AB v AUS - 2nd AB Try

[chopper15]

Yes, I flatly disagree.

If the phrase was omitted I suspect some chopper15 look-alike would argue that "over the cross bar" did not mean strictly above it but would allow kicks off to the side, or at least directly over the post. Note also that some crossbars stick out to the side. I have also played on pitches with posts attached to the top of a soccer goal.

Here is the version in the 1862 laws:
If the ball goes over the cross-bar (whether it touches or not) at whatever height, it is a goal.


With that I do agree, OB . . . . you ol' obfuscator you!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I refer you to the relevant Law Ruling! (How can you "pick up a ball that you catch on the full?" The ruling specifically referes to the 22 but was later confirmed a sapplying to touch as well.

RULING 14: 2003
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee

2 September 2003

The UAR has requested a ruling with regard the Line-out, in Law 19.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball, which was lying on the field of play outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch. Where does the line-out form; 1) Where the ball went into touch, or 2) where the ball was kicked?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:

Ruling

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was stationary outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was stationary outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.

If a player with one or both feet inside the 22 metre line, picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22 metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.

I cannot find any reference on the IRB Website that applies this ruling to the touch situation. The only thing I can find is this;

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/lawrulings2003_601.pdf

Was this (as applied to touch) another Ruling or Clarification issued later? If it was, I cannot find a trace of it!

 

[chopper15]

Ref SimonT;Secondly as in some areas of civil (and maybe even crimminal ?) law, common practice sets acceptance or a precedent or over-rides the written law (until amended by the legistlature).

Agee, Simon. But that's the basis of our (or is it mine alone?) discussion . . . when are the IRB going to catch up and what on? Do they even keep records of precedence?

 

[chopper15]

I cannot find any reference on the IRB Website that applies this ruling to the touch situation. The only thing I can find is this;

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/lawrulings2003_601.pdf

Was this (as applied to touch) another Ruling or Clarification issued later? If it was, I cannot find a trace of it!

Try this, Ian.

http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/lawsrulings/index.html

 

[Ian_Cook]

Try this, Ian.

http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/lawsrulings/index.html

Nope. Thats where I have been looking. No joy.

 

[OB..]

Nope. Thats where I have been looking. No joy.

The reference is http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/080417sgirbrulings2008_5057.pdf
pages 6&7.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Thanks OB. Exactly what I was looking for

 

[Account Deleted]

The ruling applied common sense to situations which are in reality identical.

 

[chopper15]

Thanks OB. Exactly what I was looking for

Have just looked at this one, same as the one I mentioned! But where's the touch reference you were seeking?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Law Ruling 1 2008 on 21st January

Question 5. 5. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)?
Ruling = YES

 

[Ian_Cook]

Have just looked at this one, same as the one I mentioned! But where's the touch reference you were seeking?

Pages 6 and 7

 

[chopper15]

Pages 6 and 7

Sorry Ian . . . . should've bin more explicit!