Cory Jane, Touch no try

[TNT88]

I was thinking about this one again today...

If the law says you are allowed to knock/hit the ball back towards play (when your feet are in touch, but the ball is still in). Surely that doesn't include knocking it on? So in a case like this (assuming CJ did "knock" it) would you award the scrum or just call it dead?



(I'm just thinking that when the same thing happens at a line out we'd call knock on.)

 

[Womble]

IMO never in touch, so if we deem no knock on then I would say TRY TIME epper:

 

[OB..]

IMO never in touch, so if we deem no knock on then I would say TRY TIME epper:

Do you agree that when he caught the ball, both he and the ball were beyond the plane of touch? If so, I presume you are using the "where he lands" criterion.

 

[Womble]

Yes, where he lands and yes both he and the ball were beyond the "plane" of touch

 

[OB..]

Yes, where he lands and yes both he and the ball were beyond the "plane" of touch

That conflicts with the advice I had previously been given, as quoted above

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.

Do you think the officials simply got it wrong in this case, or are they working to a different interpretation?

 

[Womble]

I know that the advice changed some time ago from where he started to where he landed! Castlecroft days for sure! I would say at least 5 years ago but age does play tricks!

 

[Ian_Cook]

If it were up to me, I would throw out all the definitions, clarifications, booklets, opinions and memos, and entirely change the touch laws to the following

Definitions:

'Plane of touch': an imaginary wall that rises from the inside edge of the touchline.

'in possession of the ball': a player is holding the ball, or has made contact with the ball with a hand or arm in an attempt to grasp it.

The ball is in touch when:

(a) in the possession of a player, that player touches the touchline, or the ground beyond the touchline.

(b) not in the possession of a player, any part of it touches the touchline or intersects the plane of touch

(c) not in the possession of a player, it touches or is touched by any player, anyone or anything beyond the touchline.


Exception: A player in possession touching the corner flag does not of itself put the ball into touch.

NOTES:
- Removes much of the confusion, complication and ambiguity in the laws. Makes it simple and returns to the "in touch in flight" concept of years ago.

- No need to mention that the ball needs to touch the ground beyond the touchline, because it can't get there without crossing the plane.

- Remove the silly idea that the ball bouncing off the corner flag is still in play, but retaining the good idea hat the ball isn't in touch if the player carrying it touches the corner flag.

- removes this concept of players being able to put a foot in touch to have the opponent being responsible for putting it there. - if you catch it or touch it with a foot in touch and it hasn't crossed the plane, you put it there.

- removes the ability of players to keep the ball in play by batting it back in from touch or keeping their feet in the FoP and catching it after it has crossed - if you catch it with a both feet in play, or touch it after it has crossed the plane, your opponent put it there.

Any down sides

 

[Guyseep]

@ Ian_Cook

I like it. It is simple to understand and is logical. Basically if it crosses the plane of touch it is out, and nothing can be done to keep it in. Or if you are in touch and make contact with a ball still in the field of play, you have brought it into touch.

It also makes it clear who put it in touch:
-if the ball has crossed the plane, the kicker (or last person in the field of play to touch the ball) has put it in touch
-If the ball is in the FOP and you are in touch and contact the ball you have put it in touch.

It also conforms to other laws regarding the ball crossing a plane - i.e. on a kick off it crosses 10m in the air and is blown back, it is deemed to have gone 10m

The only downside I see is it removes some of the acrobatics, and the ability for a team to counter attack if they keep a ball in.

 

[Davet]

- removes this concept of players being able to put a foot in touch to have the opponent being responsible for putting it there. - if you catch it with a foot in touch and it hasn't crossed the plane, you put it there.

That's not what it says. In effect that bit of law is as now - the player in touch then catching the ball before it crosses the plane of touch makes it in touch which is as it is now - but why does that mean, in your new world, that the catcher put it there?

 

[Guyseep]

That's not what it says. In effect that bit of law is as now - the player in touch then catching the ball before it crosses the plane of touch makes it in touch which is as it is now - but why does that mean, in your new world, that the catcher put it there?

Because the catcher has a foot in touch, and has caught a ball in the field of play. The catcher should be responsible for putting it in touch in this situation. Imagine the nonsense of the current law in an extreme situation:

Consider a player who is two meters tall, and has arms about one meter long. They lay on the ground and have their outstretched toe on the line of touch. They stretch out the full length of their bodies( about 3 meters or more) into the field of play and catch a ball. In this situation the ball is well in field yet it has been put out by the kicker?! Kind of ridiculous.

 

[Davet]

Yet that is how it is.

But nothing in the leagl rewrite that Ian has posted changes that - his new law says that a when a player stood in touch - eg with one foot on the line and the other stepped infield catches a steeply dropping ball, then the ball is in touch.

Which is exactly the situation now.

What is it in his new wording that changes the throw into the line out from the current position of it being the catcher's team, to becoming the kicker's team?

 

[Guyseep]

@Davet Upon a second reading I see your point.

A few sentences explaining who put it in touch would make it much more clear. But overall I like the modification of the law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yet that is how it is.

But nothing in the leagl rewrite that Ian has posted changes that - his new law says that a when a player stood in touch - eg with one foot on the line and the other stepped infield catches a steeply dropping ball, then the ball is in touch.

Which is exactly the situation now.

What is it in his new wording that changes the throw into the line out from the current position of it being the catcher's team, to becoming the kicker's team?

Davet

I am not necessarily trying to determine "blame" here, just trying to simplify and get a consistency in when the ball is and is not in touch.

It would still require a section to determine "who put the ball in touch" but my basic thrust of that is if you cause the ball to go into touch before it crosses the plane of touch, then you are responsible for putting it there.


So

if you stand in touch, and catch or touch the ball before it crosses the plane, you put in it touch.
if you stand in the FoP and catch or touch the ball after it crosses the plane, the last player to play it put the ball in touch.
if you stand in touch and catch or touch the ball after it crosses the plane, the last player to play it put the ball in touch.

 

[Davet]

OK - that's fine - I was simply trying to find out why you appeared to be suggesting that the effect of what you had written was to reverse the current situation.

 

[OB..]

Under Ian’s Rules, if the ball crosses the touchline and is blown back without touching anything or anyone, it is nevertheless in touch. That is a throwback to 1885, which had me putting together a few historical notes, for anyone interested.

In 1871 the law said “If the ball goes into touch …” and gave no further details.
1885 added “The ball is in touch if it crosses the touchline and is then blown back.
A player may be in touch and play the ball provided it is not in touch.”
1925 added: "The ball is in touch if it or a player carrying it touch or cross the touchline."

That last change meant that if the ball carrier swung a n arm of leg across the touch line , he was in touch, and so was the ball. That was seen as impractical, so the law was re-written:
“The ball is in touch when
(a) it not being the possession of a player, it touches or crosses a touchline;
(b) a player in possession of the ball touches a touchline or the ground beyond it.”
1969 a player with feet in the field of play could catch the ball across the touchline.
1978 If the ball crossed the touchline and was blown back without touching anything or anyone, it was not in touch.

The current complexity is therefore of fairly recent origin, brought about as the lawmakers strove to clarify various problems.

It is interesting to note that NZ and NSW in 1919 proposed the basis of the current restriction on kicking to touch from outside your 22 (then the 25 of course). In 1936 they were give a dispensation to play this variation domestically. I always knew it as the Australian Dispensation.

 

[OB..]

The problem of deciding if the ball had crossed the plane when it was many feet up in the air persuades me that it should be necessary for the ball to touch something or someone. It does lead to some complications: Corey Jane would not have scorned under Ian's proposal but the point needs covering in my version. However I think it is worth it. The line crossing curve ball is far more common.

The rule that a player with a foot in touch could catch the ball and have the kicker responsible for putting it there was brought in to stop excessive kicking. I would like to keep it.

Leaning across touch to catch the ball seems hardly worth having. It came in because he is not in touch and neither was the ball. I would let it be in touch on the basis that he was playing a ball that had crossed the plane.

What of the player standing in touch who prevents the ball crossing the plane by knocking or kicking it? He is not "in possession".

What of the jumping player and the various permutations there?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem of deciding if the ball had crossed the plane when it was many feet up in the air persuades me that it should be necessary for the ball to touch something or someone.

To me it makes more sense for it simply to be in touch if it intersects the plane, after all, you still have the more difficult job of judging where it crossed the plane anyway. Judging that that it has crossed is much easier than judging where

 

[Dickie E]

Could it be that the ball is in touch when it crosses the plane of touch with the exception of when a kick curves or is blown back in? This is a relatively rare occurrence and easy for a TJ to manage.

 

[Robert Burns]

In that case would a player in field, catching the ball which has crossed the plane of touch have play on, or is that in touch with their throw in?

 

[OB..]

To me it makes more sense for it simply to be in touch if it intersects the plane, after all, you still have the more difficult job of judging where it crossed the plane anyway. Judging that that it has crossed is much easier than judging where

I see "in or out" as being more significant than "where". The latter can be approximate, the former can't.