There is no concept of "plane of goal" in the laws.
I don't understand AG's reference to the "plane". The goalline per definition is part of the ingoal area.
He wasn't though, was he as he talks about the plane , which isn't relevant in Law .
What is relevant is : was the ball touching the line or not ?
If the ball was not in fact touching the line then AG got to the the right outcome , but for the wrong reasons..
In the following, I have highlighted the important words in red
Here are touch Law Trials introduced in 2017
[LAWS]DEFINITIONS
‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch 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 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.
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.
The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball)
touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the
ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into
touch.
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.
LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case , 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.[/LAWS]
And here is a Clarification, specifically asked for by the RFU in 2016 prior to their inclusion in the 2017 Laws
[LAWS]Clarification 5 2016
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Clarification 5-2016
Union / HP Ref ManagerRFU
Law Reference 19
Date19 December 2016
Request
We are seeking clarification that the changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) in the Global Law trials will also apply to the dead ball line. If this is not the case then there will be significant differences in outcome in the following circumstances:
How the game is restarted could depend on whether or not the ball was picked up by a player who had a foot over a touch in goal line or whether the players foot was over the dead ball line; and
Whether or not the ball is dead following a player returning the ball to the playing area could depend on whether the ball was over the touch in-goal line or dead ball line. The different outcome could lead to a try being awarded in one case and not in the other.
There is urgency to this request as the Global Law trial will commence in the Southern Hemisphere on 1st January 2017
Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19)
will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line.
Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.
To be applied from: As per global law trial implementation dates:
January 1, 2017 – Southern Hemisphere
July 1, 2017 – Northern Hemisphere[/LAWS]
Since the Clarification specifically states
"...the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line"...then I read that as them inferring there is indeed a
"plane of goal".
If the ball had come to a stop on the goalline and Jantjies had picked it up and dotted it down behind the goal line would the decision have been the same?
No.
From the video evidence, and because it didn't go to the TMO for more and better views, the ball stopped on the goalline, rocked back infield and then rocked back onto the goalline again, from where Jantjies picked it up.
I disagree with the highlighted....
This should have gone to the TMO as it was a grounding issue.
... the TMO looked at it but did not call it in. I thought there was a clear gap between the ball and the goal-line.
That said, it was a risky and unnecessary decision by Jantjies as he had more than enough time to pick up the ball and kick it out.
I agree, it was a brain fart by Jantjies.