Law 19 Law Clarification: player catches jumping in-to-out

[Blue Smartie]

Request

The Outer Space Rugby Union Federation request a clarification of the following:

Law 19.4 states that: “The throw in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch.” The definitions to Law 19 state that: “If a players jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch in goal.” The definitions also state that: “Kicked directly into touch means the ball was kicked into touch… without touching another player…” In the situation where a player (A) jumps and catches the ball within the boundaries of the playing area (i.e. the ball has not crossed the plane of touch) but lands with one or both feet on or beyond the line of touch, the ball is in touch. Two contrary interpretations as to whose throw in it is, and the place for the lineout, appear to be possible: 1. ‘A’ is the “player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch.” In this case the throw in goes to his opponent, at the place where A crossed the touchline. 2. Because ‘A’ does not land with two feet in the playing area the ball is in touch, and ‘A’ was not the player who last held the ball before it went into touch. In this case the last player who held or touched the ball prior to ‘A’ is deemed to be the person who put the ball into touch. Furthermore, where this situation arises from a kick outside the 22m, there will be no gain in ground (if the ball has not first landed in the playing area). Is the first or the second interpretation correct in law? The Federation believe that the first interpretation is correct and consistent with the accepted application of law in relation to other parts of the playing area but seeks clarification on the following additional circumstances. In the situation where a player in the field of play jumps and catches the ball and lands with one or both feet in in-goal, has that player taken the ball into in-goal. If a player jumps and catches the ball outside their own 22 and lands one or both feet in in-goal in the 22 has that player carried the ball [back] into the 22. Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee The definition to Law 19 which states “If a players jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch in goal” determines only that the ball is in touch. In the first scenario above the actions of player A mean that he is a player holding the ball before the ball went into touch in accordance with Law 19.4 and: 1. the throw in should be taken by an opponent of A; and2. the place for the line out should be where A crossed the line of touch. Therefore the first interpretation is correct. A player who jumps and catches the ball in the field of play and lands in in-goal has taken the ball into in-goal. A player who jumps and catches the ball outside their own 22 and lands inside the 22 has taken the ball into the 22. Such a player is not entitled to claim a mark.
Note: The second interpretation (based upon where the player landed) could only ever apply in relation to touch and would be inconsistent with the in-goal and 22 situations discussed above. It would also create anomalies with those situations where (i) a player jumped, but fails to catch the ball within the boundaries of the playing area and instead knocks the ball into touch; or (ii) a player standing in the playing area knocks the ball into touch.

 

[Blue Smartie]

Sorry about the format: honestly it didn't look like that in the preview...

 

[The Fat]

There has been past lengthy discussions on this subject, i.e. the player who jumps from the field of play, catches the ball before crossing the plane of touch and then lands in touch. I'll see if I can find the thread and post a link.

In the mean time, consider this. Red team kick from blue 10m line and the ball looks like it will land about 1m inside the touch line and about 15m from blue's goal line. Blue 15 runs towards the ball, jumps in the air, catches the ball, calls "Mark", but then crosses the plane of touch and lands with both feet outside the field of play (in-touch).
Give me your ruling from the following options,
1. Mark awarded 1m in from touch, 15m from blue goal line.
2. Ball in touch, put there by blue catcher. LO to red where blue crossed the touch line.
3. Ball in touch, put there by red kicker. LO to blue in line with where red kicked (blue 10m line).

This link will actually give additional links to 2 other threads.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?15777-Ball-in-touch

Judging from your level, I'm guessing you already know the answers to your questions and you are just checking how everyone else referees the scenarios put forward???

 

[Blue Smartie]

In the above scenario the mark would be awarded, but I think that has more to do with the historical context of the mark which required you to have both feet on the ground (and therefore in the field of play). The law freed the player to jump but created a little disconnect in terms of the place for the mark, but we would accept that a jumping player who calls a mark inside the 22m and lands outside the 22m would still be awarded the mark.

I think my claim in the hypothetical ruling above is that if we can strive for logical consistency it can only help (though god knows the laws don't make it easy).

My disagreement with the "player lands with feet in touch therefore the other team put the ball there" interpretation was that you can only apply that (il)logic in relation to touch and not any other line on the field.

 

[Womble]

All lines need to have the same logic applied to them!

 

[ChrisR]

I disagree with the OSRUF interpretation of Law 19. Not for logical reasons but for practical reasons.

I believe that the Laws should apply consistently across all levels of the game with the exception of age grade differences. Without the benefit of ARs the ability to judge if the ball is in touch when still in the air is, at best, a guess. Therefore it is better to judge on where a player lands rather than where he catches the ball.

This approach is consistent with Law 19.5(b) where a player in touch (one or both feet in touch) picks up (or catches) a ball in motion and is deemed not to have taken the ball into touch.

 

[OB..]

I disagree with the OSRUF interpretation of Law 19. Not for logical reasons but for practical reasons.

I believe that the Laws should apply consistently across all levels of the game with the exception of age grade differences. Without the benefit of ARs the ability to judge if the ball is in touch when still in the air is, at best, a guess. Therefore it is better to judge on where a player lands rather than where he catches the ball.

This approach is consistent with Law 19.5(b) where a player in touch (one or both feet in touch) picks up (or catches) a ball in motion and is deemed not to have taken the ball into touch.

Scenario 1: a skilled lineout player jumps from the field of play, catches the ball in two hands and passes it down to a team mate before landing in touch. What do you give and why?

Scenario 2: a player a meter in touch jumps and catches the ball before landing in the field of play. The ball had clearly crossed the plane of touch. What do you give and why?

 

[ChrisR]

Scenario 1. If he catches it and passes it in I'd rule "ball in touch" but not "taken into touch". Yes, this is a tough one. But I can still judge where a player lands better than where the ball is when he takes it.

Scenario 2. Ball not in touch, consistent with description in definitions of player catching ball and landing but feet in field of play. No mention of where ball is when caught.

As a coach I train players to play "out to in" so that they land in the field of play after a catch. Especially important when ops kick to touch from a penalty.

 

[OB..]

Scenario 1. If he catches it and passes it in I'd rule "ball in touch" but not "taken into touch". Yes, this is a tough one. But I can still judge where a player lands better than where the ball is when he takes it.

So we have the awkward outcome that the ball is ruled in touch (who put it there?), even though everybody knows it never crossed the plane.

Scenario 2. Ball not in touch, consistent with description in definitions of player catching ball and landing but feet in field of play. No mention of where ball is when caught.

So you rule that a player in the air is not in touch the instant he leaves the ground provided he eventually lands in the field of play. Again an awkward result when you are trying to simplify the situation.

These scenarios are not new. Not long after the 2003 RWC, Mark Lawrence put a quiz on the Sarefs website. I ended up in an email exchange in which I raised these two. His starting point was that before the RWC the referees had agreed to adopt the rule of thumb that what mattered was where the player landed. He agreed with you on the first scenario but accepted that it looked wrong. However he disagreed on the second.

My own analysis of the various possibilities persuaded me that making the decision easy for the referee produces too many decisions that look wrong. Hard though it sometimes is. I think the most natural rule is to treat a player in the air as though he was on the ground directly beneath him.

 

[Blue Smartie]

So we have the awkward outcome that the ball is ruled in touch (who put it there?), even though everybody knows it never crossed the plane.

I'm not arguing against myself, but we already have the (established) situation that the ball is in touch despite never going near the plane of touch - depending on how far in field a receiver can stretch to catch the ball.

 

[OB..]

I'm not arguing against myself, but we already have the (established) situation that the ball is in touch despite never going near the plane of touch - depending on how far in field a receiver can stretch to catch the ball.

Yes, but at least it is clear that the player was in touch - and even that was quite a hard sell at first, particularly since there was top level disagreement as to who was responsible for the ball going into touch.

 

[ChrisR]

From the definitions to Law 19.

"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.

If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline."

Note that for the first and third listed definition there is no reference to where the ball is. Therefore it's not relevant.

So scenario 2. is covered by this definition.

When you say "clearly in touch", clearly to whom? The issue here is that the vertical plane of touch is not visible. But the touch line is which is why I think that where the player lands is a better reference point.

In scenario 1. the player who leaps from the field of play, catches & passes to a teammate but lands in touch at some point crossed the plane of touch. Would you want the referee to decide which of the following is correct?

a. The ball is caught and passed back before it crosses (actually touches) the plane of touch.

b. The ball was caught but before the pass was executed the ball crossed the plane of touch.

c. The ball had crossed the plane of touch before it was caught and passed back.

From the OP determination a. has the ball still in play. b. has the ball in touch but put there by the catcher and c. has the ball in touch put there by the kicker.

From my determination there is only one outcome and that is c.

Now, I like to keep my rugby simple. Good for me and the players and that's what counts.

 

[OB..]

Now, I like to keep my rugby simple. Good for me and the players and that's what counts.

My point is that your interpretation is simple to state, but often counter–intuitive for players and spectators, and not necessarily simple for referees.

In the case of the skilled lineout jumper catching the ball before it reaches the plane of touch and passing the ball well back infield, the referee has to watch both where the catcher lands, and the receiver (in case he knocks-on). Spectators will be puzzled if the ball is said to have been in touch because the player landed with a foot on the touchline after having got rid of the ball (and so will many players).

Of course that would not be the case if the ball carrier was running and stepped into touch just after passing the ball, even though while running the player will at some moments have both feet in the air at the same time. When does running become jumping?

Suppose the lineout jumper merely taps the ball back infield? It presumably does not then matter where he lands. Is controlled palming the ball back equivalent to catching? We have to sort out the main principles before dealing with the inevitable borderline cases.

The problem is that the definitions are deficient. The only reference to a player in the air refers to him catching the ball. The obvious interpretation would be that he is assumed to be still holding it when he lands. If not, what then? Is tapping the ball different?

When you say "clearly in touch", clearly to whom? The issue here is that the vertical plane of touch is not visible. But the touch line is which is why I think that where the player lands is a better reference point.

We have all seen endless replays trying to decide if a player was in fact In touch or not. It may be easier to decide where the player lands, but you are trading that for counter-intuitive consequences. The basic question is really about if the ball is in touch.

 

[Blue Smartie]

Therefore it is better to judge on where a player lands rather than where he catches the ball.

One of the reasons behind my original post was to think about consistency and "simplicity" across the field and interpret the definition of touch with that in mind. Across this forum I think we will find examples of laws that seem to have been drafted for particular scenarios, in isolation to the rest of the law book.

I think we all recognise that touch can create some tough decisions when looking at the interaction of both ball and player (instead of one of them alone, like soccer).

However, the issue that I would have with Marauder's suggestion is that it goes against some established principles in field. If a player jumps and catches the ball 2m from his own goal line but lands in goal we would all say "carried back" (I hope). As with the dummy clarification we know that the ball is in goal / in touch, its just a question of who put it there.

 

[ChrisR]

Until all players and the ball are equipped with GPS accurate to a mm we'll always have this debate.

As for the similar issue of a leaping player landing in goal I would have to rule that he caught the ball in-goal.

And that would be consistent with the player with one foot in goal catching the ball.

 

[OB..]

Until all players and the ball are equipped with GPS accurate to a mm we'll always have this debate.

It would help if the IRB tackled the dilemma.

As for the similar issue of a leaping player landing in goal I would have to rule that he caught the ball in-goal.

And that would be consistent with the player with one foot in goal catching the ball.

The player with a foot in in-goai is in in-goal before he catches the ball. The jumping player is not in in-goal until after he catches the ball. You can choose to treat them the same way, but they are not the same.