[In-goal] 22.4(g) still possible w/ new 2017 trails

[Huck2Spit]

New Law 19 touch definition:
If the ball has not passed 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.

22.4(g)Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

So can a try be scored (or a defensive touch down be made)by a player in touch/touch in goal? Or, with the new trails, by touching the ball while he is in touch he has taken it into touch. Kinda uncertain if grounding=picked up=possesion.

 

[damo]

New Law 19 touch definition:
If the ball has not passed 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.

22.4(g)Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

So can a try be scored (or a defensive touch down be made)by a player in touch/touch in goal? Or, with the new trails, by touching the ball while he is in touch he has taken it into touch. Kinda uncertain if grounding=picked up=possesion.

In cases like this you should favour the more specific law over the general one.

WR say that in the circumstances described it's a try. That's enough.

In any case the new laws talk about picking up or holding the ball and primarily address WHO has put the ball in touch. Grounding the ball without catching or holding it is not addressed by the new law.

 

[didds]

agree with damo. The new law says "when it is caught or picked up" - downward pressure is neither of these.

Before the new laws a player in touch/TiG that picked the ball up wold have taken it into touch anyway and couldn't have scored. No change there - other than possibly the outcome of doing so.

didds

 

[Phil E]

Kinda uncertain if grounding=picked up=possesion.

The answer is in the law book.

[LAWS]22.2 PICKING UP THE BALL
Picking up the ball from the ground is not grounding it. A player may pick up the ball in the
in-goal and ground it elsewhere in the in-goal.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

The answer is in the law book.

[LAWS]22.2 PICKING UP THE BALL
Picking up the ball from the ground is not grounding it. A player may pick up the ball in the
in-goal and ground it elsewhere in the in-goal.[/LAWS]

.. and as I mentioned above, as picking it up is not grounding it, if you are standing in touch/TiG by picking it up the ball is now in touch/TiG - because you are.

didds

 

[damo]

.. and as I mentioned above, as picking it up is not grounding it, if you are standing in touch/TiG by picking it up the ball is now in touch/TiG - because you are.

didds

Always was though I thought. What's changed is that the catcher/holder has now put it out rather than the kicking team.

 

[didds]

Agreed

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Might be worth mentioning something which confused several refs at our recent region meeting.
Even IF the ball has crossed the plane of touch. a defender may leap from the field of play and knock it backwards and back into the field of play. However , in the attempt of doing so, he may also knock it forward. If this is the case, then we were told its a "knock-on".
That was the recommendation.

So, if he knocks-on and the ball doesnt re-enter the field of play then the attacking team cannot play advantage.
How would you restart after that ?
(1) Lineout or Scrum option to attacking team ( scrum 5m in from touch )?
OR
(2) The kickers team kicked it over the plane of touch so its lineout to the defender who knocked on ? And it's gone "out on the full" so perhaps a lineout back where there is "no gain in ground"?

What would you give ?

 

[damo]

I should add that in 7ish years playing and 5ish refereeing I've never applied law 22.4(g).

In fact I 've only seen it applied once at any level. In a Super game in SA (where the commentators have the ref hell for making the correct decision.

I wouldn't worry too much about this law.

 

[damo]

Might be worth mentioning something which confused several refs at our recent region meeting.
Even IF the ball has crossed the plane of touch. a defender may leap from the field of play and knock it backwards and back into the field of play. However , in the attempt of doing so, he may also knock it forward. If this is the case, then we were told its a "knock-on".
That was the recommendation.

So, if he knocks-on and the ball doesnt re-enter the field of play then the attacking team cannot play advantage.
How would you restart after that ?
(1) Lineout or Scrum option to attacking team ( scrum 5m in from touch )?
OR
(2) The kickers team kicked it over the plane of touch so its lineout to the defender who knocked on ? And it's gone "out on the full" so perhaps a lineout back where there is "no gain in ground"?

What would you give ?

(1). In your scenario the ball is put out by the non kicking team, though first offence is a knock on. Give the option To the non kicking team.

 

[ChrisR]

(1). In your scenario the ball is put out by the non kicking team, though first offence is a knock on. Give the option To the non kicking team.

Don't you mean to the kicking team?

The ball is not out when the non-kicking team plays it so you are correct that the knock-on occurs first. If the ball lands in the FOP then it never went to touch so only the scrum can be awarded. If the knock-on lands in touch then the kicking team has gets the scrum/line-out option.

 

[ChuckieB]

Might be worth mentioning something which confused several refs at our recent region meeting.
Even IF the ball has crossed the plane of touch. a defender may leap from the field of play and knock it backwards and back into the field of play. However , in the attempt of doing so, he may also knock it forward. If this is the case, then we were told its a "knock-on".
That was the recommendation.

So, if he knocks-on and the ball doesnt re-enter the field of play then the attacking team cannot play advantage.
How would you restart after that ?
(1) Lineout or Scrum option to attacking team ( scrum 5m in from touch )?
OR
(2) The kickers team kicked it over the plane of touch so its lineout to the defender who knocked on ? And it's gone "out on the full" so perhaps a lineout back where there is "no gain in ground"?

What would you give ?

This is only of relevance if the ball makes it back into the field of play.

Once it has crossed the plane of touch and is deemed in touch the question is about who/what put it across the plane of touch.

A player in the air knocking it over the plane backwards. Lineout to the opposing side
A player in the air knocking it over forwards. Advantage KO. This then opens up the choice to the opposing side.

The ball crossing the plane and the player in the air attempting to bring it back but unsuccessfully. Knocked forward or not, Lineout against side who forced it across the plane in the first place unless it was direct from a penalty in which case the side with he penalty retain entitlement to the throw.

 

[damo]

Don't you mean to the kicking team?

The ball is not out when the non-kicking team plays it so you are correct that the knock-on occurs first. If the ball lands in the FOP then it never went to touch so only the scrum can be awarded. If the knock-on lands in touch then the kicking team has gets the scrum/line-out option.

Yep. You're right. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[damo]

This is only of relevance if the ball makes it back into the field of play.

Once it has crossed the plane of touch and is deemed in touch the question is about who/what put it across the plane of touch.

A player in the air knocking it over the plane backwards. Lineout to the opposing side
A player in the air knocking it over forwards. Advantage KO. This then opens up the choice to the opposing side.

The ball crossing the plane and the player in the air attempting to bring it back but unsuccessfully. Knocked forward or not, Lineout against side who forced it across the plane in the first place.

That's how it used to be but the law has changed.

I believe the change is in effect everywhere

 

[ChuckieB]

That's how it used to be but the law has changed.

I believe the change is in effect everywhere

As with all the related changes on this one the new law relate to a player in touch and whether he forced the ball there by pulling it across the plane or whether it had crossed the plane already.

In essence, a player forcing the ball dead, in goal, into the 22, shall not retain the benefits he was previously used to. Its to encourage the ball to be kept in play.

 

[damo]

As with all the related changes on this one the new law relate to a player in touch and whether he forced the ball there by pulling it across the plane or whether it had crossed the plane already.

In essence, a player forcing the ball dead, in goal, into the 22, shall not retain the benefits he was previously used to. Its to encourage the ball to be kept in play.

No I think you are wrong. What you describe is true, but you missed another change.

Ball is no longer out just because it crosses the plane of touch. A player jumping from the field of play can knock the ball back in play if he does so before touching the ground.

Someone else can post the law please. I'm on my phone and going to bed.

 

[didds]

Its to encourage the ball to be kept in play.

Apparently so. In effect WR has focused on "fixing" things that really aren't/weren't a problem in the first place overall, whilst ignoring the stuff that has grated/been ignored for years.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

No I think you are wrong. What you describe is true, but you missed another change.

Ball is no longer out just because it crosses the plane of touch. A player jumping from the field of play can knock the ball back in play if he does so before touching the ground.

Someone else can post the law please. I'm on my phone and going to bed.

You are correct. We are talking to about a ball that has not made it back into the field of play and is in touch. Sleep well!

 

[damo]

Apparently so. In effect WR has focused on "fixing" things that really aren't/weren't a problem in the first place overall, whilst ignoring the stuff that has grated/been ignored for years.

didds

I disagree with that. The touch laws were a disaster area and now they are very simple. There might be other things to fix also, but touch was a simple and IMO well overdue change.

 

[damo]

This is only of relevance if the ball makes it back into the field of play.

Once it has crossed the plane of touch and is deemed in touch the question is about who/what put it across the plane of touch.

A player in the air knocking it over the plane backwards. Lineout to the opposing side
A player in the air knocking it over forwards. Advantage KO. This then opens up the choice to the opposing side.

The ball crossing the plane and the player in the air attempting to bring it back but unsuccessfully. Knocked forward or not, Lineout against side who forced it across the plane in the first place unless it was direct from a penalty in which case the side with he penalty retain entitlement to the throw.

Hi chuckie

The bolded statements in your post are simply incorrect.