[In-goal] What would you give (without TMO)

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Law references needed!

DEFINITION: THROW FORWARD
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward, i.e, if the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Just to be a wise arse by definition in law, the put back by #6 ADAM Knight meets the requirement for a thrown forward. 5m scrum to green

 

[crossref]

the first question is : do we agree about the facts?

because if we don't agree about the facts, then our views of the Law don't bite.

To me the sequence is
1- the ball crosses the plane
2- he doesn't jump, he is just running and trying to catch
3- at the moment he catches the ball his foot is on the ground, in the in-goal
4- then his foot leaves the ground
5- then he passes the ball
6- then he hits the ground

do we agree?
or are we seeing it differently?

 

[didds]

Not what i was meaning? I would allow this in ru as ball had nit crossed plane.


Good point. But that is not exclusive to a kick? But i thought it just crossed the plane before he grabbed it.. " a player in touch may kick or knock the ball but not hold it provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline"

View attachment 3490

ah - gotcha. and in which case I'll go with your call after all. Good spot. I was concentrating so much on where his feet were I forgot he'd chased a kick!

until somebody comes along and disproves your point and convinces me otherwise ! LOL.

didds

 

[didds]

I agree withn that synopsis CR.

didds

 

[The Fat]

the first question is : do we agree about the facts?

because if we don't agree about the facts, then our views of the Law don't bite.

To me the sequence is
1- the ball crosses the plane
2- he doesn't jump, he is just running and trying to catch
3- at the moment he catches the ball his foot is on the ground, in the in-goal
4- then his foot leaves the ground
4.5- at this point both the player and the ball are beyond the DBL
5- then he passes the ball
6- then he hits the ground

do we agree?
or are we seeing it differently?

FTFY:smile:

 

[crossref]

Agree with 4.5.

In real time with no tmo and no AR, then I am sure I would have awarded a try.

 

[menace]

Agree with 4.5.

In real time with no tmo and no AR, then I am sure I would have awarded a try.

Except GJ was in a very good position to be able to see that the ball and player were past the dbl. I would like to hope if i were in that position i could make a call without the tmo and i would say no try (but in reality i probaby would be second guessing myself too). I see no reason he couldn't see that and could have made a call without the tmo. I suspect he just didnt know for sure, he suspected it was out but wasnt confident of the call.

 

[The Fat]

Except GJ was in a very good position to be able to see that the ball and player were past the dbl. I would like to hope if i were in that position i could make a call without the tmo and i would say no try (but in reality i probaby would be second guessing myself too). I see no reason he couldn't see that and could have made a call without the tmo. I suspect he just didnt know for sure, he suspected it was out but wasnt confident of the call.

The thing that is bugging me is that GJ appears to give the TMO a prompt for what he wants him to rule on. Why didn't GJ ask the TMO, when the TMO said he could award the try, "Can you check if the player is in contact with the ball when they are both beyond the DBL please?" I think GJ accepted the TMO's decision too quickly

 

[crossref]

Except GJ was in a very good position to be able to see that the ball and player were past the dbl. I would like to hope if i were in that position i could make a call without the tmo and i would say no try (but in reality i probaby would be second guessing myself too). I see no reason he couldn't see that and could have made a call without the tmo. I suspect he just didnt know for sure, he suspected it was out but wasnt confident of the call.

but if his foot had remianed on the ground when he made the pass, he would have been OK, right?

 

[The Fat]

but if his foot had remianed on the ground when he made the pass, he would have been OK, right?

If his foot was still on the ground, technically he is still in the playing area so yes, he would be OK.
Think of a player who is standing in the FoP near the touch line and reaches across the plane-of-touch to catch a ball. The ball is beyond the plane-of-touch but the player is still in the FoP. If he manages to pass or flick the ball back into the FoP, it is play on.
If he attempts to catch the ball and it hits his hands then drops on the ground in-touch, he has put the ball in touch, not the kicker.
Once a player is in the air and his body is beyond the plane-of-touch and the ball is beyond the plane-of-touch, it will be basically impossible for him to catch or flick the ball back and land with both feet in the FoP. Feet off the ground, player and ball beyond plane-of-touch, ball is in touch.
I know there are some who will disagree with all of that but that's the way it currently is and following the other 165 + post thread, I don't intend to debate it all over again.
Can't wait for 2017.

 

[The Fat]

Agree with 4.5.

In real time with no tmo and no AR, then I am sure I would have awarded a try.

Yes. The litmus test is, was it clear and obvious the ball was in touch not was it clear and obvious the ball wasn't in touch?
If you are refereeing a game with no ARs or TJs and following a kick down field you find yourself 20m in-field from the lightning winger with the after-burners on, skirting the touch line on his way to scoring a try, you can't not award the try by saying "I think he may have put a foot on the touch line 20m out".

 

[Pegleg]

Answering the original question:

Whithout a TMO I would have given a TRY.

 

[didds]

If his foot was still on the ground, technically he is still in the playing area so yes, he would be OK.

Hence my query above (somewhat tongue in cheek!) that the try depended on whether his boot was in contact with a blade of grass or not. Though of course Mark Cueto can probably talk about that for hours albeit the other way around! ;-)

didds

 

[The Fat]

So while this is actually RL, this wold have been no try in RU and in touch?

View attachment 3487

didds

Sorry Didds,
I missed answering your question.
Let's pretend that is a rugby game.
Assuming that the ball is grounded in-goal and not touching the TiG line at time of grounding, (i.e. Not simultaneously grounded in-goal and on TiG line), that looks like a standard, if not a bit spectacular, flying winger's try. In fact, if the ball happened to be sitting in it's current location, and the blue player was standing in-touch and placed a hand on it, we would award the try under 22.4(g).
Now let's get a bit silly and pretend that the blue player dived from a couple of metres out and was shunted by the white defender so that he was now airborne actually outside the plane-of-touch and he had the ball in both hands with arms outstretched but the ball was also outside the plane-of-touch but he somehow miraculously managed to grasp the ball only in his right hand and reached down and grounded it inside the in-goal area. WOW! What a scenario! Decision would be no try because both the player's body and the ball had crossed th plane of touch and he has a snowflake's chance in hell of landing with both feet in the playing area.

 

[crossref]

perhaps

- he was standing outside the FoP, and talking to a waterboy who was in the FoP ---- just like his team-mate in the background!
- and when he saw the white player dropping the ball in the in goal, he dived from outside the field of play
- touching the ball down while in the air
- just before landing completely inside the FoP

 

[leaguerefaus]

I'll just sit here and say I'm glad I ref RL where I could easily give a try and not have a doubt in my mind about it.

Although as I understand it, your touch laws are getting simplified, thank goodness.

If there's doubt over whether the TMO got it right with slow-mo, I don't know how you poor fellas do it week-in week-out at full speed with parent / player TJs.

 

[The Fat]

I'll just sit here and say I'm glad I ref RL where I could easily give a try and not have a doubt in my mind about it.

Although as I understand it, your touch laws are getting simplified, thank goodness.

They are getting there.
I think Ian C is pretty much 98% right to suggest Union adopt RL touch laws. I would leave room for a couple of exceptions and jobs done.

I think that when they see how big an improvement the 2017 Law Trials are, they will look to adopt more RL touch laws.

 

[crossref]

If there's doubt over whether the TMO got it right with slow-mo, I don't know how you poor fellas do it week-in week-out at full speed with parent / player TJs.

actually I think that's a lot easier
- they don't have any slo mo or replays either, so they don't know exactly what happened
- very few of them are certain of the Laws, so in these complex scenarios they aren't 100% sure of the answer anyway
- in real time at community level, in reality, everyone accepts that the ref makes instant judgements based on imperfect sight of the incident and sometimes it's a bit of a lottery.

What would upset them is if (say) you are so unfit that you are making the judgement from 30m away when patently you should have been 10m away. People don't expect the solo, AR-less- ref to be able to keep up with a young winger with his afterburners on, but they do, rightly, expect a reasonable sprint speed..

 

[didds]

actually I think that's a lot easier
- they don't have any slo mo or replays either, so they don't know exactly what happened
- very few of them are certain of the Laws, so in these complex scenarios they aren't 100% sure of the answer anyway
- in real time at community level, in reality, everyone accepts that the ref makes instant judgements based on imperfect sight of the incident and sometimes it's a bit of a lottery.

What would upset them is if (say) you are so unfit that you are making the judgement from 30m away when patently you should have been 10m away. People don't expect the solo, AR-less- ref to be able to keep up with a young winger with his afterburners on, but they do, rightly, expect a reasonable sprint speed..

and that of course is entirely reasonable. the downside is that as a result you don't get many refs out of the front row, certainly above the real weeds.... though it seems the weeds rarely have scrummage issues so maybe its not missed...

didds

 

[Nigib]

and that of course is entirely reasonable. the downside is that as a result you don't get many refs out of the front row, certainly above the real weeds.... though it seems the weeds rarely have scrummage issues so maybe its not missed...

didds

Several times a season I do find myself recommending a FR to take up refereeing to make full use of the knowledge of the Laws they are sharing with me ;-)