Foot on the Line

[dfobrien]

I am a bit confused by a decision from the NZ/Wales thrid-place match. Obviously it was the correct decision as all officials agreed and TV commentators didn't query it, so I am wondering what I am missing.

Wales kicked from outside their 22, and Jordie Barrett went to catch it. He put his foot on the touchline, and clearly expected the decision to be a scrum back. However, the AR awarded a lineout ... to Wales. (I don't think Barrett stepped into touch after he caught it, although he may have - I wasn't paying close attention.) Wayne Barnes ran up, checked with the AR and said something like "Foot on the line, in play".

If it was "in play", then why was a lineout given at all ... unless of course Barrett DID step into touch after he caught it? If Barrett's foot had been over the touchline when he caught the ball, would it have been a scrum back? And if on the line is in play, then why is a try given when the ball is grounded on the goalline, or are the laws different there? And what about the deadball line when a kick is going dead? If the receiving player has his foot on the line in this instance is it still "in play", so that he needs to go over the line again here?

Finally, while on this general topic, one that has baffled me for ages. If a missed drop-goal attempt goes dead, why is it not a scrum back? Is there a special exemption for drop-goal attempts? And if so, would anyone agree that the law should be changed? It seems very generous to reward a missed drop-goal by allowing the team that missed to regain possession via a drop out, and encourages teams to run down the clock with an endless series of drop-goal efforts.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Phil E]

If he caught the ball while standing on the touchline then the decision was correct. The touchline is part of in touch.

[LAWS]TOUCH OR TOUCH-IN-GOAL
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.[/LAWS]


The goal line is part of in-goal, so a ball on the goal line is in-goal...and a try if its the oppositions goal line.


The deadball line is the same as a touchline...it's out.


For you last question, look at the last part of this law:

[LAWS]BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL
12. If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal from the field of play into touchin-
goal or on or over the dead-ball line, the defending team can choose :
a. To have a drop-out anywhere on or behind the 22-metre line; or
b. To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked.
Exception : An unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal. In these cases, the
defending team restarts with a 22-metre drop-out.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

What Phil missed out is the recent change in the Law

Until very recently when the catcher of the ball has a foot in touch , the kicker would be judged to have put the ball in touch, and the catcher would get the throw

They changed the Law a year or so ago , so that it now depends on whether the ball had crossed the plane of the touchline or not . In this case it hadn't, so the catcher was judged to have put the ball in touch. Lineout to the kicker

If Barrett was expecting the throw, that was a bad mistake

On the other hand he might have simply stepped on the line accidentally !

 

[smeagol]

On the other hand he might have simply stepped on the line accidentally !

From my recollection, Barrett's body language indicated that he was unaware of the change in law. His foot on the line seemed deliberate, and he motioned as if expecting the lineout upfield.

 

[crossref]

From my recollection, Barrett's body language indicated that he was unaware of the change in law. His foot on the line seemed deliberate, and he motioned as if expecting the lineout upfield.

Well a bad mistake.
Oddly I had a similar incident in a grass roots game a few weeks ago and even at my lowly level the mistaken player received DotD for not knowing about that change ..

(although in fairness part of the reason was no doubt they way he ostentatiously placed his foot on the line and leaned right in the catch the ball a good 1.5m in !)

 

[Phil E]

What Phil missed out is the recent change in the Law

I didn't mention that deliberately, so as not to muddy the waters.
The question was "is it a lineout" not who gets the put in.

 

[crossref]

I didn't mention that deliberately, so as not to muddy the waters.
The question was "is it a lineout" not who gets the put in.

I thought it was both .. why a lineout and why a Wales throw

I am wondering what I am missing.

Wales kicked from outside their 22, and Jordie Barrett went to catch it. He put his foot on the touchline, and clearly expected the decision to be a scrum back. However, the AR awarded a lineout ... to Wales. (I don't think Barrett stepped into touch after he caught it, although he may have - I wasn't paying close attention.) .

 

[Rich_NL]

If it was "in play", then why was a lineout given at all ... unless of course Barrett DID step into touch after he caught it? If Barrett's foot had been over the touchline when he caught the ball, would it have been a scrum back? And if on the line is in play, then why is a try given when the ball is grounded on the goalline, or are the laws different there? And what about the deadball line when a kick is going dead? If the receiving player has his foot on the line in this instance is it still "in play", so that he needs to go over the line again here?

I assume he meant the ball was in play (not over the plane of the touchline), his foot being on the line put him in touch - you understand that correctly. Meaning he brought it out, and the lineout goes to the opposition at that point. If it had been straight out, the lineout (not scrum back) would have gone to his team, level with where it was kicked.

Finally, while on this general topic, one that has baffled me for ages. If a missed drop-goal attempt goes dead, why is it not a scrum back? Is there a special exemption for drop-goal attempts? And if so, would anyone agree that the law should be changed? It seems very generous to reward a missed drop-goal by allowing the team that missed to regain possession via a drop out, and encourages teams to run down the clock with an endless series of drop-goal efforts.

As stated, there's an exception for drop goals and penalty attempts on goal. I don't think the law needs changing, it rewards an attacking team's attempt to score, and drop goals are a rarity as it is. Certainly at grassroots level, I don't see successful DGs more than once every ten games, almost always within the 22 anyway (so for a second realistic attempt they have to make ground all the way back after the 22DO), and I've never seen anyone use it as a tactic to run down the clock.

 

[Dickie E]

is this the one where he thinks he is jumping from FoP to knock ball back in but actually starts with foot on touchline? Some video would help

 

[didds]

dickie - he is stock still with foot on the line and just lets the ball come to him, but he catches it in the field of play.

dont have a video ref Im afraid.

didds

 

[crossref]

(posted on wrong thread)

 

[Ian_Cook]

What Phil missed out is the recent change in the Law

Until very recently when the catcher of the ball has a foot in touch , the kicker would be judged to have put the ball in touch, and the catcher would get the throw

They changed the Law a year or so ago , so that it now depends on whether the ball had crossed the plane of the touchline or not . In this case it hadn't, so the catcher was judged to have put the ball in touch. Lineout to the kicker

If Barrett was expecting the throw, that was a bad mistake

On the other hand he might have simply stepped on the line accidentally !

And that is most likely what the AR meant when he said "in play"

ETA: Ninja'd by Rich_NL

 

[Ian_Cook]

(posted on wrong thread)

Yeah... there's a bit of that happening lately! :biggrin:

 

[dfobrien]

Thanks to all for replies. Yes, Barrett's demeanour clearly indicated he thought he was going to get a scrum back, so it seems that (like me) he didn't know the new law. A poorer reflection on him as a pro rugby player than on me, to be fair. Just to be clear, even if his foot has been in touch rather than on the line, it would not have been scrum back unless the ball had gone over the touchline, correct? Barnes' "in play" comment was certainly confusing (though he may have said "ball still in play", to be fair - it was a bit muffled) ... though I doubt I'd have got that implication then either.

I disagree on the exemption for drop-goal attempts going out of play. I'm fine with the exemption for penalties - the offending side should not get the ball back upfield just because the kicker missed with his kick after their transgression. But trying a drop-goal is a decision by the attacking side, and a poor execution shouldn't be rewarded, in my view. But the poster who commented that it is not much used as a tactic to run down the clock is probably correct. Why would you risk it when nowadays you have the much safer option of sticking the ball up your jumper and going to ground illegally to protect it :smile:. But I do recall a phase in South Africa where teams on the high veldt took potshots from all over the place when leading safe in the knowledge they'd get the ball back.

 

[Rich_NL]

Why do you say scrum back and not a line-out?

 

[Phil E]

Thanks to all for replies. Yes, Barrett's demeanour clearly indicated he thought he was going to get a scrum back, so it seems that (like me) he didn't know the new law. A poorer reflection on him as a pro rugby player than on me, to be fair. Just to be clear, even if his foot has been in touch rather than on the line, it would not have been scrum back unless the ball had gone over the touchline, correct? Barnes' "in play" comment was certainly confusing (though he may have said "ball still in play", to be fair - it was a bit muffled) ... though I doubt I'd have got that implication then either.

I disagree on the exemption for drop-goal attempts going out of play. I'm fine with the exemption for penalties - the offending side should not get the ball back upfield just because the kicker missed with his kick after their transgression. But trying a drop-goal is a decision by the attacking side, and a poor execution shouldn't be rewarded, in my view. But the poster who commented that it is not much used as a tactic to run down the clock is probably correct. Why would you risk it when nowadays you have the much safer option of sticking the ball up your jumper and going to ground illegally to protect it :smile:. But I do recall a phase in South Africa where teams on the high veldt took potshots from all over the place when leading safe in the knowledge they'd get the ball back.

The result is never going to be a scrum back.
The only decision is did the ball go straight out (line out in line with kick), or taken out (line out where it was taken out).

You only get a scrum back from a kick if the ball is kicked dead, over the dead ball line or touch in goal.

 

[smeagol]

Just to be clear, even if his foot has been in touch rather than on the line, it would not have been scrum back unless the ball had gone over the touchline, correct? Barnes' "in play" comment was certainly confusing (though he may have said "ball still in play", to be fair - it was a bit muffled) ... though I doubt I'd have got that implication then either.

In this case, the ball was put in touch once Barrett caught it with a foot on the line. It's the same as if Barrett caught it with both feet in, then stepped on the line.

 

[crossref]

In this case, the ball was put in touch once Barrett caught it with a foot on the line. It's the same as if Barrett caught it with both feet in, then stepped on the line.

Not necessarily, it depended on whether the ball had passed the plane

 

[didds]

Not necessarily, it depended on whether the ball had passed the plane

so... for my ediucation...

red kick ball and it will land out on the full.

blue player both feet in play catches the ball after it has croissed the plane (he has long arms ;-). Then blue player steps into touch.

Surely that is blue taken into touch, red lineout at that point on the touchline? (unless < 5m from goal line etc etc etc)

didds

 

[crossref]

so... for my ediucation...

red kick ball and it will land out on the full.

blue player both feet in play catches the ball after it has croissed the plane (he has long arms ;-). Then blue player steps into touch.

Surely that is blue taken into touch, red lineout at that point on the touchline? (unless < 5m from goal line etc etc etc)

didds

Yes
But with one foot on touchline , and catches it beyond the plane then red kicked it into touch , straight out, line out to blue back there