[Tackle] In touch or not?

[Elpablo73]

Saw this at a game and couldn't decide who’s interpretation was correct.
:chin:

Green wing running just in from the touchline, seeing the black full back coming across to tackle him moves infield. Black full back dives and tackles the winger ending up with the full back sliding on his back with the winger on top of him. The slide stops with the full back perpendicular to the touch line with his head and shoulders in touch & the winger's head and shoulder also beyond the touchline. No part of the winger was touching the ground beyond the line and the ball is on his stomach, so that had not crossed the plane of the touchline. The ref called play-on and a pass was made to a support runner who scored between the sticks; whilst the black coaches were saying he was in touch because he was touching the ground beyond laying on a player who was in touch.

The definition in law 19 states: "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." So this supports the ref's call.

But the black coach was arguing that definition of being brought to ground in law 15.3 states: "If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.” and so by extension is touching the ground because the only reason he was not touching the ground was that he was taking a ride on top of another player and it should be seen as the tackler not being there.

 

[The Fat]

Correct decision by the referee.
Think of the situation where a winger dives in the corner to score a try and the fullback attempts to tackle him, wraps his arms around the winger's ankles and slides over the touch line as the winger grounds the ball. As long as the winger's feet/legs don't touch the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line, it is a try.

I wonder what the black team's coach from your OP would say about a winger who has his right foot in touch but kicks the ball ahead with his left foot that is not in touch? He may have sparks coming from the ears

 

[OB..]

A laws 15 definition does not necessarily apply to a Law 19 situation. Yes, it was a tackle, but that does not answer the Law 19 question.

This is a variation on the player in the air debate. On the few occasions I have seen it happen, the referee has played on.

I suppose you could get a freak situation where the ball carrier was almost completely past the plane of touch but on top of opponent(s) (some kind of maul collapse maybe), but you can lean over the touchline without being in touch, so in your case I would agree with the referee.

 

[didds]

tell the coach to teach his players to tackle and land on top.

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

A laws 15 definition does not necessarily apply to a Law 19 situation. Yes, it was a tackle, but that does not answer the Law 19 question.

This is a variation on the player in the air debate. On the few occasions I have seen it happen, the referee has played on.

I suppose you could get a freak situation where the ball carrier was almost completely past the plane of touch but on top of opponent(s) (some kind of maul collapse maybe), but you can lean over the touchline without being in touch, so in your case I would agree with the referee.

If, in fact, this was a tackle. Is the green winger still a ball carrier? or Is the ball touching something beyond the line of touch?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Furthernore, as I try to understand this. A ball carrier can step on a player in touch and it is play on? This would be no different than OP, correct

 

[leaguerefaus]

Furthernore, as I try to understand this. A ball carrier can step on a player in touch and it is play on? This would be no different than OP, correct

If that was anything other than accidental, I sure bloody hope you would be penalising it.

 

[Pegleg]

Try. Ref correct.