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

[crossref]

let's go back to the scenario actually posted (because of course if we change the scenario we may change the decision)

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

so a man is receiving and controlling a poor pass --- with his foot in touch.

Now, I completely understand the reading of Law 19 that led ForF to keep his flag down, but I think it's a Jesuitical reading of the Law - that breaches common sense and led to the wrong decision.

 

[The Fat]

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.

I am not saying if FoF was correct or incorrect as I would need to see exactly how it happened, but try the following.
At normal walking pace walk along a straight line and at the same time have someone gently pass a ball to you but slightly behind you. As you keep walking forward, try to get the hand nearest the thrower behind the ball and attempt to knock/hit it forward such that whilst continuing to walk forward, you have been able to knock the ball with enough control to now catch it.

Now try doing it at pace.

I don't know if the player in the OP was able to execute such a move by only knocking the ball forward rather than "dragging" it forward which would give more control as you would possibly see when a player juggles the ball while attempting to catch it.

If he dragged it forward to then catch it, I would raise my flag having deemed the player was in possession of the ball. Now before everyone starts howling me down for my interpretation of what constitutes being in possession, consider the Law Clarification relating to Law 22.4(g) and the player who guides a ball that is in the air to the ground by only having a hand on top of the ball.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Stanc]

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.

is this not classed as a knock on? if the ball has gone behind the player and he knocks it up to himself?

 

[crossref]

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.

is this not classed as a knock on? if the ball has gone behind the player and he knocks it up to himself?

Law 12 : Knock On
[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/LAWS]

 

[menace]

let's go back to the scenario actually posted (because of course if we change the scenario we may change the decision)



so a man is receiving and controlling a poor pass --- with his foot in touch.

Now, I completely understand the reading of Law 19 that led ForF to keep his flag down, but I think it's a Jesuitical reading of the Law - that breaches common sense and led to the wrong decision.

For some it may also breach common sense that a player can be standing in-touch and bat the ball before it crosses the line and its play on? But yet the law says it's ok. So I don't know how you can say that ForF was having a Jesus complex and was wrong? I think based on law he was (as he described it) correct in every way.
On the plus, the attacking side was potentially given the benefit of any doubt when there was not clear and obvious reason not to reward them. You seem to be finding a pedantic way not to reward the attacking side?

 

[crossref]

no, not a Jesus complex. Apologies perhaps I was being obscure.
Jesuitical. Like the Jesuits - closely reading the rules in a way to find a justification for what you wanted to do anyway, a justification thar wasn't intended by the rules

dictionary.com
jesuitical (often lowercase) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.


In short: I don't thnk that what the player did in the scenario is what is meant by 'knocking' the ball in the Laws.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Perhaps it is worth me clarifying the nature of the control of the ball. With his foot on the line he knock the ball up much as you could do in volleyball.

 

[crossref]

Perhaps it is worth me clarifying the nature of the control of the ball. With his foot on the line he knock the ball up much as you could do in volleyball.

yes, that clarification/change makes it sound more like one of these -
[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]

but then introduces whole other problem : are players allowed to deliberately knock the ball forward, in the way you might a volleyball, with the intention of catching it again -- ie different from a fumble and re-gather.

We've discussed that quite a few times before as it's not really covered by the Law, and I think generally agreed that you can't do that.


So I think we are back to intention.
- If he is just doing his best to catch it, then (IMO) he was in touch.
- If he was not catching it, but first knocking the ball to keep it in play, then (IMO) he has to knock it backwards

 

[menace]

(Sorry crossref, I know, I was being a little naughty playing on your words)

 

[SimonSmith]

Crossref, I think you're miscasting here.

FoF applied the laws as they are written. FWIW, I'd have made the same call. For that we are Jesuitical.

To continue the biblical talk, I think we are at least using the Gospel as writ, rather than using an interpretation of the written word that is subjective and can't be found in the texts themselves.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Look it's here - Law 19 - now p*** off! Amen!

View attachment 3121

 

[The umpire]

If it hadn't involved a touch line, would you have penalised someone who tackled the 'batter' for tackling a player without the ball or would you accept that they were fair game as juggling it equals possession? If the former, then as per OP it's play on and a try. If the latter, then it is in touch.
I know which I'd choose (now)

 

[crossref]

for me : he's receiving a pass, from the moment he first touches it he's fair game to be tackled.

 

[OB..]

In short: I don't thnk that what the player did in the scenario is what is meant by 'knocking' the ball in the Laws.

AIUI your justification for that is to make it consistent with your view that as soon as a player tries to catch the ball, he can be tackled.

What we actually have is a mess with no good solution. People have their preferences, but none really fit the laws perfectly. It's a tough life.

 

[crossref]

AIUI your justification for that is to make it consistent with your view that as soon as a player tries to catch the ball, he can be tackled. .

not really, that's a side issue.

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.

I think knocking the ball is a deliberate action different from attempting to catch it and fumbling.

let's say the original incident was indeed a knock: Well, I think if a player knocks the ball - anywhere on the pitch - it has to be backwards - I don't think you can deliberately knock a ball forwards with the intention of catching it (can you?)

Ah, you say but when trying to catch a ball you may well accidentally knock it forwards, and then it's OK to regather. Indeed, but if, it wasn't a knock, but just a fumbled catch then he was in touch.