendments have generally increased the opportunities of ball remaining in open play.

 

[ChuckieB]

Good work, Dickie E!.......




........Me? I HATE the stinking plane of touch! So I'd rather consider the ball in play until it hits/lands in touch. So if you dive to save the ball from touch you'd better get it back into the FOP or you'll charged with putting it into touch.

....Exactly and even though the amendment added the vertical plane hassle that's what the amendment achieved up until the point someone asked a wrong (irrelevant question)! The Right answer would have been. "No.( and the thought why did you even ask?)."

I have mentioned this in more detail another thread.

 

[Dan_A]

I am trying to get my head round these amendments.

There are some example videos here:-
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=20

The second video on law 19 is the one that jumps out for me. A player standing with both feet in touch catches a ball from a kick but because the ball never reaches the plane of touch, the catcher is deemed to have taken it in. That seems really counter intuitive and v hard to spot at grass roots level?

 

[Phil E]

I am trying to get my head round these amendments.

There are some example videos here:-
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=20

The second video on law 19 is the one that jumps out for me. A player standing with both feet in touch catches a ball from a kick but because the ball never reaches the plane of touch, the catcher is deemed to have taken it in. That seems really counter intuitive and v hard to spot at grass roots level?

As far as coaching goes. Catch it well in touch, or just don't catch it at all if you want the lineout.
The idea (I think) is that if the ball is still in play (hasn't reached the plane) don't try and be clever, we want play to continue.

 

[didds]

I get that. But surely in the example given by Dan_A, it would be better to keep the game flowing if the catcher was able to then take a QTI with it, rather than let the ball bounce and roll away 20+m, to retrieve it, go through the farce of will-I-won't-I as kicking team players chase him up and down the touchline and then it ends in a lineout, which potentially isn't defended in the air and is OTT so ends up in the hands of the team that COULD have caught it and QTI'd.

Worst case scenario "as was" is that its a lineout to the catching team. And we get a lineout.

The "keep the game flowing" thing is surely just a smokecreen. it doesn't really stack up.

didds

 

[Phil E]

If he catches the ball in the field of play, or jumps and catches the ball and lands in the field of play, then we can play on.

What we don't want is a player stretching a leg into touch and catching the ball 2 or 3 feet inside the field of play...then getting a lineout. We want him to catch the ball and keep playing.

To be honest the example videos World Rugby have chosen aren't the best in many cases.

 

[OB..]

What we don't want is a player stretching a leg into touch and catching the ball 2 or 3 feet inside the field of play...then getting a lineout.

Ironically that was exactly what the IRB wanted when they introduced that variation. It was intended to stop the kick-fests that were proliferating. Kickers would try to bounce the ball just inside the touchline so as to get a gain in ground. The change forced kickers to try and land the ball significantly further infield.

We want him to catch the ball and keep playing.

Yes, but I hope we are not going to go round in circles on this one.

 

[Rich_NL]

I get that. But surely in the example given by Dan_A, it would be better to keep the game flowing if the catcher was able to then take a QTI with it

Umm... he can catch it and play on, which has the advantages of a QTI and none of the restrictions. The only time that's a disadvantage is if the chasing team has the skills/abilities to put him under pressure - if that's the case, he can step into touch for safety, but why penalise them by giving him the throw-in?

 

[ChrisR]

If he catches the ball in the field of play, or jumps and catches the ball and lands in the field of play, then we can play on.

What we don't want is a player stretching a leg into touch and catching the ball 2 or 3 feet inside the field of play...then getting a lineout. We want him to catch the ball and keep playing.

To be honest the example videos World Rugby have chosen aren't the best in many cases.

Who's "we", kemo-sabe? I preferred that a player could put a foot in touch and have the ball deemed 'kicked out'. Brought some smarts to the game and rarely happened.

When the ball comes in contact with an object or player that is in touch then the ball is in touch. Previously you just had to watch the catchers feet. Now you have to apply the invisible 'plane of touch'.

 

[Phil E]

When the ball comes in contact with an object or player that is in touch then the ball is in touch.

Really?
[LAWS]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball , but not hold it.... [/LAWS]

Previously you just had to watch the catchers feet. Now you have to apply the invisible 'plane of touch'.

You always had to watch the plane.
[LAWS]....provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.[/LAWS]