Restart - Waratahs v. Brumbies

[Lee Grant]

In the 23rd minute Bernard Foley of the Waratahs restarts after a Brumbies' try; the ball sails toward Bumbies' player Henry Speight, who is standing outside the field of play and attempting to effect a kick directly into touch by catching the ball on the full.

The TV replay showed that the ball had not passed the plane of touch when it touched Speight's hands.

I am not a referee but my understanding of the law is:

(a) If Speight caught the ball, it is deemed to be kicked directly into touch, and the usual provisions apply.
(b) If Speight knocked the ball back, it is deemed to be 'play on'.
(c) If the ball was knocked-on it is advantage Waratahs.
(d) If the ball was knocked back and the ball went into touch it is a lineout - Waratahs.

Are these correct statements?

What happened was (d) and the AR signalled that the ball had been kicked directly into touch. He was not standing in line with the touch line, probably in order not to impede a Waratahs' ball chaser, and I am guessing that he was of the opinion that the ball had passed the plane of touch.

Waratahs' centre Adam Ashley-Cooper screamed to the AR that the ball had been touched.

But those matters are beside the point of my question.
.

 

[damo]

I thought the referee, the AR and Rod Kafer all got that one wrong.

Assuming that the ball touched the Brumbies player, the ruling should have been that the Brumbies had put the ball into touch. The law is a bit complex here.

Everyone knows - or should do - the following rule

[LAWS]Law 19 Definitions
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.[/LAWS]
But I wager that most do not realise another part of the law
[LAWS]
Law 19 Definition
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]

In other words, if you are in touch and catch it, the ball is out (and the other team have put the ball in touch), but if you are in touch and just touch the ball without catching it before it has crossed the line of touch, then the ball is not in touch.

As I recall, the Brumby, was in touch, may have played the ball with his hands before it crossed the line of touch, and then the ball went into touch. If he touched it, it should have been a lineout to the Waratahs (or a scrum to Waratahs if it went forward). If he didn't touch it (or the ball had already crossed the plane of touch) then the option for a scrum back on halfway was correct.

 

[Dickie E]

I am not a referee but my understanding of the law is:

(a) If Speight caught the ball, it is deemed to be kicked directly into touch, and the usual provisions apply.
(b) If Speight knocked the ball back, it is deemed to be 'play on'.
(c) If the ball was knocked-on it is advantage Waratahs.
(d) If the ball was knocked back and the ball went into touch it is a lineout - Waratahs.

Are these correct statements?

Yes they are ..... and why aren't you a referee? The pay is good and the hours reasonable.

 

[menace]

yes they are ..... And why aren't you a referee? The pay is good and the hours reasonable.

lmfao

 

[Lee Grant]

As I recall, the Brumby, was in touch, may have played the ball with his hands before it crossed the line of touch, and then the ball went into touch. If he touched it, it should have been a lineout to the Waratahs (or a scrum to Waratahs if it went forward). If he didn't touch it (or the ball had already crossed the plane of touch) then the option for a scrum back on halfway was correct.

I was at the ground near the 50 metre line and could not form an opinion on the matter, but the following day I looked at my HDTV replay. It was close, but the ball had not passed the plane of touch when it touched Speight's hands.

The AR was 2 metres (about) from touch and didn't get the best angle with his head over the touch line.

One hesitates to commend a player for his knowledge of the laws — very often such knowledge is as bad as that of TV commentators — but Ashley Cooper was correct in his complaint.

The irony was that had Speight not intervened, the ball would have gone directly into touch by itself; so the Waratahs got what they deserved for a dodgy restart kick.

Thanks guys for your input.
.

 

[Browner]

Everyone knows - or should do - the following rule

[LAWS]Law 19 Definitions
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.[/LAWS]
But I wager that most do not realise another part of the law
[LAWS]
Law 19 Definition
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]

In other words, if you are in touch and catch it, the ball is out (and the other team have put the ball in touch), but if you are in touch and just touch the ball without catching it before it has crossed the line of touch, then the ball is not in touch.
.

Thanks Damo, you're wager was good, i didn't .......... actually i'm really surprised , but better informed nevertheless.

 

[Jacko]

Waratahs' centre Adam Ashley-Cooper screamed to the AR that the ball had been touched.

.[/QUOTE]

That makes it nice and easy - PK for appealing... ;-)