Cory Jane, Touch no try

[Chogan]

While CJ was in touch, I'm curious/puzzled as to wheather or not CJ was legal in his final act in gathering possession. This being the moment he jumps from in touch, catches the ball and lands in the field of play

 

[TNT88]

The first touch is fine, the ball is in play and he is in play.

The second touch, he is in touch, and he passes the ball to himself which, according to law 19 makes the ball dead:

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not
crossed the plane of the touchline

(Van De Merwe is already on the comms at this stage)

But, if he had complied with law19 for the second touch. Then yes, he is allowed to jump and bring the ball back in. Which would have lead to a try.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player
who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal.

 

[Chogan]

Then yes, he is allowed to jump and bring the ball back in. Which would have lead to a try.

I agree, albeit reluctantly. The fact he is jumping from touch doesn't sit well with me. My problem I know.

 

[Fultonm]

IMO he was not in touch and the try was ok. First touch is fine, then the above observation:

The second touch, he is in touch, and he passes the ball to himself which, according to law 19 makes the ball dead:

Ignores the fact that

[LAWS]Law 19: Definitions - A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has notcrossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space
rising immediately above the touchline.[/LAWS]

He only knocks the ball, he doesn't hold it, and it hasn't crossed the plane. Play on? The third touch where he actually catches it is then irrelevant because he lands in the field of play and therefore is not in touch. Try!

 

[The Fat]

When he catches the ball it has crossed the plane of touch

 

[TNT88]

Ignores the fact that

No I didn't ignore that. I'm saying that if you pass the ball to yourself you must have held it for even a small period of time.

I'm pretty sure the law implies you can knock the ball back into play. So for example if he tapped it downwards or punched it, then OK. But I don't think the law implies you can run up the entire pitch passing the ball to yourself for 100m while your body is out. (maybe if you master the art of keep-ups you can kick it the entire way, but other than that...)

 

[Fultonm]

When he catches the ball it has crossed the plane of touch

Why does it matter where the ball was when he caught it on the third touch given he lands in the field of play?

and

I'm pretty sure the law implies you can knock the ball back into play. So for example if he tapped it downwards or punched it, then OK. But I don't think the law implies you can run up the entire pitch passing the ball to yourself for 100m while your body is out.

But given the law as above, surely you could (if skilful enough, which would be a challenge I admit) do exactly that as you are knocking, not holding the ball.

 

[TNT88]

First, I think you are right about the jumping motion, that's what I've been taught as well.

But given the law as above, surely you could (if skilful enough, which would be a challenge I admit) do exactly that as you are knocking, not holding the ball.

In theory yes, but knocking the ball means precisely that, knocking the ball. At first I would say that the only way to "knock" the ball upwards is to punch it, but at the same time if you are punching it to yourself repeatedly in a controlled manner, at some point (to stop it spinning out of control) you are basically going to be "holding" the ball on your fist, even if thats just for half a second.

Throwing the ball to yourself doesn't constitute "knocking" it back into play in my opinion. I think a "knock" constitutes a brief movement to tap the ball back into play. Any kind of pass, whether to a team mate or yourself would require control that goes beyond a "knock".

I might be wrong as I'm not familiar with the exact history of this law. But I can't justify ruling it any other way, and the 3 IRB refs seemed pretty certain on the night as well.

 

[Fultonm]

I think a "knock" constitutes a brief movement to tap the ball back into play. Any kind of pass, whether to a team mate or yourself would require control that goes beyond a "knock".

It is an interesting distinction, because IMO he only slaps the ball which I would consider a knock. I don't think there is any need for that knock to go up, down or in field.

Im sure given the option it would have been referred to the TMO given how hard it would be to judge each of the three of those touches in realtime. But obviously this incident isnt within the TMO protocol in Aus right now, given that I think the AR probably made the "safe" call.

 

[crossref]

to me it raises a question about knock-ons and juggling in general

would you allow a player, in the middle of the pitch, with the ball coming toward him to deliberately knock the ball up in the air (like a volleyball player) and forwards, and catch it again.

to me that would seem to be a deliberate throw forward, caught by himself.

 

[Davet]

1st touch, his left foot was on the line as he touched the ball which stayed infield of the plane of touch
2nd touch he was also in touch and knocked the ball again, which this time then crossed the plane of touch.
Catch - he was outside the plane of touch even though in the air, and the ball was across plane of touch when he caught it. - which means the 2nd touch did not knock the ball back into the field of play.

He may be in touch and knock the ball back into play before it crosses the plane of touch. He didn't he knocked it and it crossed the plane of touch, where he caught it

I think it was a great pity, but I think that in touch was the right call.

 

[The Fat]

1st touch, his left foot was on the line as he touched the ball which stayed infield of the plane of touch
2nd touch he was also in touch and knocked the ball again, which this time then crossed the plane of touch.
Catch - he was outside the plane of touch even though in the air, and the ball was across plane of touch when he caught it. - which means the 2nd touch did not knock the ball back into the field of play.He may be in touch and knock the ball back into play before it crosses the plane of touch. He didn't he knocked it and it crossed the plane of touch, where he caught itI think it was a great pity, but I think that in touch was the right call.

Good summary of events.
On his first touch, he did not try to knock the ball back into play, he attempted to catch the ball, with his left foot in contact with the touchline, but his momentum propelled the ball forward.

 

[OB..]

When he caught the ball, both he and the ball were beyond the plane of touch. He was in the air and subsequently landed in the field of play.

When I raised this question some years ago with what was then Castlecroft (RFU Referee Department) I was told that the ball was in touch.

When Mark Lawrence put a quiz on SAreferees, the first question related to a player who caught the ball in the air in the field of play but then landed in touch. His answer was that the ball was in touch and had been put there by the kicker. I queried the basis for this and asked if the reverse applied (this incident). He said it didn't and the ball was in touch when it was touched by the player in touch. - as Castlecroft had said. No try.

The juggling is an interesting extension of the Tim Stimpson case, according to which he could be tackled while juggling.

 

[crossref]

The juggling is an interesting extension of the Tim Stimpson case, according to which he could be tackled while juggling.

Tim Stimpson was attempting to catch it, and when we talk about juggling I think we mostly have in mind the scenario of a player doing his best to get hold of the ball, but missing/fumbling and regathering.

In this video we see something different - the deliberate knock ahead and regather.
(well in this video the knock was an attempt to avoid touch, that happened to go forward)

but my questin then is that while juggling to get control is allowed (and makes you liable to tackle), is a deliberate knock forward and catch again, allowed? I'd say not.

 

[Robert Burns]

[LAWS]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of touch.[/LAWS]

The player starts from in touch, and catches the ball whilst it is still in touch (crossed the plane) before returning to the field of play & landing.

Under current law, the call was correct and consistent with how most referees view it.

However it allows me to bring this out of the woodwork again:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?160-law-19

The rugbyrefs.com members seek clarification of Law 19 in relation to the ball being in touch when it is played by a player in the air. The only law reference is:-

[LAWS]If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.[/LAWS]


(1) Does it matter where the player jumps from?
(2) Does catching assume he holds on until he lands?
(3) If he plays the ball other than by catching it (eg tap down, as is done at a lineout) does it make a difference?

If the answer to (1) is No, then:-
(A) if a player jumps from in Touch, plays the ball after it has crossed the plane of touch, but manages to land in the playing area, the ball is not deemed to have been in touch
(B) if a player jumps from the field of play and catches the ball before it broke the plane of touch, and then lands in touch, still holding it, the ball is in touch. Was he responsible for putting it there, or was he deemed to have been in touch from the moment he left the ground?
(C) if a player jumps from the playing area, catches and passes the ball, or taps it infield, before it breaks the plane of touch, and then lands in touch, is the ball in touch?

If the answer to (1) is Yes, then defining the player as in touch according to the spot immediately below him when he plays the ball means all the other criteria in the Definitions can be directly applied. To avoid complications with outstretched arms etc the Definition could say: "A player in the air is not in touch if his torso is entirely over the playing area; he becomes in touch when his torso breaks the plane of touch."

A further point arises from use of the word "crossed":

[LAWS]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of touch.[/LAWS]


Does this imply that the whole of the ball must cross the plane, or is it intended to be equivalent to "has not broken the plane"? The latter meaning would be consistent with a ball on the ground, which merely needs to touch the inside edge of the line for it to be deemed in touch.

 

[OB..]

is a deliberate knock forward and catch again, allowed? I'd say not.

Law 12.1 (e) says that a deliberate knock forward (note it does not call it a knock-on) is a penalty offence.

In this case I would not penalise it as being intentional.

 

[Chogan]

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?160-law-19

Do we know if this made it to IRB HQ? Have they ever responded to RugbyrRefs

 

[Chogan]

While this is not an IRB document its is from the ARU. This may help in clarifying the Law's intentions.

http://cdn.greenandgoldrugby.com/804F73/gagr/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Line-ball-your-call.pdf

 

[Guyseep]

While this is not an IRB document its is from the ARU. This may help in clarifying the Law's intentions.

http://cdn.greenandgoldrugby.com/804F73/gagr/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Line-ball-your-call.pdf

While this document does a good job covering the different scenarios regarding the ball being in touch, overall I find the laws/conventions regarding when the ball is in touch to be confusing and illogical. Especially when it concerns a player jumping and catching or knocking the ball back into the field or a player outside the field of play knocking the ball back in field. There are simply too many variations and too many things to consider.

It seems illogical that a player with one foot in touch can catch the ball that is still in field and the ball is considered in touch, but put there by the kicking team?!
Or when a player who is fully in touch knocking(but not catching) the ball which hasn't crossed the plane and the ball is still considered in and play on?!
Or a player who jumps from infield catches the ball which is in field then crosses the plane of touch but throws it back in field before landing. Surely this should be play on, but it isn't.

It would be wise for rugby to adopt the league definitions of when a ball is in touch or not.
Consider the simplicity and logic of these definitions:

The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line

Jumping player knocks ball back The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and while off the ground touches the ball. The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touch line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground after jumping from the field of play.

 

[crossref]

grrr.. don't you just hate it when RL does something better than us.