Cory Jane, Touch no try

[Dixie]

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.

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?

Ian is proposing the soccer rule - when the ball fully crosses the plane of touch, it is in touch. At a corner kick in soccer, the ball not infrequently crosses the plane close to the kicker, but then bends well infield. Such a kick results in a Goal Kick to the defence.

Dickie clearly would see that as undesirable, so proposes that if it lands back infield irrespective of having crosses the plane, we play on. I am not fan of laws that require exceptions. They get very messy very quickly.

 

[Dixie]

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.

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?

Ian is proposing the soccer rule - when the ball fully crosses the plane of touch, it is in touch. At a corner kick in soccer, the ball not infrequently crosses the plane close to the kicker, but then bends well infield. Such a kick results in a Goal Kick to the defence.

Dickie clearly would see that as undesirable, so proposes that if it lands back infield irrespective of having crosses the plane, we play on. I am not fan of laws that require exceptions. They get very messy very quickly.

 

[Davet]

I woluld suggest we do away with exceptions and jumping etc. and very simply say that the ball is in touch when it, or a player carrying it touches the touchline, or anything or anyone that is on or beyond the touchline, the person or object need not be touching the ground. When a grounding in-goal, or touch or touch-in-goal occur simultaneously then the referee will award the grounding in-goal.

I would also make the same law apply to touch-in-goal and to the dead-ball-line, and make explicit that the dead-ballline is an extension of touch-in-goal and that exactly the same Laws apply to both.

No knocking the ball back in, no worries about jumping, and indeed no reaching over the line to catch a ball - your hands are beyond the line, the ball touches your hands the ball is in touch.

 

[OB..]

I am not fan of laws that require exceptions. They get very messy very quickly.

Law 19 definitions illustrate the problem, but sometimes it is the best solution.

"I have the car every day except Tuesday"

"I have the car Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I do not have the car on Tuesday."

Let's not get too hung up on the format.

 

[OB..]

I woluld suggest we do away with exceptions and jumping etc. and very simply say that the ball is in touch when it, or a player carrying it touches the touchline, or anything or anyone that is on or beyond the touchline, the person or object need not be touching the ground.

Even simpler?
"The ball is in touch when it is in contact with anything or anyone on or beyond the plane of touch. The person or object need not be on the ground."

That would mean the ball was in touch when a player with a foot on the touchline caught it, or even knocked it on. The ball would also be in touch if a player leaned across the plane to touch it. A separate definition is probably needed to clarify who was responsible for the ball going into touch.

It would allow the ball to be blown back into play.

Corey Jane would not have scored.

A jumping player who catches the ball before he or it crossed the plane would have carried the ball into touch.

A player in touch would put the ball in touch if he reached across the plane to touch the ball

What if the player's arm broke the plane as he was running with the ball in the other arm? We need some definition of when a player is in touch.

I'm not sure we have the right approach. I have a horrible feeling we are adopting the IRB's approach of drafting a law to fit some preferred criteria but overlooking others. :frown:

What we need is a list of circumstances that can arise with our preferred outcome in each situation. Then we can look at how to put that into law - which may cause us to revisit some of our preferences. At the moment I am just looking at the definitions in Law 19 (but we all know that list is insufficient) and some historical background.

 

[Davet]

Even simpler?
"The ball is in touch when it is in contact with anything or anyone on or beyond the plane of touch. The person or object need not be on the ground."

That would mean the ball was in touch when a player with a foot on the touchline caught it, or even knocked it on. The ball would also be in touch if a player leaned across the plane to touch it. Yes - that would be my intent. Hence the wording. A separate definition is probably needed to clarify who was responsible for the ball going into touch. Fine - but very simply if it is in touch becuase it meets the condition for touch then the person who played the ball immediately prior to it being in touch is responsible, as it is now.

It would allow the ball to be blown back into play. True and intended

Corey Jane would not have scored. True and intended

A jumping player who catches the ball before he or it crossed the plane would have carried the ball into touch. True and intended

A player in touch would put the ball in touch if he reached across the plane to touch the ball True and intended

What if the player's arm broke the plane as he was running with the ball in the other arm? No the player is not in touch, his empty arm is beyond the plane of touch but that ball isn't in that arm. If it were it would be in touch. We need some definition of when a player is in touch. I am not averse to adjusting that a little bit.

msf..

 

[OB..]

What if the player's arm broke the plane as he was running with the ball in the other arm? No the player is not in touch, his empty arm is beyond the plane of touch but that ball isn't in that arm. If it were it would be in touch.

Player in field of play leans across the plane to touch the ball. Arm in touch therefore ball in touch.
Player with ball in left arm swings right arm through the plane of touch. Does the player's arm no longer count as being in touch?

The difference is where the ball is, but that was not part of the simplified law.

 

[Davet]

Player in field of play leans across the plane to touch the ball. Arm in touch therefore ball in touch.

Under my suggested wording - which is precise - The arm is in touch - the arm is touching the ball = the ball is in touch

Player with ball in left arm swings right arm through the plane of touch. Does the player's arm no longer count as being in touch?

OK that bit needs work... I think it would be a hard call to say that this was touch.


Perhaps:
The ball is in touch when it touches or is touched by anything which is itself in touch.
For the purposes of this Law the referee is regarded as a player; for clarity, Touch Judges, Assistant Referees and other officials are not.
Objects, animals and non-players are in touch if they or any part of them is beyond the plane of touch.
A player is in touch if any part of that person has touched the ground beyond the plane of touch, and the player has not yet, while on his feet, placed both feet on the ground inside the plane of touch before he next touches or is touched by the ball.
A Player who jumps from the field of play to play the ball must land with both feet inside the playing area, or the ball is deemed to be in touch when he played it.
If the ball is touched by or touches a non-player in the playing area the referee stops play and judges what would have happened next had no such contact occurred, and restarts accordingly. In cases of doubt or where play would have continued without a score or touchdown or the ball otherwise going dead, the referee may award a scrum where the contact took place, or at least 5m infield from any goal-line or touchline, with the put-in to the side he feels appropriate.

Which does actually allow the reach over, but I can live with that. It doesn't matter if a player jumps from in touch and catches the ball outside the plane - he can catch it inside the plane. He cant jump from infield to play it unless he lands infield.

But no doubt there is some weakness....

 

[Davet]

he can catch it inside the plane

So long as he has both feet inside before he plays the ball... I should have said.

 

[OB..]

Davet - I think we are showing that simple is not necessarily all-encompassing, and it may produce the "wrong" result.

Our current technique is iteration, hoping to home in on the best solution. Starting with analysis is harder, but ought to be more productive. I have been trying to do something like that on the substitution problem where I have the makings of a decision tree. People have produced such things for eg the man-off rule, and in many cases it is better and easier to understand than the traditional narrative approach.

 

[Cave Dweller]

I really dunno what is the problem here? Think sometimes we make it hard for ourselves unnecessary.

Did the ball cross the touchline - Yes
Was Corry Jane beyond the touchline - Yes
So its out. Irrespective if he landed in the field of play or on Mars. He is out.

 

[Dixie]

So its out. Irrespective if he landed in the field of play or on Mars. He is out.

Easy to assert, but less easy to justify. So tell us ... Why?

 

[Davet]

And please, show your workings, and provide Law references.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Easy to assert, but less easy to justify. So tell us ... Why?

Law 19
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.
The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline

Part that clearly states and explains it

touches the touchline or ANYTHING or ANYONE ON OR BEYOND the touchline.

Jane (Anyone) was beyond the touchline. Simple

 

[Davet]

A player in touch may knock the ball back into the field of play, provided the ball hasn't crossed the pane of touch.
If a player jumps both feet must land in the field of play or else the player is in touch.
A knock on only occurs when a player knocks on and fails to recover the ball before it hits the ground or another player.

do any of these factors affect the judgement in any way?

 

[crossref]

A player in touch may knock the ball back into the field of play, provided the ball hasn't crossed the pane of touch.

that's the bit that needs fixing in the Laws IMO. it's counter-intuitive and inconsistent with other laws, a player in touch really shouldn't be able to knock the ball any more than he can carry it or catch it.

 

[Dixie]

that's the bit that needs fixing in the Laws IMO. it's counter-intuitive and inconsistent with other laws, a player in touch really shouldn't be able to knock the ball any more than he can carry it or catch it.

Agreed. Nor should he be able to score or successfully ground the ball while in touch or T-I-G.

 

[Cave Dweller]

But even if the 2nd objective was met by landing inside field of play the first objective wasn't as the ball did cross the plane of touch. Simple again.

 

[Davet]

But he can.

Actually I agree with crossref; but since the grounding and the touch happen simultaneously I see no issue with artificially declaring on to be first, currently that's the grounding, no problem.

 

[Cave Dweller]

that's the bit that needs fixing in the Laws IMO. it's counter-intuitive and inconsistent with other laws, a player in touch really shouldn't be able to knock the ball any more than he can carry it or catch it.

Why? Before you can say its a knock both conditions must be met first eg 1. Ball not cross the plane of touch
2. He must land inside the field of play.