Signal Touch Decision Matrix

[itin]

I just completed the USA rugby touch judge and assistant referee course. It was quite useful, especially the positioning advice.

One area proved baffling to me and I was wondering what others' feelings were on the subject around here? It has to do with when a player attempts to save a ball from going in to touch.

My previous, uneducated assumption, was along the lines of American football rules: if a player has both feet in the field of play, leaps to knock the ball back and does so before landing in touch, the ball would be in.

Not so.

What was presented was a somewhat confusing decision matrix all based on the where the player's feet are at start, whether the player leaves their feet, where the player's feet are when making contact, whether the contact occurs in the field of play or in touch, where the player lands and whether the player uses their hand or foot.

The whole things seems overly complicated. Has the ruling always been this complex or has time made it so?

 

[Rushforth]

Hi itin,

I realise you have been around for a while, but welcome and I hope you will go on to also referee, because your question is brilliant.

My view - others will likely disagree - is that the ball is in touch when it either hits the ground over the line, or is caught by a player touching the ground over the line. Should that player NOT be touching the ground at all, but have started his or her acrobatics inside the field of play, then the pirouette is awesome and allowed.

What may well have added to your confusion that if a player standing with one foot in touch catches the ball, it is considered to be going out by the kicker, not the player with the foot in touch. A player with one foot in behind the goal-line can similarly make a still moving ball dead by picking it up and pressing it down in-goal.

So yes, it has always been this complex. But if you look at the bigger picture, it is the players playing the game that matter, and not precise position of the ball. To be more specific: if they want to gain up to 50 yards and potentially keep the ball in play, the kick needs to land more than a yard from touch.

 

[Phil E]

Itin
It doesn't have to be complicated and it sounds as if this "decision matrix" has made it more so.
Just read the definitions at the start of law 19. They will tell you all you need to know.

 

[Dickie E]

In Oz we use this document which may assist you. The scenario on page 17 appears to contradict Rushforth

http://www.brumbies.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GDHGppbHLEY=&tabid=1415

 

[Ian_Cook]

In Oz we use this document which may assist you. The scenario on page 17 appears to contradict Rushforth

http://www.brumbies.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GDHGppbHLEY=&tabid=1415

I agree. Line Ball: Your Call is an excellent document. I know that referees here use it too, but I have seen on this forum some of the English referees saying that parts of it conflict with some of the RFU guidance.

IMO, the fact that we need a document that outlines 19 different scenarios that you have to consider merely to determine whether or not a ball is in touch, tells me that the Laws governing touch are overly complicated. Things would be so much easier if the iRB would just go back to how it used to be with the "plane of touch"...

► Carried Ball: a ball, in possession of a player, is in touch of that player touches the touchline or the ground beyond it.

► Loose Ball: a ball, not in possession of a player, is in touch if the ball breaks the plane of touch.

There is no scenario that would not be covered by these two options.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree. Line Ball: Your Call is an excellent document. I know that referees here use it too, but I have seen on this forum some of the English referees saying that parts of it conflict with some of the RFU guidance.

IMO, the fact that we need a document that outlines 19 different scenarios that you have to consider merely to determine whether or not a ball is in touch, tells me that the Laws governing touch are overly complicated. Things would be so much easier if the iRB would just go back to how it used to be with the "plane of touch"...

► Carried Ball: a ball, in possession of a player, is in touch of that player touches the touchline or the ground beyond it.

► Loose Ball: a ball, not in possession of a player, is in touch if the ball breaks the plane of touch.

There is no scenario that would not be covered by these two options.

Don't disagree but I'd make it even simpler with no plane of touch. Ball is in touch when it touches the line or the ground beyond it or touches any object (including a player) that is touching the line or the ground beyond it.

 

[Dickie E]

Or I could even go with the Ozzie Rules way. Ball is in touch when it crosses the plane of touch. Period.

 

[4eyesbetter]

I don't like plane of touch. Most of the ground can see where a ball bounces, even if it's quite tight; but only the six people who happen to be standing exactly on the touchline can see whether or not the ball broke it (and they probably weren't paying attention); everyone else gets done over by parallax and starts hooting at the touch judge for being blind.

 

[paul mc]

In Oz we use this document which may assist you. The scenario on page 17 appears to contradict Rushforth

http://www.brumbies.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GDHGppbHLEY=&tabid=1415

Great document..I found it a great help and keep a copy in the gear bag.

Paul

 

[OB..]

My view - others will likely disagree - is that the ball is in touch when it either hits the ground over the line, or is caught by a player touching the ground over the line. Should that player NOT be touching the ground at all, but have started his or her acrobatics inside the field of play, then the pirouette is awesome and allowed.

Some years ago I asked Castlecroft (where the RFU referees HQ used to be) about this. Their answer was that once the player has crossed the plane of touch, he is in touch; so when he touches the ball, the ball is also in touch.

Just read the definitions at the start of law 19. They will tell you all you need to know.

Hardly. :sad:

This is all it has to say about a jumping player[LAWS]If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.[/LAWS]No mention of what happens if he merely knocks the ball back into play.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Actually, I like Dickie E's simplification of my simplification.

Same criteria apply to both ball and ball carrier. Plane of touch is still needed of course, but only to determine where the LoT is, but we wouldn't need to determine where a jumping player takes off or lands from. If his feet are off the ground at the time he is in contact with the ball then the ball is not in touch. Then you can end up with spectacular efforts like this one...

 

[Phil E]

.Hardly. :sad:

This is all it has to say about a jumping player[LAWS]If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.[/LAWS]No mention of what happens if he merely knocks the ball back into play.

Depends if its crossed the plane?

 

[Rushforth]

Depends if its crossed the plane?

I think the point is that we ... have to guess. Again. But I like the score in Ian's video. I'd rather reward athleticism than have strict laws.

 

[Phil E]

I'd rather reward athleticism than have strict laws.

That seems to sum up your refereeing?

 

[Rushforth]

That seems to sum up your refereeing?

Considering that my every previous post on the subject is how as a referee I would rather have the laws applied correctly (in my personal view), I would be rather surprised if that summed my position up.

My position is that I am relatively inexperienced as a referee (two and a half years now) and slightly more experienced as a fan (getting closer to 90% than 80% now... gulp). I have been TJ at least 20 times as often as AR.

But on rereading, I'm going to guess, Phil E, that you are confusing me with someone else. I would like to have strict laws, like passing not towards the dead-ball line of the opponent's dead ball line, not being on the ground, and above all no push before the ball is in at the scrum - the issue which ended my playing career.

That said, my comment - against the grain of my previous 339 posts - was simply that since rugby is an athletic game, athleticism should be rewarded. I'd rather have the 30 players be athletes enjoying themselves and run with them than turn on my annoyed mode. I don't know if you whistle everything you see, Phil E, but at my level I could have a scrum every minute if I were a perfectly observant referee. My level is likely lower than yours, but I am fairly sure that I have refereed a player who will feature in the 2016 olympics a couple of times.

Phil E, you train referees in England. I do not have the luxury of an assessor. But I was glad top hear from an English assessor on tour that I had a good game at the end of last season, what with the team I reffed losing but being top 16 in the country for age-group (playing against a team averaging at least 5 years older).

I can deal with the fact that you don't know me from Adam. I have loathed allowing "the hit" for the last two years. That just isn't athletic. Same for feeding at the scrum by SH. How athletic do you think I think it is to feed into the second row?

If you train referees, as you claim, I would strongly suggest that you don't use the sarcastic tone of voice you just used with me. I realise that you are on the internet and writing a quick one-liner, but I'd suggest the next time a new referee says "I'm not X enough", under your tutelage, the response might not be "X sums up your refereeing". Just saying.

 

[Phil E]

I'm going to guess, Phil E, that you are confusing me with someone else.

No I'm not, and if I had the time I would quote all your previous posts where you state a penchant for applying your own unique interpretations of the law. But alas I don't have the time, so lets just leave it there. I find your quoted refereeing style (from those previous posts) to be.......shall we say.......individual? But that may be because you don't have an active society to bounce off, and regular reviews and advisors.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Would be much simpler and imo sensible if they adopted the rugby league interpretations of when the ball/player is in touch

 

[itin]

Hi itin,
I realise you have been around for a while, but welcome and I hope you will go on to also referee, because your question is brilliant.

Thanks Rushforth, I have done some referee work already. I never had any formalized training for the sideline and figured I could use the expanse in knowledge.

In Oz we use this document which may assist you. The scenario on page 17 appears to contradict Rushforth http://www.brumbies.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GDHGppbHLEY=&tabid=1415

Dickie E, thank you for the document, wonderful pictorial learning tool to put with the decision matrix.

IMO, the fact that we need a document that outlines 19 different scenarios that you have to consider merely to determine whether or not a ball is in touch, tells me that the Laws governing touch are overly complicated.

That was my feelings on the matter.

Actually, I like Dickie E's simplification of my simplification.
Same criteria apply to both ball and ball carrier. Plane of touch is still needed of course, but only to determine where the LoT is, but we wouldn't need to determine where a jumping player takes off or lands from. If his feet are off the ground at the time he is in contact with the ball then the ball is not in touch.

This was my original, uneducated, opinion of deciding touch on savings efforts. While not correct, it provided for much a simpler decision making process.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Rushforth]

But that may be because you don't have an active society to bounce off, and regular reviews and advisors.

We actually have very good educators here, and I get pretty good feedback - in both senses of the word - from fellow referees, coaches, and captains. It is just that there are very few assessors and their time is better used on promising young referees than me!

Having eliminated the most obvious option, perhaps you are confusing my refereeing performances, in which I try to conform with both my peers and the elite (nationally and internationally) to the best of my ability, with my forum posts in which I regularly post both (a) as Devil's Advocate and (b) while mildly drunk. You should really see (c) the ones I delete because I realise I am drunk and rambling even more than I usually do!

Phil, I have no problem with posters such as yourself who call me unique or individual - I like to think I am, so I can hardly feel insulted, as long as the tone is polite. As yours is; thank you.

To rephrase my original statement: The laws are important. The players enjoying their game is more important (to me). Their safety trumps all, in terms of importance. Where safety is irrelevant, and the player with the more athletic players will benefit, I would prefer whatever interpretation rewards athleticism to be the correct one at an emotional level, even if that is at odds with my understanding of the laws (whether that be right or wrong).

 

[Account Deleted]

If you train referees, as you claim, I would strongly suggest that you don't use the sarcastic tone of voice you just used with me. I realise that you are on the internet and writing a quick one-liner, but I'd suggest the next time a new referee says "I'm not X enough", under your tutelage, the response might not be "X sums up your refereeing". Just saying.

Ithink you neeto reconsider your posting style and not the other way round.