SAReferees highlights continuing differences

Blue Smartie

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#1
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830633/

Discussed before but I just don't accept this interpretation and it merely highlights continuing differences in application at the top levels.

The "if he lands in touch the ball is in touch" part of the definition confirms that the ball is in touch; not who put it there.

For me this is taken into touch by the receiver every time.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#2
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830633/

Discussed before but I just don't accept this interpretation and it merely highlights continuing differences in application at the top levels.

The "if he lands in touch the ball is in touch" part of the definition confirms that the ball is in touch; not who put it there.

For me this is taken into touch by the receiver every time.
See all the threads and posts in this forum about how Law 19 is a complete and utter dog's breakfast of confusion, contradiction and and ambiguity.

Both views can be argued to be correct depending on the chain of logic you use to arrive at your confusion conclusion!
 
Last edited: