To be in touch or not to be in touch....

[FightOrFlight]

So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

 

[Browner]

So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

You're correct.
The supporters don't appreciate that ...... [LAWS]A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. [/LAWS]

AR'ing, lol, get used to it, high level players don't always have high level supporters!!!!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

In Law I think you are correct.

The trouble is Law 19 is not the greatest Law to use if you want short, sharp, easily understood points to support your decision.

Somewhere in the definitions and other stuff you are correct IMHO.

I can see why red supporters would be cross but when does being wrong ever make supporters change their mind.

 

[Jacko]

Deliberate knock on?? (Not a serious suggestion, but always a fun debate).

 

[crossref]

So last weekend I traded in my whistle under higher orders for a flag. It was a high level 1st XV game.

Red v Blue. It's a tight game in fairly cool and damp conditions and blue have been hammering away with picks and close forward plays. Finally they go wide and get a 2 on 1 on the outside. The ball is popped to the outside man who goes in and dots down in the corner...however as with all things it's not that simple!

When the ball arrives at this outside man he has his foot on the line. The pass goes behind him a bit and he has to control the ball with his inside hand. He does this by "batting the ball up" to himself. He then gathers and scores. As he made contact in batting the ball his foot was on the line but when he gathered the ball his other foot was down inside play and he did not step out again on his way to the line. The ball did not cross the touch line and so I kept my flag down.
The blue team are away team and all the red supporters are behind me.....it's fair to say there was consternation among them and a fair bit of abuse levelled my way. The referee trotted over as I jogged past the scoring mark and asked was he in touch to which I answered no and then he awarded the try.

The supporters were rather unpleasant to me for the remainder....

Thoughts?

OK then - here's the counter argument

- so he's running along the touchline and receives a pass
- he doesn't catch the pass cleanly, he juggles and gathers
- in the act of juggling he makes a touch on the ball, with his foot in touch
- if he had made a one handed catch, he would have been in touch
- but because he is only juggling you are counting this as a 'knock' under the Law and it's OK

Hmmm. I don't think so.

We often have discussed whether a player juggling the ball is in possession of the ball and can be legally tackled.
We all agree that it must be the case that he can be tackled, else he could juggle all the way to the tryline. Ie a juggling player is in possession of the ball.

this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...

 

[OB..]

this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...

What constitutes "juggling"?

A matter of judgement.

 

[Adam]

I don't think anyone would have moaned if you had judged that he was in touch.

 

[Browner]

We often have discussed whether a player juggling the ball is in possession of the ball and can be legally tackled.
We all agree that it must be the case that he can be tackled, else he could juggle all the way to the tryline. Ie a juggling player is in possession of the ball.

this juggling player is in possession of the ball, and his foot is in touch ...

That scenario partly depends on it being 'unreasonable' to expect a potential tackler to pull out of a tackle if a slight ball juggle is happening, so its not a similar mindset Crossref.

He's not in possession, he's attempting to gain possession, and as long as its not C&O then all BoD to the attackers, gets my vote.

I see the OP situation having a different set of determinations, ie...bonafide or not, but let's follow your thought through, for fun, if this was the 'critical' moment at the end of a major cup final, what would the TMO likely decide ?

 

[crossref]

well I would put my flag up.

anyone that keeps flag down is relying on

[LAWS]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]

I don't think that covers the scenario described - I don't think he was knocking it in the sense envisaged by the Law, which is to knock it to stop it going into touch, I don't think he was knocking it at all, I think he was attempting to catch it and I'd put my flag up.

C&O is a red herring : the facts are C&O, it's the meaning of the Law that's in question.


knock : verb (used with object)
6. to give a sounding or forcible blow to; hit; strike; beat.
7. to drive, force, or render by a blow or blows: "to knock a man senseless."
8. to make by striking a blow or blows: ;to knock a hole in the wall."
9. to strike (a thing) against something else.

 

[OB..]

I don't think he was knocking it in the sense envisaged by the Law, which is to knock it to stop it going into touch,

That is a restrictive interpretation, since the reason for knocking the ball is not mentioned.

He might well have realised his foot was in touch and knocked upwards a perfectly good pass in order to re-gather it infield.

Unfortunately this one is very much down to the individual judgement of the referee. We have two grey areas: what is the best interpretation of Law 19; and what constitues juggling under law 12 - or indeed what constitues a deliberate knock forward.

 

[ChrisR]

If I remember correctly: At one time the law required the ball to be caught cleanly, ie. without a juggle, and did not require the ball to strike another player or the ground to be deemed "knocked on". Then the law was amended to allow "adjustment".

Crossref, you make a good case. Well done. But I can't fault FoF's decision either.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

In touch for me. And don't think anyone I ref as a player our supporter would argue.
Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch

 

[OB..]

Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch

Why would that be a reason for the referee to ignore it? I expect a referee to allow the play and explain later if necessary.

 

[OB..]

If I remember correctly: At one time the law required the ball to be caught cleanly, ie. without a juggle

In 1949 there was no provision for juggling. By 1959 the law had changed[LAWS]... provide that a movement of the ball in the player's grasp which is inthe nature of a steadying or re-adjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control is not a knock-on.[/LAWS]

Personally I think the current law has gone too far

 

[crossref]

He might well have realised his foot was in touch and knocked upwards a perfectly good pass in order to re-gather it infield..

You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up

 

[Dickie E]

You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up

Aha, so we DO referee based on player intent

 

[crossref]

Of course we do

 

[FightOrFlight]

In touch for me. And don't think anyone I ref as a player our supporter would argue.
Similarly none would know the law about being able to play the ball if you are in touch

It was a pretty high level with a national panel referee and many of the defending players did not question the decision. It was only the supporters that were unhappy, although there were 2 from the home club who are referees that I know and they both immediately queried if it was a juggle in the club house after the game.

In a high 1sts game you cannot always count on the "ah sure nobody will question that". The referee was also being assessed as a matter of course and we would both get hammered at this very competitive standard we just let it go with a shrug.

 

[The Fat]

The inference in the laws that allow a player to knock or kick a ball that has not crossed the plane of touch is that the knock will be either "flat" or towards his own DBL where as the kick may be in any direction. Would we allow a player who is about to receive a hospital pass to deliberately knock the ball forward over the head of the would be tackler then run forward and catch the ball before it touches another player or the ground?
A player reaching behind himself whilst running forward is more likely to "drag" the ball forward rather than get his hand even further behind the ball to effectively "knock" it.
If in the OP the winger dragged (i.e. Momentary contact with the ball longer than a hit or knock) the ball which then left his hand before catching it, would we deem that at the time of the dragging motion he was in possession of the ball and therefore in touch?

 

[talbazar]

You are right, if he did that I would let it go. But if he was trying to catch it with a foot in touch I would put my flag up

Option 1:
Call time off, ask the player what he actually wanted to do.
Then analyse what he did.
Have a polls amongst the supporters behind you.
And then decide...

Option 2:
Find a legal way not to blow the whistle (or in that case raise your flag) and allow play to continue.


Personally, I'd go with option 2. Because it's accurate in the current state of the law.
So I reckon FoF did the right thing in the OP...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.