The New Touch Definition. Help Please.

[Taff]

After a period of being "rugby'd out" :sad: with the exception of the British Lions Tests, I made a conscious effort not to have anything to do with rugby for a couple of months.

With the new season on us, I've been going through the new Law Trials. The vast majority are pretty easy to understand, but I must admit I'm struggling with the new Touch laws.

You boys must have discussed them while I was away; can anyone give me a link please?

 

[ChrisR]

They are in the Definitions of Law 19 in the 2017 Laws as Law Trials. I don't think there is anything different.

 

[SimonSmith]

Anything different compared to last year? I beg to differ.

 

[ChrisR]

Explanation: I have the 2017 Laws downloaded and the touch law trials are included in the Definitions of law 19. Question: Are these definitions different in any way from what has been released recently from WR?

 

[thepercy]

Touch is now judged much like basketball in regards to returning the ball to play. Also, bobbling is considered to be in possession, so no need for foot on chalk and ball in hand at the same moment. No longer can you catch a ball in play and make it dead, rolling or otherwise, and get the possession, you've caused it to go in to touch, Ingoal or dead.

 

[Christy]

After a period of being "rugby'd out" :sad: with the exception of the British Lions Tests, I made a conscious effort not to have anything to do with rugby for a couple of months.

With the new season on us, I've been going through the new Law Trials. The vast majority are pretty easy to understand, but I must admit I'm struggling with the new Touch laws.

You boys must have discussed them while I was away; can anyone give me a link please?

Hi taff .
Keep it simple in your mind .
1 .. foot in touch & ball caught in field of play = catcher took it out ( this is new )
2.. foot in touch & ball caught whilst crossing touch line or completely over touch line = catcher did not take it out ( as before )
3... player in touch & ball on floor or in air ,,providing ball stays in field ,,player whilst player is in touch can kick or knock ball only ( cant take actual possesion ) = play on . ( as before )
4.. if a player who was in field of play jumps & whilst in air catches or kicks or slaps ball back into play ( even if ball has left field of play ) it is play on , even if player lands in touch . ( this is new )
5. A player in field of play who attempts to catch ball & ends up juggling the ball is now deemed to of taking possesion of ball ..if ball has left field of play & is in air , if player is in field of play & attempts to catch ball but he juggles ball couple of times = that player has taken ball out & opposition throw in . ( this is new ) .

 

[crossref]

The more I think about this the more I can't understand (4) in your list , which seems to take the touch laws in a contrary direction from the other changes , which all focus on the plane of touch

 

[Taff]

Thanks everyone, but I think the little nugget I was looking for is right there.

... No longer can you catch a ball in play and make it dead, rolling or otherwise, and get the possession, you've caused it to go in to touch, In-goal or dead.

The more I think about this the more I can't understand (4) in your list , which seems to take the touch laws in a contrary direction from the other changes , which all focus on the plane of touch

I think the logic Crossref is that the ball is being kept alive and on the FoP. And if the thrower / slapper is still in the air, strictly speaking he isn't in touch until he touches the ground, so play on.

 

[Rich_NL]

The ball is out until it comes into contact with someone or something in touch.

Once that happens, who brought it out is determined by who brought it (over the plane of/into) touch.

So I see it as 3 that is inconsistent, although consistent with maximising continuity.

 

[crossref]

I guess so.

But if someone leaps from OUTSIDE the field of play, and knocks the ball in the air, and lands in the FoP then it all depends on whether the ball had reached the plane or not .. right

 

[Taff]

.. But if someone leaps from OUTSIDE the field of play, and knocks the ball in the air, and lands in the FoP then it all depends on whether the ball had reached the plane or not .. right

I would say play on whether the ball had crossed the plane of touch or not ... as long as the player doing the knocking / slapping was in the air (ie technically not in touch) when contact was made with the ball.

 

[crossref]

From the materials and presentations I have heard I think the over arching motivation for the changes is continuity .. they want ball longer in play and fewer lineouts

I am very curious as to whether these changes will have that effect , and I hope they put in some good statistical analysis to measure it

My instinct is that more balls will be left to go out on their own and we will therefore have fewer QTI and more lineouts , so consequently less time with ball in play

But we don't know and I guess that's the whole reason for having a trial

 

[didds]

I think what I will be saying to my squads is if there is any doubt as to whether your actions will end up with a lineout against us let it go to touch unplayed and we'll take the subsequent lineout/QTI. So basically only play it if you are eg a metre deep into touch, OR are definitely 100% in the FoP. Because (and WADR and sympathies with grass toots refs) its too hazy as to whether the ball has vcrossed the plane from a distance

didds

 

[crossref]

Didds at grass roots you may be too cautious .. the thrust of the presentations I have seen is to give the benefit of the doubt to the catcher .. what they are trying to stop is the ball that is clearly in field being taken out by a catcher who then would get the throw
For balls that are caught pretty much on the plane , kicked out

 

[Dan_A]

I think what I will be saying to my squads is if there is any doubt as to whether your actions will end up with a lineout against us let it go to touch unplayed and we'll take the subsequent lineout/QTI. So basically only play it if you are eg a metre deep into touch, OR are definitely 100% in the FoP. Because (and WADR and sympathies with grass toots refs) its too hazy as to whether the ball has vcrossed the plane from a distance

didds

This is EXACTLY what I told my u16s. And in our particular locality we have balls leaving the field of play and bouncing over fences, into a stream or into the long grass. So it will almost certainly mean more dead time and less ball in play time.

 

[didds]

the thrust of the presentations I have seen is to give the benefit of the doubt to the catcher

well that's quite interesting because that is first time Ive heard that.

I'm not shooting the messenger here CR

I cans till see players/squads not letting any possible confusion end up with them losing ground AND possession and so letting kicks go to touch.



didds

 

[didds]

And in our particular locality we have balls leaving the field of play and bouncing over fences, into a stream or into the long grass. .

there's a bloody canal next to our ground!

years ago we used to play on a council pitch on occasion that had a MAIZE field adjacent to one touchline, and about 25 acres of open ground on the other for the ball to keep rolling into!

didds

 

[crossref]

This is EXACTLY what I told my u16s. And in our particular locality we have balls leaving the field of play and bouncing over fences, into a stream or into the long grass. So it will almost certainly mean more dead time and less ball in play time.

well that's quite interesting because that is first time Ive heard that.

I'm not shooting the messenger here CR

I cans till see players/squads not letting any possible confusion end up with them losing ground AND possession and so letting kicks go to touch.

I agree with both.

I think the intended effect is to get rid of those occasional ones which did look very odd where people stretched to gather moving balls that were still 1.5m from the touchline and may never have got there. Hence the guides to us -- don't fret over marginal plane-of-touch stuff, which you can't see anyway.

but the unintended consequences at grass roots will be a lot more letting it go out, and ball fetching.

Of course at pro level they use a new ball every time anyway. It probably doesn't occur to WR that in the community game someone has to go and fetch the ball

 

[Dan_A]

I agree with both.

I think the intended effect is to get rid of those occasional ones which did look very odd where people stretched to gather moving balls that were still 1.5m from the touchline and may never have got there.

Agree and I think this is a shame. I always appreciated the speed of thought and accuracy of execution required to successfully pull off this action. It was one of the 'quirks' of our game that I liked.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

there's a bloody canal next to our ground!

years ago we used to play on a council pitch on occasion that had a MAIZE field adjacent to one touchline, and about 25 acres of open ground on the other for the ball to keep rolling into!

didds

Heath and Old Rishworthians in Halifax are both next to the River Calder. I wonder how many slightly damp balls marked ORRUFC Heath have?