Cone Part of touch?

[BCH24]

so first festival at the weekend for U11s.

A try is scored - the seventh actually - they went on to win 10 nil. Should have been stopped early.

The touch line is a normal painted white line, but to help the players see the line there are cones every couple of yards.

just as a player scores, he skims the top of a cone with his studs. He doesn't tread on it, just clips the top. if he'd trodden down on the cone, then clearly in touch. But he's clipped it with his studs, which are still 2 Inches above the touch line.

Cones are not in law as far as I can see. you want to encourage children to score as often as they can. If the cone. Wasn't there, he wouldn't have touched the line.

What's the decision, try or touch?

 

[Rushforth]

An argument can be made either way, but in the scenario where defenders are already six tries down, reward the defenders for "forcing the ball carrier into touch", IMO.

 

[crossref]

If you had only cones.. No painted line.. (common at u11) Then kicking a cone would be touch, right. So touch.

But don't agree with Rushforth approach of it's only touch if they are winning. Be consistent and fair. It's up to the coaches to even up a runaway game not the Ref... (though by all means give the coaches a nudge)

 

[Rushforth]

But don't agree with Rushforth approach of it's only touch if they are winning. Be consistent and fair.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that is not what I said.

I personally would go with kicking a cone being in touch too.

In the scenario where it is the first time I've encountered cones rather than lines, and don't know which way to decide, I will consider, make a decision as fairly as possible, and then perhaps come here. After which I'll try to be consistent with the general opinion, rather than my first decision.

 

[Pegleg]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that is not what I said.

I personally would go with kicking a cone being in touch too.

In the scenario where it is the first time I've encountered cones rather than lines, and don't know which way to decide, I will consider, make a decision as fairly as possible, and then perhaps come here. After which I'll try to be consistent with the general opinion, rather than my first decision.

Sorry but that's exactly how it reads

An argument can be made either way, but in the scenario where defenders are already six tries down, reward the defenders for "forcing the ball carrier into touch", IMO.

Surely if you'd meant that the cone is in touch it would read "An argument can be made either way, but I believe a kicking cone is in touch too"

 

[Taff]

An argument can be made either way, but in the scenario where defenders are already six tries down, reward the defenders for "forcing the ball carrier into touch", IMO.

Exactly. Personally I would give the benefit of the doubt to the team being stuffed.

 

[crossref]

An argument can be made either way, but in the scenario where defenders are already six tries down, reward the defenders for "forcing the ball carrier into touch", IMO.

Exactly. Personally I would give the benefit of the doubt to the team being stuffed.

You mean Blue kick the cone, it's touch
But then if Red kick the cone its not?

Or the cone is touch in this game, but in your next game it might not be?

 

[Taff]

You mean Blue kick the cone, it's touch
But then if Red kick the cone its not?

If I was being honest yes. This isn't England v Wales at Twickers, it's an U11 game where one side is being stuffed. We want kids to have fun and enjoy rugby. If it doesn't affect the result and builds up their confidence a bit, that cone was in touch.

 

[crossref]

Well, I disagree, for so many reasons

It compromises your integrity as a ref, yes even in an u11 tournament

It patronises the players , you are saying their game isn't really important (but it is to them)

kids of all ages have a strong sense of fairness and justice. They won't actually thank you for that sort of reffing

And it's just not the refs role to even up a one sided game. The coaches need to do that.

 

[Pegleg]

I agree with those who urge caution. Take the coaches with you in agreeing how to "even up" a game. It's not our role. We can be "sympathetic" but we can't be overtly skewed in or decision making.

 

[didds]

*shrug* - make a call eityher way. then stick to it.

And let the tournament organisers know at the end of the game .

That way THEY can make the call going forward.

This is a classic scenario of trying something to help the players (fair enough and well done) but not considering as many implications as possible. Clearly the decision was made without anybody thinking "what would happen if....".

Its not as if in England there is no history of blades of grass being in touch... ;-)

didds



didds

 

[Dan_A]

If you touch the cone you are in touch, every time.

U11s have tackling and kicking. If a kicked ball or a tackled player hit the cone then it's in touch. Anything else is a recipe for disaster!

 

[Dixie]

I agree with those who feel the cone is always in touch. For what it's worth, I would question the value of using cones to help U11s know where the white line is. There may have been a valid reason for this (i.e. confirming that the touchline is the adult 5m dotted line rather than the goal line), but this will generally be obvious - in which case a cone at the intersection of the game's touchline and goal line would be adequate, IMO, and would avoid the problem.

 

[BCH24]

Judging by the number of time I see children overrun the dead ball line I don't think it is always obvious where the pitch is, although it's not too much of a problem in U11s.

In saying that, last season at a festival, one of our boys dived at the wrong line. He got back up and re-dived to score. Unfortunately, even though he dived before being tackled and was never touched, let alone held, the ref penalised him for a double movement.

Back to the cone: his foot was in the air when it clipped the cone. His studs were always more than 2 inches above the touchline. As the cone has no place in law, as touch judge, I gave the attacker the benefit. If he'd touched the corner flag it wouldn't have mattered. If he'd trodden on the cone, I'd of given touch. If the match was close I may have taken the time to explain to the ref and let him decide, although his understanding of NROP were unique.

 

[crossref]

Back to the cone: his foot was in the air when it clipped the cone. His studs were always more than 2 inches above the touchline. As the cone has no place in law, as touch judge, I gave the attacker the benefit

I agree that in law there's a grey area as touch is supposed to be a line.

but practically speaking I think that when a touchline is marked by cones, it's hard to argue that clipping a cone is not touch

I think that the safer decision is that it's touch.