[Law] Is this a kick to touch or a knock-on ? The answer surprised many !

CrouchTPEngage

Slowing down these days
#1
Blue 15, 1 metre outside his own 22, kicks to touch. The ball travels in the air towards Red 15 who is standing over the touchline, one foot in touch, the other foot in the field of play near the his own 10m line.
He attempts to catch the ball in the air as it reaches directly over the touch-line. He messes up the catch and knocks on the ball forward into the field of play.

What's the decision ?
NB - This question was presented at a recent regional meeting and the official answer was a surprise to many.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#2
2. The ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if:
c. A player, who is in touch, kicks or knocks the ball, but does not hold it, provided it has not reached the plane of touch.


as the ball is "directly over the touch-line" it is in touch and has been put there, on the full, by the kicking team. Lineout to Red 1 metre outside Blue 22.
 

CrouchTPEngage

Slowing down these days
#3
Sadly, the answer given to us by our regional coach was : You award the knock-on (or at least advantage for the knock-on).
Personally, I don't get why this answer makes sense and was hoping someone else could explain it to me.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#4
Sadly, the answer given to us by our regional coach was : You award the knock-on (or at least advantage for the knock-on).
Personally, I don't get why this answer makes sense and was hoping someone else could explain it to me.
it would make a difference if the ball hadn't reached plane of touch or if player was lunging (feet off ground) to knock the ball back into FoP.

But the OP is no different to if the catcher was 15 metres in touch and attempted to catch the ball. Nonsensical to call that a knock-on.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#5
It all depends on whether the ball has reached the plane of touch.
If it had, lineout red
If it hadn't , scrum blue

NB Red would NOT have been attempting to catch the ball, as under the new law that would given the lineout to Blue

If you are reffing on your own with no AR you may well be unsure about the plane .. if so suggest that you assume it did reach the plane, so lineout to red
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#6
it would make a difference if the ball hadn't reached plane of touch or if player was lunging (feet off ground) to knock the ball back into FoP.

But the OP is no different to if the catcher was 15 metres in touch and attempted to catch the ball. Nonsensical to call that a knock-on.
I somewhat disagree. If I were the AR and had a good view...to me it may not have been clear and obvious that it had crossed the plane of touch and so Im more inclined to think the easier sell and more obvious call to everybody when the wanna be catcher f@cks it up is not to reward the catcher and call a knock on. It would look more obvious that the catcher screwed up. If the catcher wanted to ensure they get the lineout they should have let it go (except from a PK kick of course).

I guess what im saying...it's a 50/50 call that i could accept goes either way depending on what was seen as crossed plane or not.
 
Last edited:

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#7
Given the player has one foot in the field of play - ball is not clearly beyond the plane of touch.

It is going to depend - but I can see why it might be a knock on.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#9
It doesn't really change it.
Except for those who like to think about whether players should be rewarded for stuff.

If he had one foot in touch and was trying to catch it, he was still using last season's Laws , so he was an idiot and, if you think that way, he shouldn't be rewarded.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#10
It doesn't really change it.
Except for those who like to think about whether players should be rewarded for stuff.

If he had one foot in touch and was trying to catch it, he was still using last season's Laws , so he was an idiot and, if you think that way, he shouldn't be rewarded.
Another reason you might make reference to the catcher is that he possibly best placed to know if the ball had reached the plane of touch.


If the catcher believes it has reached the POT (or will go straight out) and he will get both line out and the gain in ground back to just outside kicker's 22, then he could leave the ball alone for that reward.

If he thinks it could land in the field of play, then he should be catching it (albeit with both feet in the FOP).

So the fact he was trying to catch it suggests it had not clearly reached the plane of touch as, if it had, he would have left it alone.

I accept this is slightly flawed logic and assumes perfect knowledge of laws by players which is a bad assumption, but that is one explanation for considering the actions of the catcher.

I think the easier sell of the two sounds like knock on - it hasn't clearly and obviously reached the plane of touch but it was clearly and obviously knocked on.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#11
For me, I'd make a judgement about the plane, and if it was so close to the plane that I couldn't tell, I would have the lineout.
 

Christy

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#12
Blue 15, 1 metre outside his own 22, kicks to touch. The ball travels in the air towards Red 15 who is standing over the touchline, one foot in touch, the other foot in the field of play near the his own 10m line.
He attempts to catch the ball in the air as it reaches directly over the touch-line. He messes up the catch and knocks on the ball forward into the field of play.

What's the decision ?
NB - This question was presented at a recent regional meeting and the official answer was a surprise to many.
hi crouch . for me ..

i would say you have been mis in formed , or the question has been misrepresented to your self from your union .
regarding above scenario .

it makes no difference if a player has 1 foot in field & 1 foot out WHEN THE BALL HAS PASSED PLANE OF TOUCH .
the plane of touch is the inside edge of white line on field { regardless how thick line actually }

providing the ball has passed this edge , its clearly in touch & the kicker put it there = throw in to catcher . { regardless if it knocks back into field }

i would agree if the BALL HAS NOT PASSED plane of touch = knock on ..
 

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#13
All very true....but even an AR that has the very best view of the ball has to make a judgment call on that invisible plane...they have to judge in a nano second the ball 6-8 feet perpendicular away from the line whether it had crossed or not.
So the real question in the OP is..which is the better judgement call when it is a line ball 50/50 decision. For me...Im in the camp that it was not clear and obvious across the plane and so a knock on. It's probably the easier sell too.
 

Christy

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#14
i understand your fifty / fifty scenario ,, about having to make a choice .
fortunately all my calls have been clear cut as a ref & as an AR { thank god }

the confusion here is that crouch was told
if ball has crossed line of touch & catcher whilst ball is over line & catcher has 1 foot in & 1 out .
and knocks ball on , that this is now a knock on .

this goes against what law actually states .