Brought into touch game over ? France V Scotland

[Dickie E]

What OB.. claritfied is that 18.8.c overrides that and the ball did go directly into touch from the penalty and hence the lineout should have been taken.

GJ

Take care. OB..'s opinions (like all of our's) are just that and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

 

[GJ1968]

Thanks, and I don't blindly trust opions, but his reference to 18.8.c helped as I think this is clear that the plane of touch doesn't matter if kick is from a penalty.

Cheers

GJ

 

[crossref]

Thanks, and I don't blindly trust opions, but his reference to 18.8.c helped as I think this is clear that the plane of touch doesn't matter if kick is from a penalty.

Cheers

GJ

The Law is that we have a lineout if the PK goes DIRECTLY into touch

Directly mean without bouncing and without touch another player.

In this case it touched another player

 

[Camquin]

Thought experiment.
Red kick a PK towards touch.
Red winger, who was behind the kick, sprints and catches the ball before it crosses the plane of touch, hoping to run in a try.
But one foot is in touch as she catches the ball.

Has the ball gone directly into touch - in which case Red get the gain in ground and the throw?
Or has the red winger taken the ball into touch, in which case Blue get the throw?

Now go back to the original question.
If Blue catch the ball in the same place has the ball gone directly into touch?

 

[crossref]

The Laws are different for who gets the throw .. it doesn't need to be direct for that

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

The Law is that we have a lineout if the PK goes DIRECTLY into touch

Directly mean without bouncing and without touch another player.

In this case it touched another player

Hate to disagree but , I take "Directly" to mean ball must reach touch BEFORE being touched by another player or bouncing. (its not in the definitions section ) . In this example, given that we assume the player is in touch, and instantaneously makes ball reach touch, then there is no "before" in the phrase "before going into touch".
This is really splitting hairs but I think I can sell the decision. Time is divided 2 periods : "BEFORE REACHING TOUCH", "IN TOUCH" . The player, by catching it, has not touched the ball before it reached touch as he is already in touch. Hence its a lineout from a PK.

 

[GJ1968]

But 18.8.c overides that for a ball kicked from a penalty.

Ball can bounce or hitt a player or the referee and it is still "direct" into touch

 

[crossref]

But 18.8.c overides that for a ball kicked from a penalty.

Ball can bounce or hitt a player or the referee and it is still "direct" into touch

But that is the wrong g law

18.8 deals with who gets the throw in

To decide if there even is a lineout or whether time is over or not you need Law 5.7

 

[Rich_NL]

But that is the wrong g law

18.8 deals with who gets the throw in

To decide if there even is a lineout or whether time is over or not you need Law 5.7

I disagree: 18.1.b says the ball is in touch when a player touching the touchline (etc. - in touch) catches or holds the ball.

If the ball is kicked directly to that player, without first being tapped or touching the ground or another player (5.7.c), then it is clearly kicked directly to touch. Nothing to do with planes of touch, which indeed determine who gets the throw-in.

It's the same as if a player caught the ball directly while standing two metres in touch - it's still directly out, because it's caught by someone in touch.

 

[crossref]

Directly means without touching another player... But it did touch another player ..

If it hadn't touched him it may never have gone into touch ..

 

[chbg]

For me it was in touch when it was caught by a player who was himself in touch. That is directly into touch. Providing the ball had not crossed the plane of touch, the defender in touch could have knocked (not forward) the ball to keep it in play, or knocked it (again not forward) so that it then touched something else in touch. That latter instance is not 'kicked directly into touch'.

 

[GJ1968]

So my take on this - having spend some time with the laws and all your comments is to agree with Rich_NL

5.7.c Half doesn't end if penalty kicked direct to touch
18.1.b The ball is in touch when a player who is touching the line or beyond catches the ball

So the kick in question did go directly into touch.

If it wasn't a penalty, then the new "plane of touch" stuff comes into it, but 18.8.c means it doesn't as it was kicked from a penalty.

 

[Rich_NL]

It did go into touch, by the definition of touch. It didn't touch another player before doing so.

While I can see both sides of a lot of arguments, and I'm well on record as saying many things in the lawbook are confusing, I honestly don't think this is a case for much confusion.

Hypotheticals are irrelevant, consider: if a player leaps from two metres in touch and catches the ball well over the plane, the ball may not go into touch because the player may land in the FoP. If he happens to land with his heel on the touchline, the ball has still been kicked directly to touch, regardless of what may or may not ever have happened.

 

[crossref]

I dunno

By the law Red kicked it, and Blue took it into touch

I am not sure how you be certain that counts as Directly

 

[Rich_NL]

"Taken into touch" is only used to determine who throws in (and gain in ground, in open play). 18.8.c regarding penalties makes no mention of it, and even has the phrase "irrespective of whether the ball has reached the touchline".

Again, this may be a good case for a "law ephemera/inexactitude" forum, apart from the practicalities of refereeing.

 

[crossref]

Well for practicalities of reffing g we also need to ignore the plane, because as a sole ref we won't normally be standing in tbe right place to judge it .

The one thing we WILL be sure of is that another player was involved ...


But in terms of the Law , I dont think this is an arcane question, I think the Law is genuinely ambiguous and a question to WR or the RFU is merited .
.

 

[OB..]

I dunno

By the law Red kicked it, and Blue took it into touch

I am not sure how you be certain that counts as Directly

That is where the potential ambiguity lies. Blue's action caused the ball to be in touch the instant he caught it. However the catch was not an intermediate action because the player was in effect an integral part of touch.

The law was presumably intending to cover the case where an opponent touched the ball before it went into touch, and has left us with an unanticipated pin head to dance on. I like "caveat emptor" - if you don't want the ball to go into touch, don't kick it near enough for an opponent to make it in touch.

 

[crossref]

But in this case it was a PK and they DID want it to go directly into touch, and to have a lineout

. so your caveat emptor principle says they should have kicked it harder .. IE they failed to kick it directly into touch, and so time has expired and thry dont get the lineout

 

[OB..]

But in this case it was a PK and they DID want it to go directly into touch, and to have a lineout

. so your caveat emptor principle says they should have kicked it harder .. IE they failed to kick it directly into touch, and so time has expired and thry dont get the lineout

So you are saying they got the kick wrong and the opponent was an idiot?


Frankly all this discussion really shows is the futility of trying to treat the laws of rugby like statute laws.

 

[didds]

But in terms of the Law , I dont think this is an arcane question, I think the Law is genuinely ambiguous and a question to WR or the RFU is merited .
.

better still to both independently and we can see if their decisions match!