Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: another touch incident ...

      
  1. #21

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks (Received)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    725

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    what an effing mess . Is Humphrey Appleby on the law writing committee?

    when "they" sat aroudn a table, disucssing it all... did nobody honestly think about the scenario of STARTING in touch and LANDING in the FoP? because it seems to me that they cannot have. Do "these people" actually THINK about what they are doing? Don;t they involve refs, coaches, players etc ?

    didds

  2. #22
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,064
    Thanks (Received)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    146

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    It is a well known flaw with getting Subject Matter Experts to describe things they really understand well.
    Something I see a lot of at work - drafting standards documents.

    When you have ideas at your fingertips, it is very hard to spot that you have failed to cover a something - as you know the answer anyway.
    So you really need someone who can cold read and spot the gaps.

    I would invite someone from say Hockey to read the draft and see if they understand it.
    And also hire a professional technical editor to look at the English and structure.

    In the minute chance anyone from the IRB read this - PM me and I can introduce you to people who would do the job well.

  3. #23
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,969
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    254

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    Sorry crossref, I hadn't played the clip (working on dial-up so only play clips if I can get some WiFi) so I didn't fully understand the question.

    The following was deleted from the 2016 Law 19 definitions to make 'room' for the 'leaping from the field of play' change.

    "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."

    Note that there is no reference to from whence he jumped or the plane of touch.
    I had, 2016 and prior, always believed (and coached) that players could jump from touch and catch the ball if they landed in the FoP based on the above definition. On ops PKs always wanted a player in touch for that purpose. Truth is it almost never happened.

    Now I'm pretty sure that because the new definitions specifically state "from the playing area" then I would expect the player jumping fom touch to be considered 'in touch' until he lands in the field of play.

    My sentiments are with the "Play on!" folks who want to reward athletic feats of positive play.
    Last edited by ChrisR; 17-10-17 at 06:10.

  4. #24

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks (Received)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    725

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    I have seen a similar scenario PK'd for entering the FoP without the referee's permission .... 1989, Frankfurt Eintracht RFC!

    didds

  5. #25

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    13,979
    Thanks (Received)
    90
    Likes (Received)
    1232

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    when "they" sat aroudn a table, disucssing it all... did nobody honestly think about the scenario of STARTING in touch and LANDING in the FoP? because it seems to me that they cannot have. Do "these people" actually THINK about what they are doing? Don;t they involve refs, coaches, players etc ?

    didds
    I think the problem is that they always tinker with the Law just trying to fix one specific 'problem' they have identified. Better to throw out all the text that defines touch and start again

  6. #26
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,969
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    254

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    My guess is this: 'Somebody' didn't like that a player with one foot in touch could catch a ball that would have landed in the playing area and so deem the ball in touch and the kicking team responsible for putting it there. 'Somebody' else liked the idea that a player who leaped from the playing area could bat a ball back in the playing area that was otherwise going to land in touch.

    So, without further ado and no thought for the consequences, the trial laws appear and the referee of the day is supposed to figure out all the anomalies and exceptions. At least those reading these posts can have a running start at how they might rule on those scenarios not covered explicitly in Law.

  7. #27

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,763
    Thanks (Received)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    725

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I think the problem is that they always tinker with the Law just trying to fix one specific 'problem' they have identified. Better to throw out all the text that defines touch and start again
    yep.

    Start with what RL have. And stop there would do.

    didds

  8. #28
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    NRB
    Grade
    IRB level 1
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    548
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    112

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    I have always thought of touch as a bit like offside: a player's in touch only when they touch the touchline or outside, and remain in touch until they get themselves out of touch by placing a foot in the FoP (without any contact with touch). So a player in touch can only knock/bat a ball that's over the FoP back into play, and other contact means in touch.

    So practically I'd have called the ambiguous OP case as touch, but in line with the philosophy of the new rule changes I can see the ref's decision on the day.

  9. #29
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,969
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    254

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    . . . . and do away with line outs?

  10. #30

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    306
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    29

    Default Re: another touch incident ...

    For me, a player coming from off the FoP is not in the FoP until they have contact with it, so jumping from outside to in, the player is still "out" until they make contact with their foot (provided they aren't still in contact the line, etc, etc).

    Netball does this rule well. A player who starts from on-court is considered on court until any part of their body touches the off court area. Conversely, a player who is off court is not considered on court until their foot touches the floor on-court (with no other part still touching the off court area). The position of the ball is not important and this makes it much easier for an umpire to judge when a throw in should occur. Last night at state league trials I had a girl who caught the ball while on her toes, leaning over the line and the ball half a meter or more outside the plane of the line.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •