question re. touch

[Dickie E]

had this on Saturday (I was AR):

ball was stationery 1/2 metre from touch line. Player with one foot in touch and one if FoP scooped the ball back between his legs to a team mate.

Law 19 says: A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not
crossed the plane of the touchline.

Is a 'scooping' action a subset of knocking the ball?

I allowed play to continue.

 

[Taff]

Isn't "scooping" just a form of holding?

I would vote for a LO - put in to the non-scooping side.

 

[menace]

law 19.5 (a) say "If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up
the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, that player has picked up the ball in
the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)"

So for mine the scooping is a form of 'picking up' - so I would flag for touch and L/O to 'non-scooper'

 

[Drift]

Although in this case it's better to make no decision than the wrong on.

I probably would've raised my flag as I like to do that kind of thing.

 

[OB..]

He did not pick it up because he was never actually holding the ball.
He did not knock it back because there was relatively prolonged contact.

It is a grey area with no right answer. I would not fault an official either way, but it could be an interesting discussion afterwards. Personally I prefer play on, because that is more in the spirit of the game.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Like OB I would be open minded and go with a decision either way.

Was it a fast 'scoop' with momentary contact, or a longer scoooooooooooooooop ?
Was the foot on the line or fully in touch ?

It is going to be a judgement call by the referee and I would be happy to see it played on as positive play.

If an appointed AR flagged it, then it is a Team of 3 decision, do referee should blow it and discuss in the bar afterwards.

 

[ddjamo]

he did not hold it. play on.

 

[The Fat]

law 19.5 (a) say "If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up
the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, that player has picked up the ball in
the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)"

So for mine the scooping is a form of 'picking up' - so I would flag for touch and L/O to 'non-scooper'

I'm with you menace. I would have definitely flagged for LO to "non-scooper".

 

[OB..]

Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

 

[chopper15]

Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

The law only allows a 'knock' which it specifies.

I raised that same scoop action query some time back regarding the static/moving action back over the 22. So, touch, 22 and goal-line should be taken into consideration. I tried to locate that thread with the search facility but no joy . . . not unusual!

 

[The Fat]

Which interpretation do you think is in the best interests of the game?

I would say that a scoop involves the hand supporting the ball for a period of time, regardless of how long that is, which is the equivalent of holding the ball. If he knocks or kicks it then fine. If he chooses to scoop it, then he has held the ball as far as I'm concerned and therefore has put the ball in touch.

 

[OB..]

I would say that a scoop involves the hand supporting the ball for a period of time, regardless of how long that is, which is the equivalent of holding the ball. If he knocks or kicks it then fine. If he chooses to scoop it, then he has held the ball as far as I'm concerned and therefore has put the ball in touch.

You are ducking my point. The wording does not force either interpretation on you, so which one do you think best serves the game?

 

[The Fat]

You are ducking my point. The wording does not force either interpretation on you, so which one do you think best serves the game?

The one that I have stated. Taken into touch by the scooper. LO to non-scoopers. Otherwise we may as well adopt AFL rules where a player can run with his whole body outside the boundary (touch) line except for the hand holding the ball and the still have the ball in play and play on.

 

[chopper15]

What about if you shove (corruption of shovel?), push or guide a ball lying or rolling loose in the FoP to a team mate with the side or toe of the boot or the hand?

PS . . . nudge, roll, prod, poke, slap, whack, truckle, slice, flick, swipe? (grinning face thingy)

 

[OB..]

The one that I have stated.

But your decision was based on the way you have chosen to interpret the wording of the law. You said nothing about what would be best for the game.

Taken into touch by the scooper. LO to non-scoopers. Otherwise we may as well adopt AFL rules where a player can run with his whole body outside the boundary (touch) line except for the hand holding the ball and the still have the ball in play and play on.

False argument. You have used the word holding, and we know that is illegal.

Interestingly, in the nineteenth century a player was considered to be in touch if any part of his body broke the plane.

 

[ddjamo]

the holding/catching is consistent with other situations. example: player with one foot in touch fumbles a kick forward in a scooping motion as he tries to catch the ball - knock on. but if he catches it on the full -touch. TF by your interpretation the former would be in touch as he scooped the ball....and not a knock on?

can't have it both ways matey...

 

[menace]

But your decision was based on the way you have chosen to interpret the wording of the law. You said nothing about what would be best for the game.

I didn’t think he was ducking your point either when Fat explained in his opinion that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object. I would have thought that most people think that when you ‘pick up’ something that you apply a grasp of some sort to raise/lift the object off the ground and a scoop fits that general definition. To me it is clear too that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object. The flinging of that object as DickieE eludes with his example, is more a secondary action - as opposed to a kick or knocking of the ball (which is not a picking up action).

To suggest that ‘scooping’ is not an act of picking up an object up seems to be playing with semantics to the nth degree and causes more confusion than necessary. But seeing how we are on that path - after extensive searching through thesaurus etc (ie Macquarie :hap nowhere could I find that ‘scoop’ is a synonym of ‘knock’ Therefore I would deduce that a ‘scoop’ in not an action of knocking and therefore ‘scooping’ does not form part of the exceptions in the law 19 definitions, as such this action would fall in 19.5 (a). On the basis that Fat defined what he deemed to be picking up (or even momentarily ‘holding’ which surely incorporates a ‘pick-up’), and I agree with him, it is clear and precise to me what the law requires and what the outcome is and therefore it does not require that I interpret it as to “what would be best for the game”.

OB – I do note your opinion that either ‘play on’ OR ‘touch’ is not an unreasonable call considering the vagueness of the law 19 definitions although you tend to favour the ‘scoop’ as a form of ‘knocking’ as it is better for the game. Pity that if the law lords meant that scooping was a form of ‘knocking’ that they didn’t add that action to the list in law 1aw 19 definitions.

 

[Taff]

he did not hold it. play on.

He didn't tap or kick it back either.

... Was the foot on the line or fully in touch?

Sorry, but I don't get your point. On the line is in touch; what difference does it make?

 

[OB..]

I didn’t think he was ducking your point either when Fat explained in his opinion that a ‘scoop’ is a form of picking up an object.

He was making an assertion about what the word "scoop" means. I am trying very hard to get away from semantics in this case because I don't think it helps.

Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call.

The Law only becomes definitive after you have decided how you want to classify a particular scoop.

 

[chopper15]

He was making an assertion about what the word "scoop" means. I am trying very hard to get away from semantics in this case because I don't think it helps.

Knocking the ball involves a very brief contact. Holding the ball basically involves having the option to retain contact. A scoop could be anywhere between these two. As with all borderline situations, there is going to be a judgement call.

The Law only becomes definitive after you have decided how you want to classify a particular scoop.

I just bought some loose dog biscuits and the lady used a scoop to transfer them from bin to bag. It's got to mean 'to hold' aswell as 'pick up', surely?

If so, wouldn't that make it OK to scoop the ball (moving or static) back-over the 22 or goal-line?