Law 18.8 a

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,822
Post Likes
2,276
Didds you are right, it's needless complicated now
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
201
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
How about:
A player who is in contact with anything in touch is considered to be part of the touch line until they resume the FoP.
If a player was in touch they aren't back in the FoP until no part of them is in touch (ie a foot in the FoP and the other raised is in)
A player can jump from the FOP and play the ball before they land in touch.
Assuming Red played the ball last:
If blue a player is in touch, and they deliberately play at the ball before being back in the FoP, blue took it out, so red LO
If blue a player is in touch, it hits them and they didn't deliberately play at the ball before being back in the FoP, red took it out and so blue LO.
Doesn't matter if the ball crosses the line, only if it lands in touch or someone who is/was in touch.

I umpire netball at a state level and the requirements for netball throw-ins/off-court are much easier to interpret/officiate and the players to understand. Its also vastly easier to pick up and even during fast games the mental workload in working out off-court decisions - which happens vastly more than in a game of rugby - is much lower.
I'm struggling to follow this thread... are you proposing an alternative, simplified version of the laws, or is this your interpretation of the current laws?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
671
Post Likes
159
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I'm struggling to follow this thread... are you proposing an alternative, simplified version of the laws, or is this your interpretation of the current laws?
Alternative set rather than the complexity of now
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,532
Post Likes
1,811
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Alternative set rather than the complexity of now

Which I feel is not helpful to the OP.
I too got confused about actual and proposed and stopped reading!
Maybe a topic for a new thread?
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
201
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Returning focus to the OP's question, this is all very straight forward, but I will point out that this part of law 18.8.a comes with the assumption that the opposition last played the ball in the FOP, which maybe the source of confusion here.

Essentially, this line is saying if the ball reaches the plane of touch and is caught by someone already in touch, that person did not carry the ball into touch (because it had already crossed the plane of touch) and therefore concede possession.

I believe this links to changes made in the past "few years" (not sure when)... previously if the ball was kicked by Team A and the ball remained within the field of play but was caught by a Team B player in touch (e.g. one foot over the line) then it was ruled that the ball was put in touch by the kicker... this was useful for balls rolling towards touch in goal that might not roll far enough (to earn Team B a scrum where the ball was kicked) or making a kick outside the 22 result in being direct to touch when it otherwise would have bounced just inside the FOP. I assume WR decided it was negative to reward the team who acted to intentionally make the ball dead and changed the law so that a person in touch who played a ball within the FOP with the intention of making the ball dead will not get possession... applying this mindset helps you navigate laws 18.1 and 18.2.
 
Top