Law 19 Amendment Trial

[beckett50]

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.

As in any elite sport

 

[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.

Oh absolutely. Which is why aside from ELVs etc whoever draws law changes up needs to do some serious brainstorming as to any unintended consequences.


And also to check that changes to one law fdon;t make a mockery of another existing law.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Rugby is a contest between 'evolutionists' (coaches) and 'intelligent designers' (WR lawmakers). We'll not discuss 'creationists' who decry lifting in the lineout. Not sure if "Intelligent Design" means anything outside of the USA.

The Lawmakers have in mind a concept of how they would want The Game to be played and introduce untested versions to fit their visions. They shouldn't be too surprised and disappointed when their fiddling goes for naught; or worse, producing something that is unsustainable.

Coaches, on the other hand, introduce small incremental changes. These changes face two survival tests. The first comes at the hands (or whistle) of the referee and then against the opponents. If it survives both then it becomes an adaption. Sometimes the modification is too radical and would produce a totally unattractive species if allowed to flourish. Then the Lawmakers will jump in with to do some gene editing. Unfortunately they frequently do this with a blunt instrument and wearing a blindfold.

 

[DocY]

I do think coaches (retired ones) need to have more of an input in law updates. If nothing else to tell the lawmakers what they'll do to take advantage of the new laws!

 

[ChuckieB]

Er guys. There seems consensus on this from what i am seeing and even though I was late to the party it didn't even take me long to smell a rat!

Might seems a daft question but with this obviously causing much consternation how do we go about changing it?

Somtimes the law is an ass and needs changing.

We could all then feel self righteous about what we have contributed to the development of the game!

Or Am I being naiive?

 

[ChuckieB]

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.

I am still totally perplexed by this one and time is ticking in towards July and changes that we will be seeing in the NH. For us it is not yet too late but we're getting close!

Since its introduction has there been any observable instances, or fallout I dare to suggest, on this one in practice? Notably with regards to balls rolling rather than being caught?

I am in absolute agreement with by The FAT with his example , one of two that I see as incorrect. I can see no clear link between 2 of the examples offered up in the Law clarification that relate to the ball being in motion along the ground against the law amendment trial that I understands relate to a ball being caught?

As a result we are now getting 2 new decisions that are in my view totally beyond comprehension. If they now supposed to be treated similarly. i.e. the ball not moving is no longer relevant, how can how can they then retain wording that is in open conflict with their on new communications on this.

I am actually comfortable with the prospect of having to apply to the ball in flight concept, as difficult as might be to judge, but these 2, I just can't fathom!

Should one ignore elements of the clarification and stand by what is still retained in the laws or vice versa?

I feel this one has slipped on to the back burner for the timebeing, without getting the ongoing challenge it so clearly deserves!

 

[winchesterref]

I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

 

[Phil E]

I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

Still in play on. The point of the wording below is that it's the players feet that determine if the ball is in or out.

[LAWS]If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/LAWS]

 

[Rich_NL]

I've still not refereed to these yet, and I have asked this of several people, including a couple those high up in RFU-land who also provided differing views. It should be so simple.

Blue player with both feet clearly in the field of play, catches a ball kicked by Red that has crossed the plane of touch. Is this in or out?

I don't see why it would be -

"If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch."

If he'd jumped from the FoP and knocked it back in it would be play on, why should it be out just because his feet are touching the ground? The ball crossing the plane of touch doesn't count as in touch, until it touches something/someone that's not in play.

The point of the new laws are to encourage continuous play, as I see it. I'd say play on without hesitation.

 

[crossref]

The point of the new laws are to encourage continuous play, as I see it. I'd say play on without hesitation.

which is funny, as I think the new Laws will lead to more stoppage, as catchers have lost the option to place a foot in touch, catch the ball, and then take QTI ... All those balls will now be left to go out/

 

[winchesterref]

Still in play on. The point of the wording below is that it's the players feet that determine if the ball is in or out.

[LAWS]If a player jumps and knocks the ball back into the playing area (or if that player catches the ball and throws it back into the playing area) before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, play continues regardless of whether the ball reaches the plane of touch.[/LAWS]

Perfect, thank you. That was my understanding, so I can't quite fathom why there are confusing messages coming at me.

 

[Pinky]

As Phil says it is the player's feet that determine if the ball is in touch. However I think part of the problem with the whole change here is that where the player has a foot or foot in touch and catches the ball whether he took it out or it was kicked out is determined by whether the ball passed the plane of touch before he caught it (or played it). Also this is not entirely consistent with the idea that you can jump from the field of play, catch the ball over the plane of touch and throw it back into play before you land and it is play on.

 

[didds]

I must say this just seems an attempt to simplify matters by making them differently difficult.

That bloody 12 year old again.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

which is funny, as I think the new Laws will lead to more stoppage, as catchers have lost the option to place a foot in touch, catch the ball, and then take QTI ... All those balls will now be left to go out/

He can catch the ball with feet in play and pass it anyway - does he get any benefit from the QTI?

Placing the foot in touch was more useful to prevent gain in ground or get a scrum back, so the players have an incentive to keep the ball in play rather than risk giving up the ground or having the ball bounce further along the touchline - and if they choose not to do so, there'd be a stoppage anyway one way or another.

 

[ChrisR]

From Law 19 Definitions:

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.

This is the stupid part. And it applies to the goal line, dead ball line and the 22.

 

[crossref]

He can catch the ball with feet in play and pass it anyway - does he get any benefit from the QTI?

Placing the foot in touch was more useful to prevent gain in ground or get a scrum back, so the players have an incentive to keep the ball in play rather than risk giving up the ground or having the ball bounce further along the touchline - and if they choose not to do so, there'd be a stoppage anyway one way or another.

well you may be right -- it's good to have a trial to see what the impact is.

but I do think the new Law is worse -- neither the ref nor the players are normally in a good position to judge the plane of touch, so everyone on the pitch will be guessing somewhat.
Position of the feet (standing/landing inside/outside the line) is MUCH easier for everyone to see, and that's what we should be using for these decisions, IMO.

 

[Rich_NL]

I agree with that; reffing without TJs is already tough enough on positioning work to see the touchlines when play is close to the touchlines, without having to bear in mind the possibility of covering kicks from the middle of the pitch.