Knocking from touch . .

[OB..]

I think the notion that the game is to played only by those on their feet can be over used. If it works for a try then why not for in touch?

Because it is a specific exception for in-goal.

Would you allow a player off his feet in the FoP to play the ball (except under specific conditions)?

 

[Davet]

I think the notion that the game is to played only by those on their feet can be over used. If it works for a try then why not for in touch?

Because it is a specific exception for in-goal.

Would you allow a player off his feet in the FoP to play the ball (except under specific conditions)?

I haven't a law book to hand and Im doing this on the phone, could you do me a favour and let me know where the exception is specified?

 

[didds]

in-goal presumably the bits that allow a prone player - even one T-i-G - to touch down a loose ball?

didds

 

[OB..]

I haven't a law book to hand and Im doing this on the phone, could you do me a favour and let me know where the exception is specified?

I suspect you are trying to argue that the law merely refers to "a player in touch or touch-in-goal" and does not specify that he can be off his feet. Nor does it say he must be on his feet.

We are obviously not going to agree on this.

 

[Pinky]

Dixie, in another thread, reminded me of law 7 which includes:

Any player may fall on the ball.

And doesn't include anything to insist players need to be on their feet

 

[OB..]

Dixie, in another thread, reminded me of law 7 which includes:

Any player may fall on the ball.

And doesn't include anything to insist players need to be on their feet

Most convincing effort so far :clap:

It still leaves questions, however. Is putting a hand on the ball "falling on the ball"? Law 14 gives two situations, and neither covers this scenario. Moreover Law 14 is also the one that says you should play the game on your feet, which suggests it should be interpreted restrictively. We could also get picky about Law 19: "The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches ..." This could mean that it is OK if the ball runs into the player, but not if the player actively touches the ball.

I don't think we can solve this by scrabbling around among the verbiage. There is nothing clear cut so we are picking our preferred inferences.

 

[chopper15]

I don't think we can solve this by scrabbling around among the verbiage. There is nothing clear cut so we are picking our preferred inferences.

Both 'catch' and 'pick-up' requires the player to make an immediate 'hold' on the ball in the FoP to arrest any movement before play is allowed to continue.

So, if Blue, who happens to be spread-eagled on the ground with a foot in touch, reaches out and grounds a ball last played by Red, shouldn't the call be a Red LO if the ball was static, Blue LO if the ball was still rolling?

And if Blue should knock the ball direct into touch or back into his arms (in effect, touch), a PK?