Query on cross field kick

[spikeno10]

My son (15 and also a newly qualified ref) and I were watching a game of super league this morning and there was a try scored which we both questioned.

Red in attack from 5 metres out put a cross field kick in which was going to the right hand corner and would have gone dead in the air (no bounce) in goal and touch but for a huge jump from red winger who knocked the ball backwards into goal where ball was grounded by following red attacker. All offside checks looked good but both Joe and I queried whether this should have been a try (in union - we are not looking at the league rules) as the red winger who jumped landed in touch rather than in goal.

My thoughts would have been brilliant skill but the player landed in touch and therefore the plane of touch would have meant the ball was out. My thought would have been a 22 drop out (or scrum back) to defending team. Again only looking at this as a union query.

We would both appreciate your thoughts.

Cheers
spike

 

[OB..]

Had the ball crossed the plane of touch? If not, then a player can knock it back whether he is in touch or not.

If it had crossed the plane then a player can retrieve the ball if he has both feet in the field of play. How that is decided is moot. Do both feet have to be on the ground? If not, does it matter where his body is? In this case I would want the TJ to tell me if the player had crossed the plane of touch when he played the ball. If he had, the ball was in touch when he played it. Otherwise, play on.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I agree with OB if the ball was outside plane and he jumped for it, flicked it back in but landed outside the ball is in touch.
If he flicked it back and landed in the feild of play, play on.

 

[OB..]

I agree with OB if the ball was outside plane and he jumped for it, flicked it back in but landed outside the ball is in touch.
If he flicked it back and landed in the feild of play, play on.

That is not quite what I said. My view is that where he lands does not matter unless he is holding the ball. If he taps it, then what matters is whether or not he is in touch at the time ie has he crossed the plane. If he has, he can still tap back a ball that has not crossed the plane, but if both have crossed the ball is in touch because it has touched someone in touch.

The whole subject is highly contentious, and top level views have changed over the years. Law 19 simply does not cover the various relevant possibilities.

 

[4eyesbetter]

My son (15 and also a newly qualified ref) and I were watching a game of super league this morning and there was a try scored which we both questioned.

Red in attack from 5 metres out put a cross field kick in which was going to the right hand corner and would have gone dead in the air (no bounce) in goal and touch but for a huge jump from red winger who knocked the ball backwards into goal where ball was grounded by following red attacker. All offside checks looked good but both Joe and I queried whether this should have been a try (in union - we are not looking at the league rules) as the red winger who jumped landed in touch rather than in goal.

Just in case anyone else cares, and the OP's exclusive interest in union laws notwithstanding, the only thing that's relevant in RL is where the player came from, we're not interested in plane of touch or where the player lands.

 

[Account Deleted]

The guidance web illustrations seem to explain touch very well. It's not really that complicated.

 

[Dixie]

The guidance web illustrations seem to explain touch very well. It's not really that complicated.

:wow: :Nerv:
Speak for yourself, Boyo. There's been myriad heated words written on here that suggest not everyone shares your clarity of thought!

 

[Account Deleted]

Where's the ball when played?
where's the player when he plays the ball?
Does the player hold the ball or just touch it?

 

[tim White]

CHOPPER, where are you Chopper?????:Nerv: ......

 

[The Fat]

Agree with OB

 

[4eyesbetter]

Agree with OB

Out of interest, does anyone know whether there's any reasoning for this all being the way it is? The thought occurs that when you have a law so complicated that a flowchart is a useful aid to understanding, perhaps a little simplification would be a Good Thing.

 

[chopper15]

CHOPPER, where are you Chopper?????:Nerv: ......

Refer query, bottom right of diagram ie.,

Was the body of the player across the plane of touch line?

Until the law lords bother to explain what 'percentage' of the body is necessary to lay across the plane for a player to be 'in contact with' or above touch it will remain contentious.

They could, of course, clarify the 'in touch' law by stating A player 'over touch' will be deemed not to be 'in touch'. :hap:

Eg., Ball in air over touch;

(i) player in touch jumps, knocks ball back onto playing area in which his foot/feet lands first (body percentage relevant?), the rest of his body falls back into touch.

(ii) player in touch jumps thro' plane apart from trailing hand (body percentage relevant?) to knock ball back into playing area where he then lands.

(iii) player in playing area jumps backwards into touch with only foot/feet not thro' plane (body percentage relevant?), knocks ball back onto playing area in which his foot/feet lands first (body percentage enough?), the rest of his body falls into touch.

 

[OB..]

Out of interest, does anyone know whether there's any reasoning for this all being the way it is?

In the early nineteenth century the ball was out of play once it crossed the touch line, and the first player to touch it down could then throw it back in. That seems to be why it is called “touch”. Thereafter, evolution took over and a slow process of accretion meant “good ideas” were added in without a logical basis. Here are some milestones.

1845 (first printed laws)
xiii. A player being off his side shall not touch the ball on the ground, except in touch.
xv. TOUCH. A player may not in any case run with the ball in or through touch.

1871 (RFU’s first laws)
31. Touch (see plan) If the ball goes into touch the first player on his side who touches it down must bring it to the spot where it crossed the touchline, or if a player when running with the ball cross or put any part of either foot across the touch-line, he must return with the ball to the spot where the line the was so crossed, and from thence return it into play as follows.

1926 (Major re-write)
The ball is in touch when it or a player carrying it touches or crosses a touch line.
A player may be in touch and yet play the ball with his foot if the ball is not in touch.
If the ball crosses the touch line and be then blown back, it is in touch at the spot where it first passed over the line.

1931
[It was realised that the 1926 version meant the ball was in touch if a player carrying it merely swung an arm across the touchline.]
The ball is in touch :-
(a) When, not being in the possession of a player, it touches or crosses a touch line;
(b) when a player in possession of the ball touches a touch line or the ground beyond it.
A player may be in touch and yet play the ball with his foot if the ball is not in touch.

1974 additions
Exception:-
If a player in the field-of-play catches the ball immediately after it has crossed the touch line it is not in touch provided the player does not go into touch.
[..]
(3) If the ball is not in touch a player who is in touch may kick the ball or propel it with his hand but not hold it.

 

[Dickie E]

Simpler in Aussie Rules. Game is stopped when all of ball is over boundary line irrespective of in flight, being carried, foot over line, etc. Similar, I think, to soccer.

 

[The Fat]

Refer query, bottom right of diagram ie.,

Was the body of the player across the plane of touch line?

It means that if a player jumps from the FOP and he crosses the plane of touch, it is impossible for him to stop his momentum, spin in the air and reverse his direction of flight to land back in the FOP. Simple, no?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Out of interest, does anyone know whether there's any reasoning for this all being the way it is? The thought occurs that when you have a law so complicated that a flowchart is a useful aid to understanding, perhaps a little simplification would be a Good Thing.

Perhaps the best simplification would just be RU's lawmakers to simply adopt RL's touch laws in their entirety...

Section 9: Touch and Touch-in-goal

1. Touch
The ball is in touch when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch line or the ground beyond the touch line or any object on or outside the touch line.

The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back while off the ground.

The ball is not in touch if during flight it crosses the touch line but is knocked back by a player who is off the ground after jumping from the field of play.

2. Touch-in-Goal
The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any object on or outside the touch in-goal line.

Its simple and straightforward, and covers every contingency that occurs in RU as well.

While they are at it, the could adopt Section 10: Knock on and Forward Pass!!!

*** lights fuse and skulks away ***

 

[Dickie E]

The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and knocks ball back while off the ground.

Its simple and straightforward, and covers every contingency that occurs in RU as well.

So ball is not in touch, player is not in touch but, because he started in touch, we have a lineout?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

So ball is not in touch, player is not in touch but, because he started in touch, we have a lineout?

It's certainly less confusing than our stuff IMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So ball is not in touch, player is not in touch but, because he started in touch, we have a lineout?

Yes, and why not. RL have obviously made a simple determination;

When jumping and batting the ball back into play;
If you start in touch, you are in touch no matter what
If you start in the FoP, you are not in touch, no matter what.

Its unambiguous, and is the same for everybody.

 

[chopper15]

It means that if a player jumps from the FOP and he crosses the plane of touch, it is impossible for him to stop his momentum, spin in the air and reverse his direction of flight to land back in the FOP. Simple, no?

(iii) player in playing area jumps backwards into touch with only foot/feet not thro' plane (body percentage relevant?), knocks ball back onto playing area in which his foot/feet lands first (body percentage enough?), the rest of his body falls into touch.

. . . jumps backwards into touch . . , TF:hap:

Nobody prepared to hazard an opinion on the three contentious scenarios I proffered?

How many out there, like me, haven't a clue? Is it any wonder why we can't get any sense out of the law lords? I don't expect they would have a clue as to the answer either . . . and they're in a position to actually give an answer rather than humble opinions.:sad: