SAReferees highlights continuing differences

Blue Smartie


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
78
Post Likes
10
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830633/

Discussed before but I just don't accept this interpretation and it merely highlights continuing differences in application at the top levels.

The "if he lands in touch the ball is in touch" part of the definition confirms that the ball is in touch; not who put it there.

For me this is taken into touch by the receiver every time.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830633/

Discussed before but I just don't accept this interpretation and it merely highlights continuing differences in application at the top levels.

The "if he lands in touch the ball is in touch" part of the definition confirms that the ball is in touch; not who put it there.

For me this is taken into touch by the receiver every time.

See all the threads and posts in this forum about how Law 19 is a complete and utter dog's breakfast of confusion, contradiction and and ambiguity.

Both views can be argued to be correct depending on the chain of logic you use to arrive at your confusion conclusion!
 
Last edited:
Top