Brought into touch game over ? France V Scotland

[crossref]

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.

I agree - we have to try and understand the natural meaning of the words, and the intention of the Law makers

[LAWS]A half ends when the ball becomes dead after time has expired unless :

c. A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without
the ball touching another player.
[/LAWS]

was the ball kicked into touch without touching another player ?

Clearly not

 

[chbg]

I agree - we have to try and understand the natural meaning of the words, and the intention of the Law makers

[LAWS]A half ends when the ball becomes dead after time has expired unless :

c. A penalty is kicked directly to touch without the ball first being tapped and without
the ball touching another player.
[/LAWS]

was the ball kicked into touch without touching another player ?

Clearly not

So are you prepared to interpret the intent in line with most others? Or do you think that defenders can prevent the ball 'going directly into touch' by catching it in touch, even if they are 10m (or further) behind the touch-line?

 

[crossref]

So are you prepared to interpret the intent in line with most others? Or do you think that defenders can prevent the ball 'going directly into touch' by catching it in touch, even if they are 10m (or further) behind the touch-line?

look, I can see both sides and my considered view is that the Law is ambiguous and we cannot know the answer without asking WR.

for me, the most natural meaning of the words is what it says, literally : that for a lineout to happen the ball must reach touch without touching another player .. so that's the way I lean - in this scenario it DID touch another player - so no lineout.

But I am not claiming that one interpretation is right and the other is wrong - I can see both arguments, I think it's ambiguous and no one can know.

If anyone claims it not at all ambiguous and their opinion is the only possible correct one, I would disagree with that (in either direction)

 

[Rich_NL]

"Clearly not"? It reached touch (as it was caught by a player in touch) and did not touch *another* player.

I see there is a potential ambiguity. I don't see it at all as a 50/50 call which is correct, though, although if there are multiple cases of it being interpreted differently at high levels I'd be happy to change my mind.

 

[Flish]

"Clearly not"? It reached touch (as it was caught by a player in touch) and did not touch *another* player.

I see there is a potential ambiguity. I don't see it at all as a 50/50 call which is correct, though, although if there are multiple cases of it being interpreted differently at high levels I'd be happy to change my mind.

Being picky, it didn't "reach touch" it encountered a scenario that has the same end result (normally) as a ball reaching touch. I tend to be very literal so I think I would lean towards it not being "directly" into touch, and could confidently sell that decision. Probably needs clarifying, which in turn needs an incident with enough noise around it to motivate them

 

[didds]

well I guess in the extremely unlikely event of France winning the 6N by a single Bonus Point it may have sufficient traction!

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Being picky, it didn't "reach touch" it encountered a scenario that has the same end result (normally) as a ball reaching touch. I tend to be very literal so I think I would lean towards it not being "directly" into touch, and could confidently sell that decision. Probably needs clarifying, which in turn needs an incident with enough noise around it to motivate them

I presume you mean it didn't touch the touchline or anything past it, but:

18.1:

• The ball is in touch or touch-in-goal when:
  • a. The ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
  • b. A player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball

It didn't reach the touchline, but I think pickiness and literal reading of the definitions favours that it did reach touch. So the only question is, does the lawbook specify "directly over the touchline", or "directly into touch"?

I can't imagine anyone believing that a player standing 2m in touch catching the ball means that it's not directly out, yet it's the very same definition of touch.

 

[Flish]

Yes, 'into touch' as in 'off the field of play' - physical location of ball which is what we mean *most* of the time!

 

[crossref]

I
"?

I can't imagine anyone believing that a player standing 2m in touch catching the ball means that it's not directly out, yet it's the very same definition of touch.

In one case the ball is in touch before the player catches it, the other it is in touch only BECASUE the player catches it .

They seem different to me .
LAW 18 treats then differently , different put in

 

[Rich_NL]

In one case the ball is in touch before the player catches it, the other it is in touch only BECASUE the player catches it .

They seem different to me .
LAW 18 treats then differently , different put in

The ball is not in touch before the player catches it. The player catching it is what puts it in touch - read 18.1. That's the point - can this not be directly out because of your insistence that the catcher is *another* player? That seems to be your reasoning as I understand it.

Law 18 treats the *consequences* differently of the same cause; the ball being in touch. If you can't find a legal difference in touch status between a player 2m out of the FoP and one in with his toe on the touchline, the consequences don't come into it. Im not sure what more mileage there is in this discussion.

 

[crossref]

I am not insisting .. see post #43

 

[Rich_NL]

Apologies, you're quite right. I'm not sure how the argument isn't ruled out if you follow my reasoning in post #50 though.