[Law] Ulster v scarlets kick to touch

[Christy]

Ulster v scarlets today . Pro 14 competition .
33 mins on clock .
Scarlets do a clearance kick from inside their 22 & ball caught by ulster .
And im sure scarlets got throw in also ..

Looks like a good clip to look at .
Can somebody put it up ( i cant )

 

[ChrisR]

Ah yes, the 'plane of touch'. Ulster must have caught the ball with a foot in touch but the ball still in the field play to be charged with taking the ball into touch. Please, let's see the video.

And, since Ulster put it into touch then taking the kick from behind the 22 or in front is not material.

 

[ChrisR]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this may be a watershed moment (drum roll please). That is when teams realize that they will be at risk of giving up the gain in ground and the throw-in if they try to field these on-the-line balls. Better to let them go to touch which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the law change!

OK, let's see how wrong I can be.

 

[Taff]

Again I think it's a case of a player trying to be too clever for his own good.

He probably remembers that last season he could effectively make the ball go "out on the full" by standing in touch when he caught a ball in the FoP. He has probably been told - but has forgotten that the law has been changed. As they say "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing".

 

[crossref]

I think it is the Law Makers who are being too clever for their own good, changing the Laws of touch that have worked perfectly well for decades in favour of illl thought through Laws revolving around an invisible plane, rather than a bright white line on the ground, as before

 

[OB..]

I think it is the Law Makers who are being too clever for their own good, changing the Laws of touch that have worked perfectly well for decades in favour of illl thought through Laws revolving around an invisible plane, rather than a bright white line on the ground, as before

The actual term "plane of touch" first entered the laws in 1986, but the concept is far older eg 1949[LAWS]If the ball cross a touch line and is then blown back it is in touch at the place where it first crossed the line.[/LAWS]

1908[LAWS]The ball is in touch when it or a player carrying it, touch or cross the touch line[/LAWS]

1885[LAWS]The ball is in touch if it crosses the touch line and is then blown back.[/LAWS]

1871[LAWS]if a player when running with the ball cross or put any part of either foot across the touch-line, he must return with the ball to the spot where the line the was so crossed[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

OB, when did the law change to the ball not being it touch if it is blown back? Was that the same year that a ball caught by a player with both feet in the field of play was also not in touch?

At that point the 'plane of touch' became irrelevant with the one exception of a player in touch playing the ball in the field of play.

 

[OB..]

OB, when did the law change to the ball not being it touch if it is blown back?

1978

Was that the same year that a ball caught by a player with both feet in the field of play was also not in touch?

No. That had long been part of the law.

At that point the 'plane of touch' became irrelevant with the one exception of a player in touch playing the ball in the field of play.

My point stands: the concept has long been part of the laws (though admittedly it used to play a larger role).

 

[didds]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this may be a watershed moment (drum roll please). That is when teams realize that they will be at risk of giving up the gain in ground and the throw-in if they try to field these on-the-line balls. Better to let them go to touch which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the law change!

OK, let's see how wrong I can be.

That was the first thought I had when I initially heard of the law change. I can still no benefit from it. It now encourages kicking clsoe to a touchline even more (whereas the old position made kicking close to a touchline a dangerous tactic because of the loss of possession and possibly even no gain in ground in some circumstances) and as ChrisR says is more likely to end up with dead ball time as fielding players choose not to because of the danger of giving away territory and possession.

I really cannot see the problem with the old situation. whatever.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

1978

I remember it well. I was running touch for my dad who was refereeing. I got it wrong and stuck my flag up while running to LoT. A spectator grabbed me by the arm (not overly aggressively) to let me know I was wrong and my dad went off his nut at the spectator.

 

[OB..]

At that point the 'plane of touch' became irrelevant with the one exception of a player in touch playing the ball in the field of play.

We should of course remember that for every kick-for-gain, the lineout is formed at the point where the ball crossed the plane of touch.

 

[ChrisR]

Point taken.

 

[ChrisR]

As I was searching for video of the kick-for-touch I found this in the hi-lites:

https://youtu.be/R72DuoX5QmI?t=150

It seems to me that every time a ball goes loose it is deemed to go forward. Now this gets interesting because if it's not forward then either Red grounds it for the try or White grounds it for the 22.

And if they can't determine who grounds it the it's a Red 5m.

 

[crossref]

It's the Law now
If red tackler makes contact with the ball and the ball comes loose then it's ALWAYS a knock on

If it goes toward the blue DBL it's a knock on by Red
(Law 11.2)

If it goes toward the red DBL it's a knock on by blue
(Clarification 2014/1)

 

[ChrisR]

Two points here (sticking to the colors in the clip):

1, White does not make contact with the ball until it is lost by Red and 2. The ball goes straight down.

Why should the laws prescribe a knock-on for every lost possession?

I think I need a new thread as the laws (as written for 2018) are really not clear.

 

[Taff]

... I think I need a new thread as the laws (as written for 2018) are really not clear.

I am quite happy with the 2017 Lawbook.

It's easier than the simplified 2018 version.

 

[crossref]

I dont think this is a genuine 2017 v 2018 problem..it's an area of developing understanding

But taff give us your preferred law references for the two scenarios in #14 and your decision for each

 

[ChrisR]

I agree that it is not a change in meaning but the word change muddies the interpretation by omitting "from the ball carriers hands".

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Remember this impressive picee of law-knowledge from Wiliams last season ?
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20536-Ball-in-flight-not-crossed-plane-of-touch

I've got to admit that at the time, my family (knowing I ref) asked me if I thought that was OK, and I wasnt sure. But now I am :

Law 2b
A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.

 

[crossref]

I agree that it is not a change in meaning but the word change muddies the interpretation by omitting "from the ball carriers hands".

I have lost interest in whether this is a change in meaning, I am seeking to be sure in my mind what the Law is , now. Which I think is as I set out in #14