Scotland v Italy

[Dixie]

When Venditi knocked on with a foot in touch, was Nigel correct to overrule the throw to Italy in favour of what the commentators call the 1st offence - being the knock on while in touch?

 

[Christy]

When Venditi knocked on with a foot in touch, was Nigel correct to overrule the throw to Italy in favour of what the commentators call the 1st offence - being the knock on while in touch?

Hi dixie , i was going to post same .
Ill go with , yes foot in touch , but blue did not take possesion of ball.
And then came the lost forward .

Although this is only my view.
For me its a matter of possesion of ball . ( blue did not have a quality possession of ball )
And thats why i am ok with decision.
However could a scrum OR line out been offered.

 

[ChrisR]

If the ball strikes or is played by a player in touch the 'in touch' occurs first.

 

[Balones]

I suppose that he was applying the definition that a player in touch may knock the ball as long as it hasn't crossed the line of touch. Only in this case it was a knock on.

 

[Rawling]

I like how NO put his flag up immediately the guy fumbled the ball anyway. Clearly changed his mind later... luckily the ball ended up dead in a couple of seconds anyway.

 

[Christy]

If the ball strikes or is played by a player in touch the 'in touch' occurs first.

..

Hi chris r .
Is your view that it should of been line out

 

[Dixie]

As Balones mentions, the whole thing is clouded by the ludicrous position that the player on touch may knock the ball back infield without it being in touch. So in this situation, if Venditi had dropped it backward with a foot in touch, presumably play on? Why is World Rugby so interested in making Law 19 unworkable (or perhaps just unfathomable)?

 

[OB..]

As Balones mentions, the whole thing is clouded by the ludicrous position that the player on touch may knock the ball back infield without it being in touch. So in this situation, if Venditi had dropped it backward with a foot in touch, presumably play on? Why is World Rugby so interested in making Law 19 unworkable (or perhaps just unfathomable)?

In this case the aim is to make play more continuous.

 

[merge]

How close was Italy's move from the tapped PK 5m out to a Flying Wedge?

 

[ChrisR]

Christy, Haven't seen any video so I'm working from the OP.

From Law 19 definitions:

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.

WB need to dump this feature as it's just about redundant with the new law trials and conflicts with the simple understanding that if a ball comes in contact with an object or player in touch then the ball is in touch.

 

[Pinky]

How close was Italy's move from the tapped PK 5m out to a Flying Wedge?

IMHO it was a flying wedge

 

[The Fat]

Christy, Haven't seen any video so I'm working from the OP.

From Law 19 definitions:

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.

WB need to dump this feature as it's just about redundant with the new law trials and conflicts with the simple understanding that if a ball comes in contact with an object or player in touch then the ball is in touch.

I agree.
If the law trials are formally adopted in 2018, then the player standing in-touch and knocking the ball back in play has to go as well. Of course the snowball effect of that would be also having to do away with 22.4(g)

 

[Ian_Cook]

As far as I can see, WR's attempts to make an inconsistent, confusing and contradictory law simpler, has served only to make it more inconsistent, confusing and contradictory.

I am still of the opinion that the best and simplest answer is to adopt RL's touch laws as is (leaving out the bits that don't apply to RU such as players stepping into touch during the PTB and set scrums instead when the ball goes out in General Play)

 

[didds]

IMHO it was a flying wedge

What game time on the clock?

Didds

 

[Camquin]

Ian I was slightly confused as I did not think they had amended the laws on a flying wedge.
But otherwise yes, with oak leaves and diamonds and without loss of generality.

Can we get someone who edits technical documents for a living to chair the laws committee.
Can we have someone who has never played the game to read them and ask questions.

 

[ChuckieB]

Ian I was slightly confused as I did not think they had amended the laws on a flying wedge.
But otherwise yes, with oak leaves and diamonds and without loss of generality.

Can we get someone who edits technical documents for a living to chair the laws committee.
Can we have someone who has never played the game to read them and ask questions.

It won't be someone who has neither played coached or otherwise but much to be said to have someone who has no vested interest from either the playing/coaching side or law making side making a challenge here or there.

That fresh set of eyes!

In my profession I have seen so many instances where the detail and history gets you bogged down and you end up forgetting what you were trying to achieve in the first place! Sometimes we confuse ourselves trying to call for changes that arise from issues not to do with the laws but from other things.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian I was slightly confused as I did not think they had amended the laws on a flying wedge.
But otherwise yes, with oak leaves and diamonds and without loss of generality.

Can we get someone who edits technical documents for a living to chair the laws committee.
Can we have someone who has never played the game to read them and ask questions.

You hardly ever hear players, referees or coaches in RL becoming confused about the touch laws. This is because it is simple and consistent. IMO, their Laws would work very well in RU.

 

[ChuckieB]

You hardly ever hear players, referees or coaches in RL becoming confused about the touch laws. This is because it is simple and consistent. IMO, their Laws would work very well in RU.

Simple laws for a simple game.

I don't sense we have the same view up here in the NH . Views on RL vs RU are quite polarised especially in country so to suggest some convergence in more areas doesn't sit well. It is rugby football and kicking tactically is a component of the game. In league it is about absolute physicality, keeping the game flowing and quick restarts.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Simple laws for a simple game.

I don't sense we have the same view up here in the NH . Views on RL vs RU are quite polarised especially in country so to suggest some convergence in more areas doesn't sit well

Nonetheless, there are Laws in one game have originated from the other

The Blood bin, the Video Referee, revolving subs, replacing injured players all originated in RL

The banning of spear tackles and shoulder charges, and the banning of tackling players in the air and scrum fed by the non-infringing side all originated in RU

It is rugby football and kicking tactically is a component of the game. In league it is about absolute physicality, keeping the game flowing and quick restarts.

We need to know

1. whether or not the ball is in touch
2. who was responsible for putting it there

These are simple requirements that do not need complexity. We should not need flow charts and a textbook on quantum physics to work this stuff out. FFS, the ARU has a booklet called "Line Ball, Your Call". It uses 14 different scenarios with 17 photographs just to outline the situation regarding player/ball inside/outside the plane of touch. Most of this would unnecessary if the touch laws were simpler.

BASED ON RL TOUCH LAWS

1. Loose ball
- The ball is in touch if it touches the touchline, the ground beyond or anything or anyone standing there.
- The point of entry is where the ball crossed the touchline
- The last player to play it put it there.

2. Carried Ball
- The ball is in touch if the ball carrier steps on the touch line or the ground beyond it.
- The point of entry is where the ball carrier stepped on the touchline or the ground beyond it.
- The ball carrier put the ball into touch.

3. Player Jumping
- If a player jumps from the playing area he may tap or throw the ball back into the playing area provided that he does so before landing in touch.
- If a player jumps from touch and touches the ball, the ball is in touch and player who last played it before the jumping player put it there.

4. Ball stationaryl/Ball in motion
- If a player in touch picks up a moving ball, the ball is in touch and the player who last touched the ball put it there
- If a player in touch picks up a stationary ball, the ball is in touch and the player who picked it up put it there.

Explain to me how having this as the basic premise of RU touch laws would not "sit well"?

 

[didds]

Views on RL vs RU are quite polarised . .

Well they are amongst those still stuck in the 1970s rather than the 21st century after 22 years of RU professionalism.

Didds