Global Law Changes for 2017

[OB..]

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".

Another essential element is knowing where the ball crossed the touchline. That cannot be done without the equivalent of "plane of touch.

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

People manage to estimate the crossing point well enough. The problem remains whatever term you use.

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.

You are not really objecting to the term, but wanting a different law that does not need it. That probably means defining the matter by where the player starts or lands. However we still need "plane of touch" or an equivalent to decide where the line of touch is.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm not concerned with where the ball went into touch but if it went into touch and who put it there.The location of the line of touch can be off a few feet and have very little impact on the game.However, if a player with a foot in touch catches a ball the proposed determination of who put the ball into touch will depend on whether the ball has reached the plane of touch. That can be a game changer and it is to be decided by the balls position relative to a virtual plane that is difficult to determine by a referee without ARs. This is the part I don't like.

 

[menace]

Add to that, most punters (and TJs) don't know the vaguries of the invisible plane of touch and think youve got the decision wrong anyway.

 

[FlipFlop]

I don't see why we can't get rid of the plane of touch. There is no need for it.

We can say a player is in touch if he is standing in-touch, and remains there until he re-establishes himself (i.e. has managed to get at least 1 foot completely into the playing area (on ground) while not having any other body part in touch).

And the reverse - a player in play, remains there until he touches ground etc. that is in touch.

This way a player jumping from touch, is still in touch until they land in the field of play, and a player jumping from the field of play is still in the field of play until they land.

Then get rid of distinction between playing and catching the ball.

Then take everything from that. Everything follows very logically.

You can even have a sensible "exception" that a player may ground a ball while in touch (ball on ground already etc) if you want to allow that.

 

[Camquin]

Where it goes into touch can be vital - especially if it is a question of touch or touch-in-goal.

 

[Dickie E]

Where it goes into touch can be vital - especially if it is a question of touch or touch-in-goal.

I'm sure nobody would dispute that but the risk assessment would tell me that, while the consequence of a wrong decision is high, the liklihood is low because of the presence of the corner post as a visual indicator. So risk would be no worse than moderate.

On the other hand, ChrisR is suggesting that the liklihood of a wrong touch call where a referee (often without AR/TJ) has to observe plane of touch, whether catcher is in the air, whether catcher has foot in touch or not, whether he catches or bats ball, etc is significantly higher.

 

[crossref]

The problem with the plane of touch is not theoretical, it's practical... For a referee without ARs, you are never in a position to be able to see it.

The line on the other hand, is very useful

 

[Dan_A]

Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

 

[Dickie E]

Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

Maybe the Scottish thrower should have thrown it to his half back. "Peep, not straight, full time"

 

[crossref]

Did anyone see the Eng vs Scot 7s Cup QF from Dubai last weekend? Interesting incident relevant to the 2017 variations.

Eng were two scores down in the final minute. they scored a try out wide and immediately said no conversion so had time to kick off.

England recovered the restart and made their way upfield but after the clock went red they were pinged for not releasing. Cue celebrations from the Scottish, who kicked the ball off the pitch. At which point the referee correctly awards the lineout, which Scotland stuff up and England break away to score the winning try.

Clearly the Scottish player should have tapped to himself then kicked to kill the game, but it was amusing (as an Englishman) to see this play out in that way.

But it's not 2017 yet, so when they kicked the pk out, it was full time

 

[Dickie E]

But it's not 2017 yet, so when they kicked the pk out, it was full time

I would guess (and it is only a guess) that they would want standard laws for the whole of the WR 7s season which started with Dubai. I was seperately informed that the 7 point penalty try came into force in Dubai.

 

[ChrisR]

After a 7 point PT does the scoring team kick off with drop kick or a PK? I'm assuming a drop unless there was additional foul play after the PT.

 

[Dickie E]

After a 7 point PT does the scoring team kick off with drop kick or a PK? I'm assuming a drop unless there was additional foul play after the PT.

Yes..

 

[Mandrason]

Maybe the Scottish thrower should have thrown it to his half back. "Peep, not straight, full time"

Doesnt work that way, lineout cannot end on a crooked throw. The lineout can only end if one of the situations in 19.9 (b) occurs.
There has been a law clarification regarding this:

Unsuccessful end to a lineout.

A lineout cannot be ended on a crooked throw-in. The non-offending team has an option of another lineout with their team to throw in or a scrum 15 meters in through the line of touch.

Source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=19&clarification=1018

 

[Lex Hipkins]

So the same thing happened in yesterday's Champions Cup match between Connaught and Wasps. In this case Connaught won penalty after time, checked with ref who confirmed time was up but the could have the line out, they kicked into touch, won line out and drove over for match winning (after successful conversion) try.

But isn't this the Northern Hemisphere.. does this not come into the laws in August 2017?

 

[Mandrason]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/connacht-try-shouldnt-have-stood/

The assitant ref who replaced Jerome Garces got it wrong, official statement by EPCR. So yes, it only comes into the laws in August 2017 in the NH