another touch incident ...

[Taff]

are you sure ? If he'd caught the ball a clear 1m beyond the touchline (and still landed in the FoP) you'd be OK with it?

I wouldn't put my house on it, but I'm pretty confident.

This is one of those scenarios where referees are trying to reward positive play.

If the ball is successfully returned to the field of play without him being in touch, it is play on regardless of whether it has crossed the plane of touch or not. Of that I am now clear. This example needs to go on the WR library of clips!

Exactly. As I understand it, this is what WR are after - if you can, keep the ball alive.

For me this is an error. Only players who jump from the field of play (ie ‘in-to-out’) can keep the ball in play. ‘Out-to-in’ players can only do so if the ball has not crossed plane of touch.

But why? Williams wasn't in touch (he was in the air) when he caught the ball. And by the time he landed, he was well in the FoP. Play on for me.

[OB..]

When is a jumping player deemed to be in touch?

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 regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.

That effectively means he is not in touch until he lands there. Conversely we would expect a player jumping from touch to be in touch until he lands in the FoP.

That appears not to be the case. This was such a deliberate technique it must have been designed and taught after consulting the refereeing gurus. The inference is that if you jump from touch and the ball has not reached the plane, it is play on. Moreover if it had reached the plane, the catcher was not the person who put it there. Win-win.

[Flish]

I'm with Elpablo73 here, my understanding of the intention of the law changes is to keep the ball in play, and reward positive play (conversely not rewarding negative play, such as sticking your leg into touch whilst catching the ball over the field of play), so for me yes, absolutely play on. Especially considering the risk of getting it wrong - play on.

The AR was in no mans land mind

[ChuckieB]

When is a jumping player deemed to be in touch?

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 regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.

That effectively means he is not in touch until he lands there. Conversely we would expect a player jumping from touch to be in touch until he lands in the FoP.

That appears not to be the case. This was such a deliberate technique it must have been designed and taught after consulting the refereeing gurus. The inference is that if you jump from touch and the ball has not reached the plane, it is play on. Moreover if it had reached the plane, the catcher was not the person who put it there. Win-win.

the laws make no reference to a player being in touch other than by reference to him having contact with the ball and being in contact with touch at the same time. As such, from a law perspective, that he is starts from beyond the touchline and is not in contact with the ball is just a "nothing". So it's play on in this case when he lands with the ball in the FoP.

[Blue Smartie]

First thing: I disagree that standing in touch to bat a ball back is the positive play that we are looking to reward. This is a team that has just offended and now get some to station players outside the playing area to deprive the non-offending team of a lineout option?

Secondly: a player in touch may knock a ball that has not crossed the plane = ball not in touch. Ergo a player in touch that knocks a ball that has crossed the plane = ball in touch. And the ball is in touch when it touches anyone beyond touch except: (a) if the player is standing in the field of play and catches it or (b) jumps from the field of play and knocks it back in.

[crossref]

ChrisR it's time to submit three follow up questions ...

[Taff]

When is a jumping player deemed to be in touch? ... That effectively means he is not in touch until he lands there. Conversely we would expect a player jumping from touch to be in touch until he lands in the FoP.

But hasn't that been the case for a while OB? My point is, if we play on when a player going into touch can offload the ball before he gets there, why change the law for this season?

[Pinky]

But hasn't that been the case for a while OB? My point is, if we play on when a player going into touch can offload the ball before he gets there, why change the law for this season?

Taff, I have always thought that the player in touch could only knock (or kick) the ball before it crossed the plane and that a player that had crossed the plane used to be regarded as in touch (until this year when there are limited circumstances where he can return the ball to play) and so it is not change for me to think that Williams efforts were exactly as OB suggested above, if he got the ball before it reached the plane, then fine to play on - that was the case anyway, and if it was adjudged that the ball had crossed the plane, then no downside.

[didds]

(conversely not rewarding negative play, such as sticking your leg into touch whilst catching the ball over the field of play)

Well, I'd consider doing that and gaining maybe 50m of territory for your team from a poorly controlled oppo kick pretty positive. I can assure you that that the guy that caught it's forwards are feeling pretty bloody positive!

And how is such a poorly made kick in itself "positive" instead?

Frankly, the alleged reasoning of this law change to encourage ball in play is a rather transparent excuse. I can't honestly see what was wrong with the old scenario that punished poor and ineffective kicking.

Its all much of a muchness - it was a change for the sake of change.
And certainly didn't come close to simplifying touch.

didds

didds

[Dickie E]

what an effing mess . Is Humphrey Appleby on the law writing committee?