Ball in touch/ knock on what's the decision

[The Fat]

Similar, but not quite. 22.4 is two events happening at the same time. ie. in touch in goal & grounding the ball. Advantage to grounding the ball. In touch and knock on are not silmultaneous, in touch happens first.

Player dives to score a try and as he grounds the ball, he simultaneously hits the touch line with his elbow. Advantage does not go with the grounding in this situation so is at odds with your explanation re 22.4g

 

[Dickie E]

Player one foot is in touch and the other in the FOP. Is he in touch? Yes, if he catches the ball. Instead, ball hits his leg in the FOP. Is the ball in touch?

No. Ball is in touch if it strikes something in touch EXCEPT where a player in touch knocks, bats, kicks, [insert verb of choice] the ball back into FoP (as long as ball hasn't crossed plane of touch).

 

[SimonSmith]

He may knock the ball. Doesn't say how he may knock it

 

[Dickie E]

I think JSAK & Marauder may be making a distinction between a player intentionally playing the ball and a player unintentionally playing the ball (eg knock on or ball strikes player's leg).

If so, similar to ball being played into 22 or in-goal, I would not make that distinction.

 

[OB..]

The third definition clearly allows for the ball being knocked back into the FOP.

it allows it, but does not require it to be backwards.

But the winger did not knock it back into play, he knocked-on towards his opponents goal line. The Definitions state that a player may catch, kick, or knock the ball while in touch. They do not say he can knock–on while in touch.

You are trying to argue that "knock" cannot include "knock-on". That sort of verbal argument is rarely useful because the laws are simply not written to legalistic standards. You will note that Law 12.1 (f) says[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm [...][/FONT][/LAWS]In that case the knock is specified as forwards, so that is clearly a valid meaning for "knock".

The second definition above places the Red winger squarely in touch. The first definition above puts the ball in touch (I am assuming that the ball touching anyone in touch is the same as anyone in touch touching the ball). So, in this instance, the analysis ends with the Red winger touching the ball.

This logic only works if you rule out the exception. In my experience that is not the way is is usually refereed: the exception is applied to a knock-on. I would mark your decision as a law error and expect to be supported by the top brass.

 

[OB..]

Player one foot is in touch and the other in the FOP. Is he in touch? Yes, if he catches the ball. Instead, ball hits his leg in the FOP. Is the ball in touch?

No. He may kick the ball in any direction if it has not crossed the plane of touch. He has (inadvertently) done just that. Play on.

 

[FlipFlop]

Player dives to score a try and as he grounds the ball, he simultaneously hits the touch line with his elbow. Advantage does not go with the grounding in this situation so is at odds with your explanation re 22.4g

If player is in possession of the ball it is different. If they are not in possession, then they can be where they like, and the touch line is irrelevant. Even a nice diagram of a player in touch scoring a try....

 

[The Fat]

If player is in possession of the ball it is different. If they are not in possession, then they can be where they like, and the touch line is irrelevant. Even a nice diagram of a player in touch scoring a try....

I am aware of the difference between a player in possession of the ball and a player who is not in relation to such scenarios.
My post was in direct answer to Marauder's assertion that if the grounding and touch-in-goal was simultaneous, advantage would be given to the grounding of the ball i.e. the try is awarded. I was merely pointing out one scenario where that argument comes up short.

Originally posted by Marauder:
Similar, but not quite. 22.4 is two events happening at the same time. ie. in touch in goal & grounding the ball. Advantage to grounding the ball. In touch and knock on are not silmultaneous, in touch happens first.

 

[ChrisR]

Player dives to score a try and as he grounds the ball, he simultaneously hits the touch line with his elbow. Advantage does not go with the grounding in this situation so is at odds with your explanation re 22.4g

Good point. However, I'm not sure the Laws say that. The diving player case would be a rare event whereas a player in touch grounding a ball on the ground in goal is more frequent. We've recently debated the case of the ball off the ground and opinions varied.

Not trying to hi-jack this thread.

 

[FlipFlop]

My post was in direct answer to Marauder's assertion that if the grounding and touch-in-goal was simultaneous, advantage would be given to the grounding of the ball i.e. the try is awarded.

Luckily we have a ruling on this:

[LAWS][h=1]Clarification 2 2009[/h][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]2-2009[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Union / HP Ref Manager[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]SARU[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law Reference[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]22[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Date[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]16 October 2009[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Request[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The Designated Members and Rugby Committee have reviewed Ruling 2 2009 and have revised it on the basis that a player touching a touch line is out of play and it should be the same in in-goal.

Law 22 – In goal.
Simultaneous grounding the ball in in-goal whilst making contact with the touch-in-goal line or dead ball line.

Scenario:
A player carrying the ball attempts to score a try. In the process of grounding the ball in the in-goal according to the law, he simultaneously (at exactly the same time) touches the touch-in-goal line with an arm, leg or any part of his body.

Questions from above:
1. Is a try scored?

2. Is the player in touch-in-goal?

3. Is an attacking scrum 5m from the goal line awarded.

Arguments:
In (1) above, we believe this is incorrect but await IRB ruling. The TMO is
undecided and therefore a try cannot be awarded.

In (2) above, we believe this will be correct – to draw a parallel with a similar incident in the field of play, but await IRB ruling.

In (3) above, we believe this will be incorrect as law 22.14 is only applicable when players from both teams are involved and there is doubt as to who grounded it first. In this scenario, there is no opposition player involved.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The player has touched the touch-in-goal line in possession of the ball and therefore the Referee will award a 22 metre drop out to the defending team.
[/FONT]
[/LAWS]

 

[FlipFlop]

We've recently debated the case of the ball off the ground and opinions varied.

And again - luckily there is a ruling on this:

[LAWS]
[h=1]Clarification 1 2012[/h][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]1-2012[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Union / HP Ref Manager[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]FFR[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law Reference[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]22[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Date[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]4 April 2012[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular][/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Request[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The FFR request a clarification for the following:

Following a kick ahead, the ball goes over the goal line and whilst it is still up in the air, a player places his hand on it and grounds it. However, before this player grounds the ball, his feet are in touch.

We would like to know:

• Whether Law 22.4 (g) applies only to a ball already on the ground before it is touched down or other situations as described above;
• Whether the situation, as described above, is equivalent to “carrying the ball”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
Law 19 or Law 22.4 (g) applies;

• If player is carrying the ball, enters the opposition in-goal area and the player’s feet touch the touch-in-goal line or beyond then the player is in touch-in-goal and a try is not awarded. Law 19 Touch and Lineout – Definitions
• If a player is not carrying the ball then Law 22.4 (g) applies - 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.

The designated members confirm that:

1. A try should not be awarded,
2. The player is considered to be carrying the ball as the ball is in the air when it is first played and,
3. Law 22.4 (g) only applies if the ball is on the ground. [/FONT]
[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Good point. However, I'm not sure the Laws say that. The diving player case would be a rare event whereas a player in touch grounding a ball on the ground in goal is more frequent. We've recently debated the case of the ball off the ground and opinions varied.

Not trying to hi-jack this thread.

22.3(b) covers the diving player scenario. I believe I have seen that scenario looked at by a TMO more often than a 22.4g situation. In a 22.4g scenario, if the ball is off the ground a try is not awarded. This has been clarified back in 2012.
I'm not trying to argue with you over these points. It's still just a discussion and I respect your input.
Cheers

 

[The Fat]

FlipFlop on the ball:wink:

 

[4eyesbetter]

You lot don't half like making things complicated for yourselves, do you?

 

[The Fat]

You lot don't half like making things complicated for yourselves, do you?

Yep.
Instead of inventing stupid shit like 5m drop outs, WR would be better off re-writing Law 19