What would you call !

[Taff]

After some thought I'm for 22 DO/scrum back. Player with foot in touch is in touch, ball striking said player is in touch. 22 DO or scrum back. Simple application of Law. Anything else is a can of worms.

But players, spectators, coaches etc etc look to us to sort out the worms.

 

[OB..]

Player with foot in touch is in touch, ball striking said player is in touch.

No. A player in touch can knock or kick the ball if it has not crossed the plane of touch.

 

[chbg]

No. A player in touch can knock or kick the ball if it has not crossed the plane of touch.

I was having this debate myself, with the following conclusion: if the ball strikes a player in touch without him/her making any movement to knock or kick it, then the ball, even if it has not crossed the plane of the touchline, has been put in touch by the last player in the field of play to touch it. If a player in the same situation strikes at, and connects with, the ball with hand/arm or foot/lower leg, then the ball is not (yet) in touch. I suppose that it would also count if he/she deliberately headed or chested it.

 

[OB..]

I was having this debate myself, with the following conclusion: if the ball strikes a player in touch without him/her making any movement to knock or kick it, then the ball, even if it has not crossed the plane of the touchline, has been put in touch by the last player in the field of play to touch it. If a player in the same situation strikes at, and connects with, the ball with hand/arm or foot/lower leg, then the ball is not (yet) in touch. I suppose that it would also count if he/she deliberately headed or chested it.

I don't buy that. There are occasions when a referee needs to decide on intent, but it makes life unnecessarily tricky if you want this to be one of them.

 

[ChrisR]

I think this is one of those situations. And, yes, it can get tricky but not as tricky as the scenario of an off-side player subsequently playing the ball or the ball striking such player.

 

[chbg]

So why is the definition not: "The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone other than a player on or beyond the touchline"? Leave the 12 yo proof reader out of it!

If the ball hits a player who is making no effort to play it, e.g. may be lying on the ground, or looking the other way, then (assuming that the player is in touch) the ball should be in touch.

I will accept that in the case of a ball rolling parallel to touch striking a prone/supine player whose body is partially in play and partially in touch, then I as a referee would undoubtedly not call it in touch to enable play to continue. As an AR, the call would probably be different.

 

[damo]

Obiter dictumepper:epper:

Pedantic but perhaps correct.

However much like you has replaced thou for both the second person singular and plural pronouns, the singular usage of obiter dictum is rare (at least in my experience).

 

[OB..]

Pedantic but perhaps correct.

However much like you has replaced thou for both the second person singular and plural pronouns, the singular usage of obiter dictum is rare (at least in my experience).

It is a Latin tag that is more commonly used in the plural. Maybe it will eventually follow "data", which most people treat as singular nowadays, but at present Google only shows the plural form ahead by 5 to 3 - possibly because a lot of usage is in technical law items where they still recognise the difference.

 

[Phil E]

You say Dicta, he says Dictum......let's call the whole thing off!

 

[ddjamo]

You say Dicta, he says Dictum......let's call the whole thing off!

maybe a subject for a site wide poll?

 

[Phil E]

maybe a subject for a site wide poll?

Now you're just being a dic ta :wink: