Player knocks ball back into field of play.

[Andymac]

Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

 

[crossref]

isn't this exactly the same question as yesterday's thread?
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17656-In-Touch-or-Not

i

 

[Andymac]

Yes it does appear to be the same question and there does seem to be many different opinions on the matter!

 

[OB..]

Yes it does appear to be the same question and there does seem to be many different opinions on the matter!

I presume Somerset will be advised to follow the same guidance as we were given: it depends where the player's feet were in relation to the plane of touch when he first played the ball.

 

[Andymac]

The players feet were over the plain of touch.
The difficulty I have is relating the interpretations in this and other similar threads to law and the definitions within the relevant law.
For example I can see no reference to where the players feet are when he is in mid air.

 

[Dixie]

Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.

Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.

Wait and see, I'm afraid. Not good for uniformity, but the RFU needs to get its act together now it has disbanded its referees unit.

 

[OB..]

Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.

Yes, indeed. Welcome. Very remiss of me.

Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.

I replayed that several times, and decided he was not over the FoP! The AR would have received the same guidance as we did ... but there will always be marginal decisions.

Perhaps the important point about that case was that the player did not station himself in touch and try to jump into the FoP. That implies he was not in the "it is where you land that counts" school.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

Welcome to the forums

You might find this little booklet useful

http://www.brumbies.com.au/Portals/...s/Development Resources/Line_Ball_booklet.pdf

This is what all referees in Australia and NZ use, although I understand one or two of the scenarios in it are not universally accepted in England

Your situation is on Page 13 "player & ball outside plane-of-touch" Scenario 1

 

[RobLev]

Ok, I have a scenario here I would like some help with.
I have, of course looked at the relevant law regarding this scenario, but I am still not 100%.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

Assuming he was out of play when he hit the ball; isn't this the one bit of Law 19 that does admit of a pretty certain answer? The Definitions section includes:

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

So the ball went into touch, placed there by the kicking team.

And of course, since nothing is that easy, this bit of Law is contradicted by the "Line ball your call" booklet cited by the SH types...

Oops - I'm wrong on that last, although in fairness I was misled by Ian's identification of your situation as that on page 13 - it isn't.

See page 20 of the booklet, which summarises the position:

If the ball, which has crossed the plain-of-touch, touches a player beyond the touch-line, the ball is in-touch, regardless of whether the player is on the ground or jumping in the air. The ball has been put in-touch by the kicking team.

 

[Dixie]

Assuming he was out of play when he hit the ball; isn't this the one bit of Law 19 that does admit of a pretty certain answer? The Definitions section includes:

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

So the ball went into touch, placed there by the kicking team.

RobLev, the player was not in touch, in that no part of him was grounded on or beyond the touchline. While your comment is perfectly accurate for the player in touch, it does not necessarily hold true for the player in mid air above or beyond the touchline. Hence the OP's question.

 

[The Fat]

Andymac, I hope someone has welcomed you to these forums - if not, let me be the first.

Law 19 is known to be a disaster area, with unclear laws compounded by unhelpful rulings. We are not aided by the fact that the number of possible scenarios are manifold as well. As ever with unclear laws, the referee has to try to make sense of what we are given to work with.

This seems to be an area in which English practice is evolving. We are not yet at a point where there is universal agreement about a common-sense solution to these issues. In the HC semi-final between Sarries and Clermont Auvergne, your situation occurred, except that the player's feet were above the field of play at the moment he batted back the ball from the other side of the plane of touch. It was called a lineout - and no-one questioned the decision. I must say, it was one I agreed with - but contrary to what seems to be the new interpretation.

Wait and see, I'm afraid. Not good for uniformity, but the RFU needs to get its act together now it has disbanded its referees unit.

I watched quite a few games over the weekend so may have my games mixed up but was this from a PK and the defender looked to have been inside the FOP and jumped over the plane of touch and batted the ball back behind him into the FOP? If it is the one I'm thinking of, the replay showed that the player was standing on the touch line before he jumped and was therefore jumping from in-touch, knocking a ball that had crossed the plane of touch back to the FOP. Ball is out put there by the kicking team. If we adopt the Line Ball Your Call approach it is simple. The ball and the player were both past the plane of touch so the ball was in-touch put there by the kicker.

 

[OB..]

I watched quite a few games over the weekend so may have my games mixed up but was this from a PK and the defender looked to have been inside the FOP and jumped over the plane of touch and batted the ball back behind him into the FOP? If it is the one I'm thinking of, the replay showed that the player was standing on the touch line before he jumped and was therefore jumping from in-touch, knocking a ball that had crossed the plane of touch back to the FOP. Ball is out put there by the kicking team.

I checked his feet placing, but the only view was from too far away to be sure. I was certainly suspicious, but players usually position their feet quite carefully in such situations.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oops - I'm wrong on that last, although in fairness I was misled by Ian's identification of your situation as that on page 13 - it isn't.

See page 20 of the booklet, which summarises the position:

I beg to differ. Page 20 doesn't have a scenario, its the back cover of the booklet!!

The OP says

"Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?"

runs from the field of play I take to mean he is outside the plane when he knocks the ball back
He lands, both feet, outside the field of play. implies he was in the air when he batted the ball back

Apart from inside/outside the 22m, this is the same scenario 1 on page 13, as shown here....

Red player punts the ball from outside his own 22m area and the ball crosses the
touch-line on the full. A blue opponent standing in the field-of-play leaps in the air
and after he crosses the touch-line slaps the ball back into the field of play.

(a) Is the ball in touch? YES

(b) Where is the line-out? The line-of-touch is where the red player kicked the ball

(c) Team to throw in Blue

Page 17 scenario 5 is probably more accurate as it specifies outside the 22m like the OP

 

[Ian_Cook]

How strange!!

The LBYC Booklet displays differently when downloaded and opened in Adobe Reader when compared with how I was doing it; opening it online in a Firefox Tab. The page numbering is different.

The OP's situation is on page 19 scenario 5

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

OK... I haven't read the other thread so this is my interpretation of the law.

Ball is kicked for touch from inside 22, it crosses the plain of touch and whilst in mid air a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play. He lands, both feet, outside the field of play.
What is the correct decision please?

As the ball has been kicked this applies

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

Ergo as it's in mid air it is technically NOT in touch despite having crossed the plane of touch.

a defending player runs from the field of play and knocks the ball backwards back into the field of play.

This IMPLIES to me. the player concerned touched the ground OUTSIDE the field of play before touching the ball therefore putting himself in touch and the moment he made contact with the ball the ball is therefore in touch.

Line-out against the kicking team.

Now if the player had jumped from INSIDE the FOP and not touched the ground or anything else before he batted the ball back he himself is NOT in touch and therefore neither is the ball.

Play on.

This may be nit-picking but that's how I interpreted the LOG.

Feel free to shoot me down if I got it wrong.

 

[itin]

OK... I haven't read the other thread so this is my interpretation of the law...

Now if the player had jumped from INSIDE the FOP and not touched the ground or anything else before he batted the ball back he himself is NOT in touch and therefore neither is the ball.

Play on.

This may be nit-picking but that's how I interpreted the LOG.

Feel free to shoot me down if I got it wrong.

Look back to post #13 of this thread.

 

[Browner]

Bump ....... Here is a recent leap from inside the pitch.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/jonny-mays-brilliant-leap-to-save.html

Listen to the crowd, they expect that if the ball can be gotten back into the FoP with it (or a player NOT in contact with the ground when he knocks it) not touching the ground then its play on.

Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play.

 

[OB..]

Bump ....... Here is a recent leap from inside the pitch.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/jonny-mays-brilliant-leap-to-save.html

Listen to the crowd, they expect that if the ball can be gotten back into the FoP with it (or a player NOT in contact with the ground when he knocks it) not touching the ground then its play on.

Irrespective of whether the decision was correct or not ( see LBYC). I think its time that RU law rewarded personal agility skills ..... If you can keep it from hitting the ground ( even if youre in tbe air), then let's never stop play.

Would you also allow play to continue if a player in touch ran, jumped, caught the ball after it had crossed the plane, and landed in the field of play?

I wouldn't agree with that either. For me they both go too far.

 

[ChrisR]

Would you also allow play to continue if a player in touch ran, jumped, caught the ball after it had crossed the plane, and landed in the field of play?

I wouldn't agree with that either. For me they both go too far.

.... and OB and I will continue to have opposite opinions of this as I would allow both.

The one thing we agree on is a rewrite of Law 19 for clarity.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Getting back to the question for me this is always easy especially if the ball is clearly outside the plane of touch.
If the player is in the air and doesn't land in the field of play it is out.
If the player is stood in the field of play, stretches out and plays the ball and it comes back into play without touching the ground, play on even if he subsequently tumbles out of play.
Always sold it like that and never had a complaint with my explaination.