quick question

[Browner]

I agree with your first sentence and whilst I agree with your second sentence, I probably interpret the LBYC scenario differently in this case.
To back up my interpretation, I have consulted the flow chart in the back of the ARU AR course book (I have posted this chart previously on RR) and whilst it is slightly less "muddy" than LBYC, I would have to go with a red throw in.

View attachment 2970

I work from this thinking....

1) if you're inside the FoP when you last touch the ball then you've put it in touch, irrespective of whether it was inside, on the way, on, or over the PoT, when you touched it .

2) If the ball is already over the PoT before a player last touches it, a player can keep it in play but he needs to be predominantly in the FoP or land in the FoP (after he's played it) to be successfull.

Helps me evaluate when I need to.

Red throw, and obviously so

 

[leaguerefaus]

When the "quick question" requires diagrams and multiple law resources, it's probably not a quick question after all!

 

[Phil E]

I made the decision on the fact that the ball, although beyond the plane, was not in touch (as the wind could have blown back in) and it was the player in the FOP that touched it to put it to ground and therefore in touch!

This scenario will happen rarely.

• Make a decision.
• Sell the decision.
• Stick with your decision.

Whichever decision you make will be accepted.

However, for me I like what menace said above.
If blue want the throw, then just let the ball go into touch. As it is..........red throw.

 

[Browner]

Additionally I made the decision on the fact that the ball, although beyond the plane, was not in touch (as the wind could have blown back in) and it was the player in the FOP that touched it to put it to ground and therefore in touch.

Yep, fairly logical. Which is what 19.4(a) says. [LAWS]. 19.4 Who throws in(a)


The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. [/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Thread hijack!!!!! (only because this is the one people are currently looking at)

Where was the thread about the answer the IRB gave SA Refs re the DBL being treated the same as the TiG line?
Cheers

 

[Blackberry]

The law seems to have been usually interpreted thus:
If a ball has crossed the plane of touch and is going to end up in touch, then no action by a receiving player can make that player responsible for putting the ball in touch.

 

[OB..]

1. Once a loose ball crosses the plane of touch, it is out. It cannot be batted back in. This means a ball which crosses the plane and then is blown back is "out in flight" (which is what the law used to be).

The law was changed in 1978.

The tricky part is the high curving kick, when the referee has to decide if it crossed the plane of touch

2. If a player jumps from the field of play and catches a loose ball before it crosses the plane of touch, he is now holding the ball, with all that this implies. If he now lands in touch (with or without the ball) then he put the ball out.

3. If a player jumps from the field of play and catches a loose ball after it has already crossed the plane of touch, and lands in touch (with or without the ball) the last player to touch the ball before him put the ball out.

Still needs some definition of when a player is in touch.

 

[OB..]

The law seems to have been usually interpreted thus:
If a ball has crossed the plane of touch and is going to end up in touch, then no action by a receiving player can make that player responsible for putting the ball in touch.

"Usually"? It doesn't happen very often anyway.

What if the receiving player knocks on? Does that count?

 

[Blackberry]

"Usually"? It doesn't happen very often anyway.

What if the receiving player knocks on? Does that count?

Its all covered in my offering... "no action by a receiving player"

...and what is a "knock on in touch"??? New one on me.

.. and "usually" doesn't refer to the frequency of the event but refers to the likelihood of interpretation!

 

[The Fat]

I had this exact thing happen in the 1st grade grand final I was AR and it was on my line....and my first thought was "oh sh!t! Whos throw is it again?!" thankfully my decision at that time was this.

Was that last weekend at Viking Park?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The law was changed in 1978.

The tricky part is the high curving kick, when the referee has to decide if it crossed the plane of touch

If he he sees it cross the plane, he calls it out, if he doesn't then he doesn't

Referees managed fine for 100+ years before they changed the Law

Still needs some definition of when a player is in touch.

Since I'm not allowing a ball to be thrown or batted back into play after it has crossed the touchline, its not needed. All that is required is the second "Loose ball" definition from my post #19

[LAWS]*A Loose Ball that has not crossed the plane of touch is out if it touches a player who has any part of his body touching the touchline or the ground beyond. The place where the player touched the touchline is where the ball went out. That player is responsible for putting the ball out."[/LAWS]

I cannot think of any possible scenario that would not be covered by either of the two "Loose Ball Out" definitions or the "Held Ball Out" definition. Can you?

 

[OB..]

...and what is a "knock on in touch"??? New one on me.

A player can reach over the plane of touch and knock the ball back into the field of play. However if he knocks it forward into play, that is a knock-on.

.. and "usually" doesn't refer to the frequency of the event but refers to the likelihood of interpretation!

I was suggesting that there is a paucity of evidence. When it does happen, how many referees will have seen it before or thought about it before?

 

[OB..]

If he he sees it cross the plane, he calls it out, if he doesn't then he doesn't

Referees managed fine for 100+ years before they changed the Law

Perhasp they didn't. Perhaps that difficulty was the reason they changed the law?

 

[Blackberry]

A player can reach over the plane of touch and knock the ball back into the field of play. However if he knocks it forward into play, that is a knock-on.

...so the ball did not go into touch, so not relevant to this thread? Not sure why you raised the question, is it relevant?

 

[The Fat]

...so the ball did not go into touch, so not relevant to this thread? Not sure why you raised the question, is it relevant?

I think you may be misinterpreting what OB is saying?
I think his point is that a player standing in the field of play can knock the ball back into the field of play so it is play on and therefore is relevant to this discussion. Are you thinking he is talking about a player standing in-touch who knocks a ball back before it crosses the plane of touch?

 

[Browner]

Before the player contacts the ball, it's over the PoT yet it isn't yet in touch.

Then,
Feet in FoP + ball over PoT + knocked into FoP = play on
Feet in FoP + ball over PoT + knocked-on into FoP = play on, scrum.
Feet in FoP + ball over PoT + caught = play on
One foot in FoP + ball over PoT + other foot swings and kicks ball back into FoP ( kicking foot lands in FoP) = play on
Feet in FoP + ball over PoT + caught + then deliberately thrown into crowd ! - Offence ???

Having your feet in the FoP is sufficient to continue play on most subsequent actions , so why not include putting the ball in touch?

 

[menace]

Was that last weekend at Viking Park?

Yes....darn it now I've given 50% chance you can identify me and key my car!

 

[The Fat]

Yes....darn it now I've given 50% chance you can identify me and key my car!

So you were one of the fine gentlemen giving cancer the red card for Big Willie then?
Yes, I've seen the photo

 

[Blackberry]

I think you may be misinterpreting what OB is saying?
I think his point is that a player standing in the field of play can knock the ball back into the field of play so it is play on and therefore is relevant to this discussion. Are you thinking he is talking about a player standing in-touch who knocks a ball back before it crosses the plane of touch?

Hi Fat
I hear what you say. My definition was tied tightly to the OP and covers a ball that is going to end up in touch.

 

[menace]

So you were one of the fine gentlemen giving cancer the red card for Big Willie then?
Yes, I've seen the photo

Indeed. I'm wearing the cap.