Player knocks ball back into field of play.

[Dixie]

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.

I have a lot of sympathy with this. It's not dissimilar to catching the ball that has crossed the plane if you yourself remain infield. The logic is surely that the ball never hit anything in touch, so was itself not in touch. If the diving player has not yet touched the deck, he's not in touch (just like the hands that catch beyond the plane while the feet remain infield). So the ball is not in touch either, not having touched anything in touch.

Like marauder and Browner, I'd also allow a player in touch to bring the ball back into play as long as he was in the air at the time. Why not - surely a tap'n'go in such situations is better than yet another long drawn out lineout?

 

[OB..]

If the diving player has not yet touched the deck, he's not in touch

That is your assertion, not what I was told officially a decade or so ago. Nor is it the LBYC view.

Do I assume you would not allow a player starting in touch to jump, catch, and land in the field of play?

(just like the hands that catch beyond the plane while the feet remain infield).

The distinction is that the player with feet on the ground is clearly not in touch. The fact that the law allows this but does not specify the same for a player in the air at least allows the inference that the latter is not "play on".

 

[Dixie]

That is your assertion, not what I was told officially a decade or so ago. Nor is it the LBYC view.

We've gone over the page, so forgive me if I remind readers about the context. Browner bumped the thread to note that current law and practice is out of line with the expectation of even quite knowledgeable spectators, and could do with a rewrite to reward skill and athleticism while meeting spectator (and indeed player) expectations:

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.

So my assertion was not a statement of where we currently are, but where in my view and Browner's we should be.

Do I assume you would not allow a player starting in touch to jump, catch, and land in the field of play? The distinction is that the player with feet on the ground is clearly not in touch. The fact that the law allows this but does not specify the same for a player in the air at least allows the inference that the latter is not "play on".

Again, answering for where I think we should be rather than where we are, I take the view that any action that prevents the ball touching the ground or an immovable thing that is in touch should be play on, provided the normnal givens of rugby (backward, not dangerous etc) are met.

 

[Dan_A]

I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level).

 

[crossref]

the first thing I would do, if re-writing the Law would be to resolve the self-contradiction in the definitions

[LAWS]
Definitions

‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch without landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee.

‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal line.
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.

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.

The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch.

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.[/LAWS]

the two definitions in bold contradict each other !

convention is that the second one takes priority and that's what we follow, but I would remove it as to me makes no sense.

 

[Dixie]

I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level).

So if a guy does it today, perhaps under a misapprehension of under current laws ... do you penalise him? Or are you just saying that if the law were to change, many games that currently go ahead you would have to stop, because there isn't the space to land safely? If the latter - do you stop them currently on safety grounds because of the possibility that a winger might get tackled from the side?

 

[Browner]

I think I would have a safety issues with a player launching himself headlong off the pitch whilst trying to make a finger tip volleyball style recovery attempt at getting the ball back in play.

That would require an extra few metres of clear space around a pitch that isn't always the case today (especially at grass roots level).

Do you work in widening H&S to the endth degree of remote possibility ? C'mon!!! ...you're not actually being serious? ..... ???
97% of players at grassroots wouldn't even attempt it!

 

[OB..]

Dixie,

Thank you for clarifying what point you were addressing.

Again, answering for where I think we should be rather than where we are, I take the view that any action that prevents the ball touching the ground or an immovable thing that is in touch should be play on, provided the normnal givens of rugby (backward, not dangerous etc) are met.

That would allow a player many metres into touch to catch the ball without it being in touch (he is not an immovable object.) What if a spectator catches the ball and throws it back?

At one time the ball was in touch if it crossed the plane, even if it came back in again (before it touched ...etc). i think we all agree changing that was a good move.

If a player is on the ground, I think the current laws make sense. The problems arise when he is in the air - when is he in touch? There seem to be three options:-
1) when he crosses the plane himself;
2) when he has landed in touch;
3) if he jumped from in touch and has not landed in the field of play.

As I said on previous occasions when we went over this, I think 2 and 3 lead to oddities that would confuse spectators (and players). I agree 1 is tricky to judge, but so are eg forward passes. For me it is the best compromise.