Global Law Changes for 2017

[OB..]

The missing piece can be found in the current Law 19 definitions: If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing areaotherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

But the proposals is[LAWS]* If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/LAWS]
Are we really saying that if a player is standing in touch, he is no longer considered to be in touch if he jumps in the air?

 

[Dickie E]

[/COLOR]Are we really saying that if a player is standing in touch, he is no longer considered to be in touch if he jumps in the air?

I, for one, am not

 

[ChrisR]

The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP. Therefore, until he lands in touch, he is still considered to be in the FoP.

I'm saying that I'd like to see that expanded to a jumping player starting in touch being able to put a ball back into the FoP if both of his feet land in the FoP.

Then get rid of this piece in the Law 19 definitions: A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

 

[The Fat]

The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP. Therefore, until he lands in touch, he is still considered to be in the FoP.

I'm saying that I'd like to see that expanded to a jumping player starting in touch being able to put a ball back into the FoP if both of his feet land in the FoP.

Then get rid of this piece in the Law 19 definitions: A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

In ALL cases? i.e. Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate. I definitely don't want to see that type of scenario.
If they were to allow a player to start from in-touch, just like the current paragraph in the Definitions (A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.), for me, he would have to catch or knock or tap or Dosey Doe the ball before it crossed the plane-of-touch. Therefore, I'm quite happy with what they have provided in the wording for this bit.

 

[OB..]

The proposal, without stating it, assumes that the player who knocks the ball back into the FoP starts from the FoP.

Much better to state it, which was all I proposed.

 

[ChrisR]

In ALL cases? i.e. Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate. I definitely don't want to see that type of scenario.

But we see that scenario now! From current law definitions: 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. I coach it and some referees on this forum will allow it.

If they were to allow a player to start from in-touch, just like the current paragraph in the Definitions (A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.), for me, he would have to catch or knock or tap or Dosey Doe the ball before it crossed the plane-of-touch. Therefore, I'm quite happy with what they have provided in the wording for this bit.

The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. If a player catches a kick to touch and lands with both feet in the FoP then I don't give a rat's ass as to the plane of touch or where he took off from, it's "Play on!".

 

[The Fat]

But we see that scenario now! From current law definitions: 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. I coach it and some referees on this forum will allow it.



The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. If a player catches a kick to touch and lands with both feet in the FoP then I don't give a rat's ass as to the plane of touch or where he took off from, it's "Play on!".

So you are saying that currently, you would allow the following scenario believing that it is backed by the LoTG?

Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate.

 

[crossref]

The problem with the "plane of touch" is not in concept but in application. For the majority of referees, who apply their craft from somewhat toward the center line of the pitch, the 'plane of touch' is a very indistinct object. The assistance they get from their TJs is even less reliable. .

I agree with this. Anything that references the plane of touch is effectively useless unless you have ARs.

As a referee I hope I am not glued to the centre, but I am rarely/never stood on the actual touchline, which is where you need to be to judge plane of touch properly.

but you can very often see their feet, and the touchline, from any angle and from quite a long way away.

 

[The Fat]

I agree with this. Anything that references the plane of touch is effectively useless unless you have ARs.

As a referee I hope I am not glued to the centre, but I am rarely/never stood on the actual touchline, which is where you need to be to judge plane of touch properly.

but you can very often see their feet, and the touchline, from any angle and from quite a long way away.

So would you also allow the scenario in my post #27? I am a little confused if you are saying that because you only want to be looking at the feet, does that mean it is possible that you would play on in the case of my scenario?

 

[crossref]

So would you also allow the scenario in my post #27? I am a little confused if you are saying that because you only want to be looking at the feet, does that mean it is possible that you would play on in the case of my scenario?

No, I was discussing how I would like the Laws to be.

My point is that Laws which reference the position of the feet are a LOT easier to referee than Laws which reference the plane of touch.

As it is, of course in some circumstances I have to base a decision on my judgement of whether the ball crossed the plane or not (and because of where I am standing normally I will have no idea, and make a guess)

In terms of scenario #27 - I actualyl don't think these extreme examples are very helpful.

A more normal scenario is that
- a player is standing about 0.5 metre in touch
- and as the ball comes down he leaps, catches it, and lands inside the FoP
- as a referee I have no idea which side of the plane he caught it
- but I could see that he landed in the FoP

- did the TJ flag? if he did - peep
- TJ didn't flag - or no TJ - Play on!

 

[ChrisR]

So you are saying that currently, you would allow the following scenario believing that it is backed by the LoTG?

Player standing 3m in touch awaiting PK from opposition runs towards the touch line, jumps, from say 1m in touch, catches the ball, which has crossed the plane-of-touch, whilst in the air and then lands with both feet in the FoP and passes to a team mate.

The problem is the part in red. A player 1m in touch who jumps and lands in the FoP will be catching the ball somewhere in the vicinity of the LoT. Without ARs and TMOs to assist him the referee, unless he is positioned on the LoT, will not have a clue as to whether the ball has crossed or not. I agree with crossref that you have a far better chance of seeing where he lands.

The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

 

[OB..]

Do we see professional players jumping from in touch to catch the ball and land in the FoP? No.

I understand the arguments in favour of allowing it to help the referee at lower levels, but the fact that nobody does it suggests that it is not accepted as valid.

If we are going by position of the feet, we have to decide if what matters is where you start or where you land. I favour the former because with the latter the ball could have been passed well in field when the player lands, and that is awkward for the referee at our levels.

 

[The Fat]

Originally posted by ChrisR:
The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

I don't really want to start this argument but we all know that the intent of that law was never to have a player in-touch jump, catch a ball that may have already passed the plane-of-touch, and land in the FoP and play on.
To that end, I don't believe the Laws support your view

 

[crossref]

Originally posted by ChrisR:
The definitions to Law 19 support my view: 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.

I don't really want to start this argument but we all know that the intent of that law was never to have a player in-touch jump, catch a ball that may have already passed the plane-of-touch, and land in the FoP and play on.
To that end, I don't believe the Laws support your view

on the one hand I completely agree that players starting 5m in touch and taking running jumps landing in the FoP, was not what anyone ever envisaged; and no doubt if we saw it we'd call touch. (except that if we did see it, it would probably be in the beer-leg of a social 7s, so in fact we'd probably allow it!)

but on the other hand if a player was standing with one foot on the touchline (ie in touch) and leapt and caught the ball, landing both feet in in FoP, I am sure we'd all play on, and no one would be worrying about whether the ball had passed the plane of touch before the catch was made (even if they were in a position to be able to tell)

In Law the two things are the same, players leaping from touch to the FoP - but in practice they are different.

 

[ChrisR]

Do we see professional players jumping from in touch to catch the ball and land in the FoP? No.

.... and every now and again a pro team will put a new wrinkle into the game and the reaction is "Wow, that was creative!"

I understand the arguments in favour of allowing it to help the referee at lower levels, but the fact that nobody does it suggests that it is not accepted as valid.

Frankly, the biggest obstacle to creativity in this game are referees that just whistle anything up that they haven't seen before. Nobody does it only means that you haven't seen it. A player can reach out into touch to catch a ball that has crossed the plane. Now, give me a good reason why that same player couldn't jump from 1m, catch and land in the FoP?

If we are going by position of the feet, we have to decide if what matters is where you start or where you land. I favour the former because with the latter the ball could have been passed well in field when the player lands, and that is awkward for the referee at our levels.

Why does it have to be a choice? Either take off in the F0P or land in the FoP. Both keep the ball in play. Isn't that positive rugby?

 

[The Fat]

If we allow players to jump from in-touch, catch a ball that has crossed the plane-of-touch and then land in the FoP, it will become the norm at PKs. So a team is guilty of a penalty infringement but still have the opportunity to negate the PK?
Sorry if some see that as positive play. I don't.

 

[SimonSmith]

Frankly, the biggest obstacle to creativity in this game are referees that just whistle anything up that they haven't seen before. Nobody does it only means that you haven't seen it. A player can reach out into touch to catch a ball that has crossed the plane. Now, give me a good reason why that same player couldn't jump from 1m, catch and land in the FoP?

Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

 

[Dickie E]

* Finals should last no longer than seven minutes each half (rationale is player welfare – the evidence shows that a disproportionate number of injuries take place in the second half of finals. Injuries per minute are higher in the second half of finals as opposed to the first half and throughout normal matches of seven minutes each way.)

We will see this for the first time in Dubai

 

[didds]

well presumably kickers will just learn to kick the ball further than (say) 5m deep from touch.

I am however ambivalent generally speaking about this.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

its such a shame that that is the case!!

didds

 

[The Fat]

Referees kill creativity. The bad ones, maybe. The good ones don't.

I've seen "creative"coaches in our area. Almost to a man, they haven't researched the law. The really good coaches, like Lindeonwood for example, focus on excellence in execution on basics and winning that way.

Our Referee's Association offers all of our local clubs the services of 1 or 2 refs to attend their club training upon request so that they can be brought up to date on any law changes at the start of each season, or if they generally just want clarification of anything during the season. Prior to season kickoff, we have someone from NSWRU come up and present the GMGs for that year and ALL clubs are invited, (well actually expected), to send at least one coach along to that presentation.

Both services are poorly utilised by the club coaches, many of whom believe they know more than the referee anyway but who then squeal like a stuck pig when the ref pings them for something new from the GMGs.

If I come across a coach who is genuinely interested in expanding his grasp of the LoTG, I will go out of my way to help him out. It is so good to find one.