Global Law Changes for 2017

[OB..]

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."

I am not entirely sure what point you are making, but I thought the bit in blue showed the ball had crossed the plane of touch.

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.

Like others, I have always interpreted this to mean that the player must start from the field of play.

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.

As I said above, to know if the player landed in the FoP the referee must watch his feet. However the ball may well have been passed in-field some distance away by the time he lands, thus raising the prospect of the referee not seeing the recipient knock-on. I see it as an unnecessary complication.

 

[The Fat]

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.

The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play. There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.
With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.

 

[ChrisR]

The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play.

Says you. Show me. Show me where it says "A player may not jump from touch, catch the ball and land in the FoP".

There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.

Not anywhere, just the playing area. Since, according to OB, nobody ever does this so it must be illegal how can you be so sure?

With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.

Agreed. But I'm still curious why you think it so illegal.

 

[The Fat]

Says you. Show me. Show me where it says "A player may not jump from touch, catch the ball and land in the FoP".



Not anywhere, just the playing area. Since, according to OB, nobody ever does this so it must be illegal how can you be so sure?



Agreed. But I'm still curious why you think it so illegal.

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.


This is the only current example of when a player, who is in touch, may keep the ball in play and it is fully dependent of where the ball is in relation to the plane-of-touch.
A player who starts from touch and jumps in the air is still in touch. If he extends his arm so that he can knock the ball, before it crosses the plane-of-touch (thereby preventing the ball from effectively leaving the playing area), and the ball stays in the playing area it is play on. If under the same circumstances he knocks it after it crosses the plane-of-touch, the ball is in touch. Likewise, if the ball has crossed the plane-of-touch and he catches it rather than knock it, the ball is being held by a player who is in touch and the ball is deemed to be in-touch. The only way it can be returned to the FoP is by a lineout.
I realise you are not going to accept my explanation because every possible scenario that can happen on a rugby field is not exhaustively written to the last detail in the LoTG, but I can tell you that at every AR course and (referee's course if it is raised during discussion) I have attended, this is how it is to be adjudicated according to referee managers/education officers employed by NSWRU or ARU (who are way further up the food chain than this little black duck).

A player who starts in-touch and jumps in the air is still in-touch.
Currently, a player who starts from the playing area, jumps and catches the ball must throw the ball back to the playing area before he crosses the plane-of-touch (OB's scenario).
It is impossible for a player to leap from the playing area, have his body/torso cross the plane-of-touch, catch the ball (either before or after it crosses the plane-of-touch), and land with both feet in the playing area whether he releases the ball or not.
It IS possible for a player to start in the playing area (basically standing i.e. no or little momentum towards the touch line), jump vertically and catch the ball and land with both feet in the playing area.

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


There is nothing more I can add to the discussion other than I believe the Law Trials for 2017 will simplify things somewhat and will allow OB's scenario to be a play-on situation.

 

[OB..]

The only problem I have with this is that it is not a legal play. There is not a top level AR anywhere who would leave his flag down if a player jumped from in-touch, caught a ball that had crossed the plane-of-touch and landed anywhere (in playing area/in-touch/in carpark/in neighbouring suburb) regardless of how much skill was displayed by the catcher.
With all due respect, I think it's time we all moved on.

What's an AR?! Down at my levels we are lucky to have a TJ who knows the laws.

 

[The Fat]

What's an AR?! Down at my levels we are lucky to have a TJ who knows the laws.

Luckily for us down here in the colonies, we strive to have as many ARs as possible appointed to games even at my local level which would cover England L13-L7 standard. We also allow, in my area at least and I believe Dickie E's area as well, an accredited AR who happens to be at a ground, but not already be officially appointed to a particular game, to help out and run a line for the referee and be able to perform ALL of the duties normally carried out by an appointed AR i.e. report foul play etc. Just common sense really.

 

[ChrisR]

So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.

 

[The Fat]

So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.

My short version is, if a player holds the ball while he is in touch, the ball is in touch. Simple.

"Looking forward to the 2017 amendments."

Amen.

 

[SimonSmith]

So .... your short version is: A player in touch is in touch until he returns to the playing area. My short version is if he lands in the playing area he will be grandfathered in. I like my version better. I hope Simon agrees or hasn't caught up with this thread.

Looking forward to the 2017 amendments.

This is a gap in the law that isn't expressed directly.

My opinion is that your status (in touch, in the 22, in goal) is driven by where you started and not where you end up. And even then there are gaps. If you start in touch, catch the ball on the 'in touch' side of the touch line and land in play, you're in touch. And I think there's adequate precedent for that

 

[crossref]

If someone carrying the ball treads on touchline, it's touch

If some treading on the touchline leaps and catches the ball, landing in FoP, surely everyone would play on

 

[Phil E]

If some treading on the touchline leaps and catches the ball, landing in FoP, surely everyone would play on

Depends on whether the ball crossed the plane of touch.

 

[crossref]

Really?

 

[ChrisR]

Depends on whether the ball crossed the plane of touch.

The plane of touch. The sooner this term disappears from the rugby lexicon the better.

 

[Camquin]

The line out is formed at the point the ball crosses the plane of touch - which means you cannot lose it completely.

 

[ChrisR]

The line out is formed at the point the ball crosses into touch - which means you cannot lose it completely.

Just did.

 

[Camquin]

But the ball is not in touch when it crosses the plane - it is only definitely in touch when it lands or touches something ...
So you now need to define what you mean by passing into touch as separate from being in touch.

Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

 

[Phil E]

Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

Same here.......woodwork CSE

 

[ChrisR]

But the ball is not in touch when it crosses the plane - it is only definitely in touch when it lands or touches something ...
So you now need to define what you mean by passing into touch as separate from being in touch.

Personally having a maths A-level I have no objection to defining a plane.

From 2016 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.


The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch.


The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.


If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.


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.


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.

None of the definitions above, with the exception of the last one, make any reference to "plane of touch". And the last one contradicts the first one and, because of that, I'd like to see it disappear.

We can get along just fine without the "plane of touch" and, hopefully, WR will be headed that way.

Planes are great, though I'd rather drive, but the PoT is invisible to the referee any more infield than 10m and I see no advantage in applying it.

 

[OB..]

None of the definitions above, with the exception of the last one, make any reference to "plane of touch". And the last one contradicts the first one and, because of that, I'd like to see it disappear.

We can get along just fine without the "plane of touch" and, hopefully, WR will be headed that way.

You are looking at the wrong part of law 19. You need:[LAWS]19.3 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]On all other occasions, the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.[/FONT][/LAWS]That does not use the term "plane of touch", but I don't care what phrase is used. it is undeniably essential to have some convenient way of referring to it. I have no idea why you find that one so objectionable.

 

[ChrisR]

OB, what is undeniably essential is a means of determining if a ball is in touch and, if so, who put it there. I believe that this can be done without reference to the "plane of touch".

My objection to the "plane of touch" is simple: It is an indistinct form to the referee and even to ARs.

The law change that allows a player to leap from the playing area and play a ball back into the playing area without reference to the plane of touch is a step in the right direction. The law writers will do the game a big favor if they keep this in mind.