quick question

[ChrisR]

I appreciate the purpose of Ian's Law 19 mods (see post #19). By referencing the ball relative to the plane of touch he reduces the complexity of the law to "If its in, it's in. If its out, it's out."

However, I have two issues with the approach.

1. The plane of touch is impossible to accurately determine from the perspective of a referee unless they were positioned very near touch. The typical grassroots TJ wouldn't be a reliable judge either. Even an AR could have difficulty and wouldn't get much help from the TMO as camera angles wouldn't be directly down the LoT.

2. This approach would negate the athleticism of a players who could keep the ball in play.

Therefore I offer my version of an alternate Law 19. Incomplete but addresses the issue at hand.

Law 19 Touch and Lineout

In: A player is ‘in’ if all contact with the ground is in the field of play.

Out: A player is ‘out’ if they have any contact with the ground outside of the field of play.

Player in the air. A player in the air who leaps from touch and lands wholly in the field of play is ‘in’. A player who leaps from the field of play is in until they make contact with the ground outside of the field of play.

Player fielding the ball. A ball that is played by a player who is in is deemed to have been played in the field of play. A ball that is played by a player who is out is deemed to have been played in touch.

Examples.

A player standing in the FoP attempts to catch the ball but fails and the ball goes into touch. The ball is in touch put there by that player.

A player leaping from touch to land wholly in the FoP plays the ball. At the point that he plays the ball it is in. If the ball subsequently goes into touch it has been put there by that player.

A player leaps from the FoP and, prior to landing in touch, plays the ball back into the FoP. The ball is not in touch.

A player leaps from the FoP and, prior to landing in touch, plays the ball into touch. The ball has been put into touch by that player.

A player in touch plays the ball then the ball is in touch put there by the previous player.

Summary. This is consistent with the general law of a ball being in touch if it strikes any object in touch, with the sole exemption of the corner flag. This eliminates a player in touch batting a ball in the FoP to keep it in play. It also doesn’t make the distinction between ball at rest or in motion.

There is no application of the ‘plane of touch’, only the ground.

 

[OB..]

Player in the air. A player in the air who leaps from touch and lands wholly in the field of play is ‘in’. A player who leaps from the field of play is in until they make contact with the ground outside of the field of play.

I think the balance is wrong here. I would prefer the rule to be that a player is In until he lands Out, and Out until he lands In.

That means a player who jumps from touch is still out even if he crosses the plane of touch to catch the ball, but more importantly, it means he cannot take a running leap from touch, catch the ball a metre or two beyond the plane and land In to keep the ball in play.

 

[crossref]

I lke that. If a player in touch then he shouldn't be able take any part in the game until he is back on the field.
Being able to reach in from touch to slap a moving ball is ridicuous, IMO, and looks all wrong.

 

[FlipFlop]

I think the balance is wrong here. I would prefer the rule to be that a player is In until he lands Out, and Out until he lands In.

That means a player who jumps from touch is still out even if he crosses the plane of touch to catch the ball, but more importantly, it means he cannot take a running leap from touch, catch the ball a metre or two beyond the plane and land In to keep the ball in play.

This is how the FFR used to rule it. It is simple to explain and rule on....

 

[ChrisR]

I think the balance is wrong here. I would prefer the rule to be that a player is In until he lands Out, and Out until he lands In.

That means a player who jumps from touch is still out even if he crosses the plane of touch to catch the ball, but more importantly, it means he cannot take a running leap from touch, catch the ball a metre or two beyond the plane and land In to keep the ball in play.

Under current Law 19 definitions it deals with a player jumping, catching and landing with both feet in the FoP but it doesn't reference the point of take-off. Therefore it's safe to say that the take-off could be from touch.

I see this as a means of keeping the ball in play by the skill of the player. If he can leap from 2m touch, catch and land both feet in the FoP then reward him.

 

[4eyesbetter]

This is presumably the point where I mention that over on this side of the fence, the ball is not in touch until it contacts the ground or something else that is in touch, and a jumping player is considered to be where he last touched the ground, right?

 

[OB..]

Under current Law 19 definitions it deals with a player jumping, catching and landing with both feet in the FoP but it doesn't reference the point of take-off. Therefore it's safe to say that the take-off could be from touch.

I see this as a means of keeping the ball in play by the skill of the player. If he can leap from 2m touch, catch and land both feet in the FoP then reward him.

That is your interpretation, but it is not what I got from Mark Lawrence (via sarefs) and from the former referees department of the RFU. Both said that if a player started in touch and the ball had crossed, the plane the ball was in touch.

 

[ChrisR]

..... and the Plane of Touch rears its ugly head again. I'm trying to take it out of play.

"That is your interpretation, but it is not what I got from Mark Lawrence (via sarefs) and from the former referees department of the RFU. Both said that if a player started in touch and the ball had crossed, the plane the ball was in touch."

Yet, under Law 19 definitions, if the player was in the FoP the ball could cross the PoT and be caught. I find that to be inconsistent.

 

[OB..]

..... and the Plane of Touch rears its ugly head again. I'm trying to take it out of play.

"That is your interpretation, but it is not what I got from Mark Lawrence (via sarefs) and from the former referees department of the RFU. Both said that if a player started in touch and the ball had crossed, the plane the ball was in touch."

Yet, under Law 19 definitions, if the player was in the FoP the ball could cross the PoT and be caught. I find that to be inconsistent.

If you are standing in the FoP you have more rights than if you are in touch. I have no problem with that.

 

[ChrisR]

There is no clear prohibition, under Law 19, against leaping from touch into the FoP as the player catches the ball, even tho the ball may have crossed the PoT.

My point is to allow play to continue, when reasonable, thru player skill and athleticism.

I guess this is why I haven't been asked to ref in SA or England.

 

[The Fat]

Red kick for touch from inside 22 and Blue leans over touch line (both feet in FoP) to catch the ball. He touches it but does not catch it. Whose throw?

Just to bring us back to the question in the OP, a request to my state ref's manager has returned to confirm my first answer. Blue has put the ball in touch and it is therefore a red throw.

 

[ChrisR]

Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52uEftzABAQ

What is your decision? Who put the ball into touch?

My decision is the catcher did based on the catcher was in the FoP when he took off, caught the ball in mid-air and landed in touch.

The plane of touch? Pure guesswork and taken out of the equation by judging on take-off and landing of the catcher.

I rest my case.

 

[ChrisR]

Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4am_Iaq3I

This one gets really tricky. Ball was clearly beyond plane of touch. If you judge by where his feet are relative to the PoT when he bats the ball then it's a toss up. If you judge it by his feet when he jumped then no doubt.

If you rule that the player saved the ball from touch then you have to ask if it was a deliberate knock-on? The act was deliberate but surely not the intent to KO.

But it's still a KO into goal and the result will be defenders scrum at 5m.

(And this is another case for dumping that exception to in-goal law and going back to a 22 drop. But that's another story)

These are SAReferees clips. Great clips.

 

[chbg]

Surely it only has to be a 5m scrum if the knock-on occurs in in-goal, not into in-goal (22.13 and 22.16 for a double measure)? This one didn't.

 

[ChrisR]

Nope, in or into or, for that matter, through.

 

[ChrisR]

Correction to post #53

The scrum would be where the KO occurred but in 5m from touch.

(c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.

 

[chbg]

Law 12.1(c). Thank you, now I understand where it came from.

 

[Browner]

Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4am_Iaq3I

This one gets really tricky. Ball was clearly beyond plane of touch. If you judge by where his feet are relative to the PoT when he bats the ball then it's a toss up. If you judge it by his feet when he jumped then no doubt.

If you rule that the player saved the ball from touch then you have to ask if it was a deliberate knock-on? The act was deliberate but surely not the intent to KO.

But it's still a KO into goal and the result will be defenders scrum at 5m.

(And this is another case for dumping that exception to in-goal law and going back to a 22 drop. But that's another story)

These are SAReferees clips. Great clips.

This one is straightforward, ball over PoT when played & the player lands over the TL, so ball was in touch by red.

 

[The Fat]

This one is straightforward, ball over PoT when played & the player lands over the TL, so ball was in touch by red.

+1
Ball & player past the plane of touch and he lands in touch.
Ball is in touch, put there by red, LO to black where ball crossed the touch line.

 

[The Fat]

Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52uEftzABAQ

What is your decision? Who put the ball into touch?

My decision is the catcher did based on the catcher was in the FoP when he took off, caught the ball in mid-air and landed in touch.

The plane of touch? Pure guesswork and taken out of the equation by judging on take-off and landing of the catcher.

I rest my case.

Ball put in touch by the kicker.
Correct decision by the referee and from first look, not by his AR.