quick question

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#1
Red kick for touch from inside 22 and Blue leans over touch line (both feet in FoP) to catch the ball. He touches it but does not catch it. Whose throw?
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#2
Red kick for touch from inside 22 and Blue leans over touch line (both feet in FoP) to catch the ball. He touches it but does not catch it. Whose throw?

LBYC Summary, page 20

"If the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, touches a player
beyond the touch-line, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the
player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put
in-touch by the kicking team. "


I read this as not mattering where the player is, the player may be standing in the FoP, but the ball was outside the plane of the touchline when it touched him.

So, in your scenario, AIUI...

1. The Blue player catches the ball and throws it back into the FoP - play on
2. The Blue player bats the ball back into the FoP - play on
3. The Blue player attempts 1 or 2 above but only succeeds in touching the ball before it touches the ground - ball in touch by Red
 
Last edited:
#3
Red kick for touch from inside 22 and Blue leans over touch line (both feet in FoP) to catch the ball. He touches it but does not catch it. Whose throw?
Red throw.
The player who is in the FoP has knocked it out. Much the same principle as a touched in flight. 19.4.(a)

If instead he'd knocked the ball back into the FoP then tbe ball retains 'not out' status and its play on.

....IIUC
 
Last edited:

DrSTU

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#5
I'm with Ian on this. Ball has crossed POT already and law clearly says ball put in touch by kicking team.
LBYC Summary, page 20

"If the ball, which has crossed the plain-of-touch, touches a player
beyond the touch-line, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the
player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put
in-touch by the kicking team. "


I read this as not mattering where the player is, the player may be standing in the FoP, but the ball was outside the plane of the touchline when it touched him.

So, in your scenario, AIUI...

1. The Blue player catches the ball and throws it back into the FoP - play on
2. The Blue player bats the ball back into the FoP - play on
3. The Blue player attempts 1 or 2 above but only succeeds in touching the ball before it touches the ground - ball in touch by Red
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#6
.... and we're back to the very basic question of:

At the grassroots level of rugby, with biased and/or unreliable TJs, is a referee better able to judge whether a player, with feet on ground, is/isn't in touch or a ball in the air has/hasn't crossed the POT?

There is sufficient slack in the laws to come down on either side of this call so I'd rather rule on the most reliable evidence available and that would be the players feet on the ground rather than the ball in the air.
 
#7
Ball has crossed PoT already and law clearly says ball put in touch by kicking team.
Do you have a Law Reference Doc?

I'm looking at LBYC page 12

Player in FoP - Ball outside the PoT .... Then reversing the decision for the 'failed' recovery attempt.

This aligns with 19.4(a) &
. The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.


So, until blue touched it the ball wasn't in touch, then after he did it was ...he was last to play/touch the ball.

??
 
#8
.... and we're back to the very basic question of:

At the grassroots level of rugby, with biased and/or unreliable TJs, is a referee better able to judge whether a player, with feet on ground, is/isn't in touch or a ball in the air has/hasn't crossed the POT?

There is sufficient slack in the laws to come down on either side of this call so I'd rather rule on the most reliable evidence available and that would be the players feet on the ground rather than the ball in the air.
The OP isnt debating whether the ball is inside or outside the PoT.. He states its outside. So then its simply applying correct law .... Which is?
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#9
I'm with Ian on this. Ball has crossed POT already and law clearly says ball put in touch by kicking team.
I don't read the law that way.
If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.
If such a player can catch the ball or knock it back into play without it being in touch, then surely the ball is NOT put into touch just because he makes contact. Therefore he was the last person to play it before the ball landed in touch. Blue put it into touch, Red throw in..
 

DrSTU

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#10
As I read the original question.

Ball kicked by red

Ball crosses LOT

Blue player leaning across LOT touches the ball (either to catch it or flick it back in, we don't know, just that he touches it and fails to do either and the ball then touches the ground)

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline. So we know the ball is in touch and we also know the blue player wasn't carrying it.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area. So had the blue player been successful in tapping it back in, we all agree it's play on

So to answer the question I think this is necessary:

The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch. None of the other definitions cover the situation as we don't have a ball carrier, we don't have a flick back into play or catch, but we do have an player touching the ball after it's crossed the LOT, so I think that the ball crossing the touchline is where it went into touch.

I agree with the other scenarios but think the law is somewhat murkily clear that the ball can be a phantom in touch and not in touch depending on the outcome.
 
#11
As I read the original question.

Ball kicked by red

Ball crosses LOT

Blue player leaning across LOT touches the ball (either to catch it or flick it back in, we don't know, just that he touches it and fails to do either and the ball then touches the ground)

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline. So we know the ball is in touch and we also know the blue player wasn't carrying it.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area. So had the blue player been successful in tapping it back in, we all agree it's play on

So to answer the question I think this is necessary:

The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch. None of the other definitions cover the situation as we don't have a ball carrier, we don't have a flick back into play or catch, but we do have an player touching the ball after it's crossed the LOT, so I think that the ball crossing the touchline is where it went into touch.

I agree with the other scenarios but think the law is somewhat murkily clear that the ball can be a phantom in touch and not in touch depending on the outcome.

I'm more inclined to believe that Law was seeking to define as follows

The ball is in touch when :
A) ( it is not being carried by a player and ) it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

The bracketed wording (bracketed by me) adds very little to this definition IMO.

B) when it is carried by a player who touches the touchline or any area beyond the touchline whilst he has possession of it.
 
Last edited:

chrismtl

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/canada.pn
#12
I'd have to say Red throw. The ball was not in touch yet. Blue was in the field of play and had every right to reach over the touch line and play the ball, catch the ball, tap the ball back into the FOP. As an example, had he tapped the ball back into the FOP and then it bounced out, it would be a red throw.

I'll use Browner's post above to explain my way of seeing it.

The ball is in touch when :
A) ( it is not being carried by a player and ) it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline. By definition, the player is in the FOP, and therefore the ball is not yet in touch.

B) when it is carried by a player who touches the touchline or any area beyond the touchline whilst he has possession of it.

He never had possession of the ball. Merely dropped it. That means that the definition you would have to go back to in determining touch would be A) and it would only occur when the ball touched the ground in touch. Last player that touched it would be the Blue player. I'd treat it like a blocked kick.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#13
The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline. So we know the ball is in touch and we also know the blue player wasn't carrying it.
I think the logic there is flawed. There aer two criteria, oneof which is in two poarts:
(1) it is not being carried by a player (yes)
AND
(2) it touches
.....(a) the touchline (no)
.....OR
.....(b) anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline (no)

The only contact with the ball before it lands in touch is by the Blue player. You can only give the throw in to Red if you decide the Blue player was in touch. It makes little sense to say you only know if the Blue player was in touch by seeing what happened to the ball, and we are told that there are circumstances when the touch by Blue does not put the ball into touch. Therefore Blue was not in touch so neither was the ball until it landed after his contact. Red throw.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#14
As an aside: If Blue, standing in the FOP, attempts to catch but knocks the ball on into touch where is the mark for the optional Red scrum?
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#15
As an aside: If Blue, standing in the FOP, attempts to catch but knocks the ball on into touch where is the mark for the optional Red scrum?
Presumably 5m in from where he knocked it on - just the same as if the knock-on was 1cm in from the touchline
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#16
The Law on touch is so confusing, self-contradictory, ambiguous and downright poorly written that it is of no help whatsoever in this scenario. The issues for me are

1. DickieE is refereeing in Australia, so any RFU guidance or guidance from other National Unions is irrelevant. He will be using the ARU's Line Ball Your Call document

2. the Blue player isn't a ball carrier, so forget all those related scenarios.

3. the Blue player does not catch the ball, so forget all those scenarios,

4. the Blue player does not bat the ball back into the FoP, so forget all those scenarios

5. summary on in page LBYC states...

"If the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, touches a player
beyond the touch-line
, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the
player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put
in-touch by the kicking team. "


And even this is ambiguous. Does it refer to the player or the ball being beyond the touchline, i.e.

a. .....the ball touches a player (who is himself) beyond the touch-line.....

or

b. .....the ball touches a player (when it is) beyond the touch-line.....

both interpretations are equally valid and there is no way to determine which one is meant.
 
Last edited:

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
#17
The Law on touch is so confusing, self-contradictory, ambiguous and downright poorly written that it is of no help whatsoever in this scenario. The issues for me are

1. DickieE is refereeing in Australia, so any RFU guidance or guidance from other National Unions is irrelevant. He will be using the ARU's Line Ball Your Call document

2. the Blue player isn't a ball carrier, so forget all those related scenarios.

3. the Blue player does not catch the ball, so forget all those scenarios,

4. the Blue player does not bat the ball back into the FoP, so forget all those scenarios

5. summary on in page LBYC states...

"If the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, touches a player
beyond the touch-line
, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the
player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put
in-touch by the kicking team. "


And even this is ambiguous. Does it refer to the player or the ball being beyond the touchline, i.e.

a. .....the ball touches a player (who is himself) beyond the touch-line.....

or

b. .....the ball touches a player (when it is) beyond the touch-line.....

both interpretations are equally valid and there is no way to determine which one is meant.
Can you reconcile that with page 13 of LBYC?

Your argument suggests that the ball is in touch when the Blue player on that page first makes contact with the ball, but mircaulously ceases to be so when it returns to the field of play.

EDIT: It seems to me that recomciliation is only possible if you read the summary as referring to the player as being beyond the touch line, not the contact. That explains the wording "regardless of whether the player is on the ground or jumping in the air" far better than otherwise; equally the reference to the ball being beyond the plane of touch.
 
Last edited:

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#18
The Law on touch is so confusing, self-contradictory, ambiguous and downright poorly written that it is of no help whatsoever in this scenario. The issues for me are

1. DickieE is refereeing in Australia, so any RFU guidance or guidance from other National Unions is irrelevant. He will be using the ARU's Line Ball Your Call document
I agree with your first sentence and whilst I agree with your second sentence, I probably interpret the LBYC scenario differently in this case.
To back up my interpretation, I have consulted the flow chart in the back of the ARU AR course book (I have posted this chart previously on RR) and whilst it is slightly less "muddy" than LBYC, I would have to go with a red throw in.

View attachment 2970
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#19
Can you reconcile that with page 13 of LBYC?

Your argument suggests that the ball is in touch when the Blue player on that page first makes contact with the ball, but mircaulously ceases to be so when it returns to the field of play.

EDIT: It seems to me that recomciliation is only possible if you read the summary as referring to the player as being beyond the touch line, not the contact. That explains the wording "regardless of whether the player is on the ground or jumping in the air" far better than otherwise; equally the reference to the ball being beyond the plane of touch.
Well I reckon that is not at all as clear and you are suggesting. Each scenario should be intrinsically clear and not require reference to other scenarios in order to glean the correct meaning of the wording

To be honest, I don't really believe that what I suggested initially IS how it should be, only that it is possible to reach that conclusion because of the sloppy wording in both the Law and LBYC. FFS the latter document cannot even get the term "plane of touch" correct (they spelled it "plain of touch")

However, this from TheFat says it all IMO...

If ever there was an indication that the touch laws are too complicated then this tortuous path to the truth is it!!!

If it was down to me, I would change the touch laws completely.

FIRST: In the General Definitions, add three new definitions

LOOSE BALL: In General Play, a ball that is not in the possession or or being held by a player

HELD BALL: In General Play, a ball that is in the possession of or beiong held by a player
These would be useful onm other parts of the Law

OUT: A ball kicked, taken or put into touch is "out"

SECOND: Redefine what it means for a ball to be in touch and get rid of all the bollocks about moving and stationary balls, players jumping into and out of touch. Make it plain and simple so that every scenario can be resolved by one of only three possibilities (* below in my revised Definitions )

LAW 19 DEFINITIONS
‘Kicked directly out means that the ball was kicked out without landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee.

‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line.

The plane of touch is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline, the touch-in-goal line and the dead-ball line. If any part of the ball crosses or impinges on any part of this vertical space, then the ball has crossed the plane of touch.

The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.

*A Loose Ball is out when it crosses the plane of touch. The place where the ball crossed the plane of touch is where it went out. The last player to touch the ball before it crossed the plane of touch was responsible for putting the ball out.

*A Loose Ball that has not crossed the plane of touch is out if it touches a player who has any part of his body touching the touchline or the ground beyond. The place where the player touched the touchline is where the ball went out. That player is responsible for putting the ball out.

*A Held Ball is out when it, or a player holding it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball or the player holding it touched or crossed the touchline is where it went out.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

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.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline


Examples of the upshot of these changes:

1. Once a loose ball crosses the plane of touch, it is out. It cannot be batted back in. This means a ball which crosses the plane and then is blown back is "out in flight" (which is what the law used to be).

2. If a player jumps from the field of play and catches a loose ball before it crosses the plane of touch, he is now holding the ball, with all that this implies. If he now lands in touch (with or without the ball) then he put the ball out.

3. If a player jumps from the field of play and catches a loose ball after it has already crossed the plane of touch, and lands in touch (with or without the ball) the last player to touch the ball before him put the ball out.

4. If a player standing with either or both feet in touch picks up a ball on the ground (moving or stationary) then it is out, and that player was responsible.
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#20
Red kick for touch from inside 22 and Blue leans over touch line (both feet in FoP) to catch the ball. He touches it but does not catch it. Whose throw?
I had this exact thing happen in the 1st grade grand final I was AR and it was on my line....and my first thought was "oh sh!t! Whos throw is it again?!" thankfully my decision at that time was this.

I agree with your first sentence and whilst I agree with your second sentence, I probably interpret the LBYC scenario differently in this case.
To back up my interpretation, I have consulted the flow chart in the back of the ARU AR course book (I have posted this chart previously on RR) and whilst it is slightly less "muddy" than LBYC, I would have to go with a red throw in.

View attachment 2970
IMO it followed the outcome of the decision tree. Additionally I made the decision on the fact that the ball, although beyond the plane, was not in touch (as the wind could have blown back in) and it was the player in the FOP that touched it to put it to ground and therefore in touch.

At the time the player that I adjudged that had put it into touch had no issue with the call (god knows why he didn't just catch the ball while in touch and then went for the quick throw is beyond me? I expect he had no idea of the simple parts of the touch laws!

It was an item of discussion at the end of the game between the To6 and the ref, who has refereed super 12 and tier 2 tests, was happy with my decision (and that was good enough for me). My error though was the player reaching out had knocked the ball forward and I should have told the ref to give the kicking team the option of scrum or lineout. Oh well, close enough!