[Law] I hate these weird touch scenarios !

Christy

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#21

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
 
Last edited:

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#23
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#24
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

Player or Coach
#25
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#26
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

Player or Coach
#27
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

Player or Coach
#28
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

Rugby Club Member
#29
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

Player or Coach
#30
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#31
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

Player or Coach
#32
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#33
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#34
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
[video=youtube;EaJu23YZBpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJu23YZBpw[/video]
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#35
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.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#38
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

Player or Coach
#39
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

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#40
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.