Global Law Changes for 2017

[crossref]

it's very common for experienced refs to say that knowledge of the Laws is 10% of being a great referee - the other 90% is about other things, fitness, game and people management etc etc.
it's probably the same for playing and coaching

 

[The Fat]

it's very common for experienced refs to say that knowledge of the Laws is 10% of being a great referee - the other 90% is about other things, fitness, game and people management etc etc.
it's probably the same for playing and coaching

Hard to compare apples to oranges.

That 10% Law knowledge by the ref may include being able to score 90% in a law exam whereas that 10% Law knowledge slice of the pie chart for the player or coach may only score them 30 & 50% respectively in the same Law exam:wink:

 

[OB..]

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

Same here.

 

[OB..]

ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.

I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch.

 

[didds]

a long time ago now as part of a colts academy type set up I invited a local ref for an item of "ask the ref" for the colts players. To my immense embarrassment it turned into a grillathon from the couple of adults present about what had happened in the last 1st XV game.

It was woeful... I had to cut it short.

I do sympathise with you blokes, genuinely...

didds

 

[OB..]

A maverick thought: we know that simply being in contact with a player in touch does not put another player in touch. If jumping means the player is not in touch (provided he lands in the FoP), would the same apply to being lifted?!

Scenario. Tom lifts Dick to catch a kick one metre in touch. Dick passes the ball infield and then Tom steps forward, lowering Dick on both feet in the FoP. Farcical? Agreed.

 

[menace]

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?

Admittedly that's what i thought it meant. I concede i may be wrong. But all the changes seem to lessen the impact of the plane of touch.
They all seem to fit in with the other defs and other proposed changes - as i read it.

ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.


h.

But that's because the plane of touch effectively stifles that strategy?
Though im sure it occured a bit in super rugby by brumbies julian huxley (???) a few years ago and it was permitted (cause he caught it before it crossed the plane )



I guess we will soon see here in SH what the interpretation will be. We all whine about hiw complex the touch laws are. ...perhaps this is a big shakeup of them ?

 

[ChrisR]

ChrisR - you have missed my point. Some argue that the option of jumping from touch has been available for many years. So far nobody has tried it - if they did and it was allowed, others would copy it and the authorities would respond (or not). That hasn't happened.

Perhaps they have tried it and, having it disallowed, not tried it again and not challenged the call. That doesn't mean that it should be disallowed. The reason that I raise the point is a. I think it is a positive action as is diving across the line to bat the ball back into play and b. I'd like it to be codified into law so that it can become a valid practice. Not everyone will see this as positive but I think it has merit.

I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch.

Well, that action is now lawful. There was already a contradiction to that as a player can be in touch and keep a ball in the FoP.

 

[ChrisR]

A maverick thought: we know that simply being in contact with a player in touch does not put another player in touch. If jumping means the player is not in touch (provided he lands in the FoP), would the same apply to being lifted?!

Scenario. Tom lifts Dick to catch a kick one metre in touch. Dick passes the ball infield and then Tom steps forward, lowering Dick on both feet in the FoP. Farcical? Agreed.

Farcical for sure.

 

[The Fat]

Originally Posted by OB.

I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch


*Well, that action is now lawful.
**There was already a contradiction to that as a player can be in touch and keep a ball in the FoP.

* Will be lawful from Jan 1 2017 in SH and from July 1 2017 in NH
** Probably need a bit more clarification from OB re his description of this scenario. I believe he is talking about a player jumping from the field of play, his body crossing the plane-of-touch, and catching & throwing or knocking the ball (which had also crossed the plane-of-touch) back into the field of play before the player then lands in touch.
The contradiction you speak of is not really a contradiction to OB's scenario. In OB's scenario both the ball and the player have crossed the plane-of-touch whereas the player standing in-touch and knocking the ball back into play has to make contact before the ball crosses the plane-of-touch. They are different scenarios.

 

[The Fat]

But that's because the plane of touch effectively stifles that strategy?
Though im sure it occured a bit in super rugby by brumbies julian huxley (???) a few years ago and it was permitted (cause he caught it before it crossed the plane )

The Julian Huxley incident was slightly different. He was running across field at pace and jumped from at least 2m inside the field of play, caught the ball well inside the FoP, and called for a MARK as he sailed across the plane-of-touch.

Could have been in his 1st game for the Melbourne Rebels.

 

[DocY]

The Julian Huxley incident was slightly different. He was running across field at pace and jumped from at least 2m inside the field of play, caught the ball well inside the FoP, and called for a MARK as he sailed across the plane-of-touch.

Could have been in his 1st game for the Melbourne Rebels.

It's an interesting one - strictly the ball was in touch, but it somehow feels wrong not to award the mark if he caught the ball in the FoP. I don't think when he actually called the mark is relevant, just where he lands.

 

[crossref]

a mark is quite interesting -- in real life we don't really see players leaping across touchline to land inside the FoP

but we might well see players leaping into the 22m, catching the ball in the air , and calling mark as they land in the 22m (I'd give it)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Once again WR has missed the chance to really simplify and remove the anomalies from the touch Laws. Simply adopting the RL touch laws in their entirety (leaving out the parts that are not applicable to RU such as the play the ball and scrum restarts) would hace been a far better way yo go.

From ARL Laws of the Game: SECTION 9 TOUCH AND TOUCH IN-GOAL

1. Ball in Touch. The ball is in touch or touch in goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touchline or the touch-in-goal line or the ground beyond, or any object (other than a player) on or outside the touchline or touch-in-goal line.

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

3. Point of Entry. When a ball has entered touch, the point of entry shall be taken as the point at which the ball first crossed the touch or touch in-goal line.

4. Stationary ball. Where the ball, which is stationary in the field of play or the in-goal area, is touched by a player in touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to have been put in touch or made dead by that player, otherwise it is deemed to have been made dead by the player who last played it.

These four definitions would cover everything.

 

[crossref]

And no reference to the plane of the touchline :clap:

 

[ChrisR]

TF, I wasn't contradicting OBs scenario but was commenting on this statement:

"I can add that some years ago I asked the RFU's head of refereeing about the status of a player jumping across the plane of touch to knock the ball back into play. I was told that once the player crossed the plane he was deemed to be in touch, therefore when he touched the ball, it was also in touch."

From Law 19 definitions:

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.

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.

I agree that the scenario is different but the cause and effect are the same: Player in touch contacts ball therefore ball in touch.

Also from Law 19 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.

This definition makes no reference to the plane of touch or the field of play.

 

[Ian_Cook]

And no reference to the plane of the touchline :clap:

There is, sort of, but its only to determine where the ball went into touch (point of entry) , not if it went into touch.

 

[The Fat]

Also from Law 19 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.

This definition makes no reference to the plane of touch or the field of play.[/QUOTE

Sorry, my mistake for referencing the FoP as opposed to the Playing Area.
But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

 

[DocY]

Sorry, my mistake for referencing the FoP as opposed to the Playing Area.
But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

I'm sure this came up in a society meeting where the consensus was that the player must start and end in the playing area.

 

[ChrisR]

But do you agree that the for the part of the definitions above, the law writers assume the player starts from the playing area?

No. I think otherwise. I think that they were not concerned with where he (the catcher) came from but where he landed and that's what they put in the Law.

I really don't understand why you have a problem with this. It takes skill and precise timing to jump, catch and land both feet in the FoP and it's one less stoppage in play.