Law 19 Amendment Trial

[The Fat]

Thoughts on the wording of this one please.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.
LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case, if the ball has reached the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not reached the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.

 

[Dickie E]

Thoughts on the wording of this one please.

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.
LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case, if the ball has reached the plane of touch when it is caught, then the catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not reached the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up, then the catcher is deemed to have taken the ball into touch, regardless of whether the ball was in motion or stationary.

and also noting the associated 2016 clarification:

://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2016&clarification=1022

[LAWS]Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line. Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

In close cases, it is a lot easier for an AR to see if a player has a foot on the line than if the ball had reached the plane of touch at the moment it was caught.

It does have the advantage of meaning that you no longer have to decide if a ball on the ground was still moving.

 

[The Fat]

OK, so now apply the new Law Trial Amendment to the following scenario.
Red kick from their 10m line. Blue player in the field of play but with one got on or beyond the touch line catches the ball on the full.

In 2016, the decision here would be that the red kicker has put the ball in touch and the blue lineout would be back on the red 10m line.
Is the new trial saying now that because the ball hadn't reached the plane of touch when blue caught it that blue has put the ball in touch and we now give the lineout to red where blue caught the ball?

 

[crossref]

OK, so now apply the new Law Trial Amendment to the following scenario.
Red kick from their 10m line. Blue player in the field of play but with one got on or beyond the touch line catches the ball on the full.

In 2016, the decision here would be that the red kicker has put the ball in touch and the blue lineout would be back on the red 10m line.
Is the new trial saying now that because the ball hadn't reached the plane of touch when blue caught it that blue has put the ball in touch and we now give the lineout to red where blue caught the ball?

yes.

and as a grassroots referee with no AR, you will not normally be in a position where you can judge where or not the ball has passed the plane of touch, so will have no idea what the decision should be.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

More crap for Tmo at top level with key decisions that could take a long time to review.
At grass roots, the existing law is clear and easy to ref

 

[chbg]

More crap for Tmo at top level with key decisions that could take a long time to review.
At grass roots, the existing law is clear and easy to ref

My understanding is that the intent is to encourage keeping the ball in play - not making it too easy to cause the opposition to have put the ball in touch, when it hasn't reached / gone over the touch line. Therefore there are likely to be less close reviews / decisions required.

 

[crossref]

My understanding is that the intent is to encourage keeping the ball in play - not making it too easy to cause the opposition to have put the ball in touch, when it hasn't reached / gone over the touch line. Therefore there are likely to be less close reviews / decisions required.

they could achive the same thing by making the pitch 2m wider and leaving the Laws the same

 

[DocY]

they could achive the same thing by making the pitch 2m wider and leaving the Laws the same

I think this would improve the elite game no end, as a spectacle. We'd probably need a few stadiums to be bigger, though!

 

[The Fat]

and also noting the associated 2016 clarification:

://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2016&clarification=1022

[LAWS]Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line. Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.[/LAWS]

So I just had a look at Clarification 5-2016.
In it WR give some examples using 3 videos and state that the video linked to Law 22.9(c), where a defender plants one foot in in-goal and picks up a rolling ball, half a metre forward of the goal line, that has been kicked by the opposition, will now be a 5m attacking scrum and not a 22m DO. That's all well and good except that 22.9(c) still says that in such a case, the ball has been picked up in-goal.

(c) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in motion within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball within in-goal.

 

[didds]

moving deckchairs on the titanic.

why don't they concentrate on stuff that really REALLY does need addressing instead of tinkering and achieving nothing but even more controversial incidents.

how many times can we collectively recall a controversy over whether a ball was moving or not when picked up with a foot in touch etc? How problematical is it really that a poorly directed kick by A is made in touch by B in this manner? Maybe A should kick better in the first place?

didds

 

[The Fat]

moving deckchairs on the titanic.

why don't they concentrate on stuff that really REALLY does need addressing instead of tinkering and achieving nothing but even more controversial incidents.

how many times can we collectively recall a controversy over whether a ball was moving or not when picked up with a foot in touch etc? How problematical is it really that a poorly directed kick by A is made in touch by B in this manner? Maybe A should kick better in the first place?

didds

I agree.
The problem I have is that they have changed the definitions of Law 19 which have a flow-on effect in Law 22 and they haven't bothered to note the changes in Law 22.
I can hear the arguments now that the ref will have to explain in the bar afterwards.

Coach: So why did you give their guys a 5m scrum when it should have been our 22m DO?
Ref: Because that's what the new Law Amendment Trials says the decision is now.
Coach: But look here in Law 22. Law 22.9(c) says my player has picked the ball up in in-goal. Therefore their team has put the ball into our in-goal!!!
Ref: Nah, you have to read the Definitions in Law 19 and then apply Law 19 to Law 22.
Coach: But Law 19 is Touch and Lineout isn't it? What the f#$% has that got to do with Law 22?
Ref: Is that the time?
Ref exits stage left.

 

[didds]

Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

didds

 

[The Fat]

Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

didds

And all relevant Law Clarifications be absorbed into the rewrite i.e. adopt into Law where practicle and list others, that are still relevant but are too lengthy to add, in an appendix in the back of the book. That appendix could simply be updated each year.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its really frustrating to watch WR making a complete pig's breakfast of something that is so simple to solve, thereby adding complexity where they need to be removing it.

I said before, and I'll say again, that WR need to swallow their pride and just adopt Rugby League touch laws in their entirety (leaving out the parts that are not applicable to Rugby Union such as the play the ball and scrum restarts)

Here, I have condensed the relevant Rugby League touch laws down to make my revised Law 19 Definitions;

[LAWS]1. Ball in Touch.
The ball is in touch or touch in goal when it, or a player in contact with it, touches the touchline or the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line or the ground beyond, or any object (other than a player) therein.

2. Jumping Player.
The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back, and while off the ground, touches the ball.
The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line or dead ball line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground after jumping from the field of play.

3. Point of Entry.
When a ball has entered touch, the point of entry shall be taken as the point at which the ball first crossed the touch line.

4. Stationary ball.
Where the ball, which is stationary in the field of play or the in-goal area, is touched by a player in touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line, the ball is deemed to have been put in touch or made dead by that player, otherwise it is deemed to have been put in touch-in-goal or made dead by the player who last played it.[/LAWS]

These four definitions are simple, easy to adjudicate, cover all the bases and contain no ambiguity.

 

[The Fat]

Practical:wink:

 

[ChrisR]

What I don't understand is the purpose of the changes. What problem are they trying to solve? Has WR relocated to Mars? As for keeping the ball in play? Not gonna happen and we'll just get more delays as the TMO reviews all the angles to see if the ball crossed (touched?) the invisible 'plane of touch'.

 

[OB..]

Somebody recently mentioned that maybe it was time to stop making law changes but instead have a root and branch review and potentially rewrite of the laws.

I would suspect the majority of us, if not all, would be in favour of that, if only such that redundant laws can just be removed and cross effect laws can be rationalised

didds

Did the 2000 re-write solve all the problems arising from the 1969 re-write?

I have a suspicion that their methodology is wrong. For example there is no clear evidence that they have considered transitions between phases holistically, or that they have analysed ball-in-touch situation to cover all options. Some aspects are covered in two separate places - as all good data base admins know, once is enough. Elsewhere use cross-references.

 

[didds]

Did the 2000 re-write solve all the problems arising from the 1969 re-write?.

If it didn't (which i am assuming is the correct position ;-) ) all that means is that the 2000 re-write was poorly done presumably.

didds

 

[OB..]

If it didn't (which i am assuming is the correct position ;-) ) all that means is that the 2000 re-write was poorly done presumably.

didds

I think another significant factor is that the game keeps evolving and law-makers have to play catch-up. As soon as they do, coaches/players try to find new loopholes.