Law 19.5 (b) - Player With Foot In Touch Question

[The Fat]

I think that clinches it for me. Its best to get these straight in your head before they actually happen; if it happened when you were TJ / ARing you would need an instant decision as you just wouldn't have the time to think about it. So

• If the ball had crossed the plane of touch and gets knocked on - its in touch
• If the ball had not crossed the plane of touch and gets knocked on - its a scrum

And on a slightly different note, a player kicks and chases the ball which is bouncing/rolling in the FoP parallel to the right side (for this example) touch line and with his right foot in touch, kicks the ball again with his left foot (remember the ball is still bouncing/rolling along in the FoP) and is able to play on. Correct?

 

[Davet]

If you accept a kick as a knock...

Cue pedantry...

 

[The Fat]

If you accept a kick as a knock...

Cue pedantry...

Last paragraph of Law 19 Definitions specifically mentions "kicks or knocks".
I was seeking confirmation as I had this scenario as an AR in a match last season.

 

[Davet]

you're right - kicks or knocks - so no problem, play on.

 

[The Fat]

you're right - kicks or knocks - so no problem, play on.

Cheers Davet.
Some instances where this type of play, the kick or knock by a player in touch, still bother me though.
I had another instance where a ruck had formed close to the touch line and a player from the defending team (green) had cleared an attacking player (blue) out of the ruck. Both players fell to the ground across the touch line (i.e.: they were half in half out if you get the picture). The ball came out of the ruck and was heading towards touch when the blue player knocked it back into the FoP before it had crossed the plane of touch. The green players looked at me and said "He's out!!!". I replied, "The ball's still in".
It looked wrong but I believed the judgement of whether the ball was in play or out was correct. What wasn't correct is what the ref did next. And because of this instance, I believe the wording of the last paragraph of Law 19 Definitions should be amended.

 

[Davet]

Do you believe the wording is unclear, or that the law should be changed?

 

[OB..]

What wasn't correct is what the ref did next. And because of this instance, I believe the wording of the last paragraph of Law 19 Definitions should be amended.

I'm afraid I don't follow. What was it that made you want a significant change in the law?

 

[Waspsfan]

Cheers Davet.
Some instances where this type of play, the kick or knock by a player in touch, still bother me though.
I had another instance where a ruck had formed close to the touch line and a player from the defending team (green) had cleared an attacking player (blue) out of the ruck. Both players fell to the ground across the touch line (i.e.: they were half in half out if you get the picture). The ball came out of the ruck and was heading towards touch when the blue player knocked it back into the FoP before it had crossed the plane of touch. The green players looked at me and said "He's out!!!". I replied, "The ball's still in".
It looked wrong but I believed the judgement of whether the ball was in play or out was correct. What wasn't correct is what the ref did next. And because of this instance, I believe the wording of the last paragraph of Law 19 Definitions should be amended.

Playing it on the floor? Penalty against him??

 

[The Fat]

Not a law change, just for the last paragraph to start with "A player standing in touch". Waspsfan is correct, the ref played on instead of penalising for playing the ball on the floor

 

[jdeagro]

so red player straddling touch (one foot in, one foot out) attempts to catch a moving ball kicked by blue from outside the 22mm

A - he catches it = line out red, no gain in ground
B - he knocks on, ball goes into field of play = scrum blue
C - he knocks on, ball goes out of play = scrum blue
D - he fumbles ball backwards, into field of play = play on (?)
E - he fumbles ball backwards, into touch = lineout blue (?)

CrossRef just turned a lightbulb on in my head. Specifically with his first scenario (A).

So for example: If a player from Team Blue, standing about 3m in front of his own 22m (therefor he is past his 22m) punts the ball down-field, and a player from Team Red catches this ball from the air with one foot already in touch, at around 5m in front of Team Red's own in-goal area. The proceeding actions is a lineout to Team Red, in line with where the ball was originally kicked (about 70m back up-field)?

And in this same scenario if this is true, can the player from Team Red take a quick throw in provided he can hustle 70m back up-field without delay to take the quick throw?

Sounds like an ingenious play to counter a team that enjoys kicking a lot, provided it's available.

-Jon

 

[Dickie E]

And in this same scenario if this is true, can the player from Team Red take a quick throw in provided he can hustle 70m back up-field without delay to take the quick throw?

Yes he can take a QT but only between where the ball went into touch and his own goal line ie no hustle allowed

 

[jdeagro]

Yes he can take a QT but only between where the ball went into touch and his own goal line ie no hustle allowed

Well I guess that raises 2 questions. Are you saying the ball goes into touch where he catches it, even though the lineout occurs where it was kicked from? And if so, why wouldn't he be allowed to take a quick throw from where the lineout would occur?

 

[Robert Burns]

Quick throw can only be between where the ball actually goes out (not where the Line out would be) and that players goal line, because that is what the law states. Law 19.2(b) if you're interested.

He can run up to the line of touch (where the ball was kicked) and take a quick line out, but this requires at least 2 players from each team to have formed the line.

 

[jdeagro]

Ah true. Thanks for point out which law it was that stated that. Hmm, interesting...

 

[Dickie E]

He can run up to the line of touch (where the ball was kicked) and take a quick line out, but this requires at least 2 players from each team to have formed the line.

I'm not so sure about this. I agree 2 from each team prevents a QT but I don't believe 2 from each team is needed for a quick line out to occur.

AFAIU a quick line out only needs:
1. ball thrown in along line of touch, and
2. ball thrown in straight

In fact last Saturday I allowed a quick line out when non-throwing team didn't have anyone in the lineout.

 

[Robert Burns]

Then by definition, it can't be a line out?

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS

The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.

[/LAWS]
and then:

[LAWS]19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT

(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.

Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

If you don't have the minimum, you can't have a line out, and ipso facto, can't have a quick line out. I believe what you allowed was a quick throw in from the line of touch. :chin:

 

[crossref]

And in this same scenario if this is true, can the player from Team Red take a quick throw in provided he can hustle 70m back up-field without delay to take the quick throw?

Sounds like an ingenious play to counter a team that enjoys kicking a lot, provided it's available.

-Jon

no, a quick throw has to be taken from or behind where the ball crosses the touchline (NOT where the line out will be)

so the red player can catch the ball and then take a QT from where he is, but if he advances up the field, then the chance of a QT is gone, and it's a line out.

 

[Taff]

Yes he can take a QT but only between where the ball went into touch and his own goal line ie no hustle allowed

It may be worth noting that the next batch of ELVs (Experimental Law Variations) to be trialled in Cambridge IIRC will allow a QTI (Quick Throw In) between where the LO would be and the goal line.

Are you saying the ball goes into touch where he catches it, even though the lineout occurs where it was kicked from? And if so, why wouldn't he be allowed to take a quick throw from where the lineout would occur?

Because currently that's what the lawbook says, BUT the lawbook nay be changed if the IRB like the ELV - please refer to the above.

 

[crossref]

It may be worth noting that the next batch of ELVs (Experimental Law Variations) to be trialled in Cambridge IIRC will allow a QTI (Quick Throw In) between where the LO would be and the goal line. .

you are right, I had forgotten that.
that will be an interesting ELV! In the sort of scenario here the red player will be able to run along 50m of touchline, ball in hand with the ability to take a QTI any moment he likes. That's going to be interesting - a line may even form inside him waiting for the pass, it will be like having a player who cannot be tackled.

- I wonder if it will be an offence for players, from the team obstruct him as he runs up the pitch, off the field of play? For instance if some subs decided to come oout of the sub area to make their way down to the endof the pitch where they may warm up, and accidentally got in his way?

 

[Taff]

.... that will be an interesting ELV! In the sort of scenario here the red player will be able to run along 50m of touchline, ball in hand with the ability to take a QTI any moment he likes. That's going to be interesting - a line may even form inside him waiting for the pass, it will be like having a player who cannot be tackled.

I like the sound of it, and can't see any reason why it won't be adopted if it will make for a faster and more exciting game.

.... I wonder if it will be an offence for players, from the team obstruct him as he runs up the pitch, off the field of play?

Probably no need for a new law; wouldn't the current Foul Play while the ball is out of play do? :chin: