When is a ball in the air in touch?

[Robert Burns]

Well I commented it was easy and the response was it's not so there is obviously still confusion here.

I will attempt to clear it up as best I can using law to back up my arguements. Please note this thread has no concern about who's throw in it should be, because before you make that call you need to correctly decide if the ball is in touch or not.

The relevant parts that you need to refer to are in law 19 Definitions. I shall number them for easy reference however they are not numbered in the law book.

They are as follows:

1) The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it
touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the
touchline.

2) The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or
the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the
touchline is where it went into touch.

3) The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a
foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.

4) If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and
holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

5) If the ball crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by
a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch
or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing
area.

6) If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the
playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

7)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.

So,

If a ball is travelling toward towards the touch line and is caught by a jumping player that lands in touch, the ball is in touch. (Ref 6)

If a ball is travelling toward the touchline and is caught by a jumping player that lands with both feet in the field of play, play on (Ref 6)

If the ball is travelling toward the touchline and is knocked or kicked backwards before the ball crosses the plane of the touchline, and the player lands or is in touch, Play on. (Ref 7)

If the ball is travelling toward the touchline and is knocked backwards on or over the plane of the touchline, the ball is in touch (Ref 1 and Adverse to Ref 7)

If the ball is travelling toward the touchline and is caught on or over the touchline but the player has both feet in the field of play, Play on (Ref 5)

If the ball is caught by player who has one or both feet in touch the ball in in touch. (Ref 3)

I'm assuming we all know Ref 2 and Ref 4 as givens!

Now, I know referees and touch judges get this wrong all the time, and it can be very annoying if you know the law as to me it's very clear!

So contrary to anything you may have been told by peers, is there any lawful arguement why you think any of the above statements are or maybe incorrect?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

19(1) and 19(7) seem contradictory if the player is in touch rather than lands in or is it just me?

 

[Robert Burns]

No,

One states about a ball being on or behind the touchline, the other refers to a player being in touch but the ball NOT having crossed the plane of touch.

I've also added this to the manage your game section, I'm going to try and get a few pictures for it too when I train with my local club on Monday!

 

[PaulDG]

Just a mention that the ball is in touch when it touches something that's "based" in touch. (ref 1)

So if it hits tree branches or phone or power cables overhanging part of the pitch, it's in touch - despite never having crossed the plane of touch.

 

[Robert Burns]

Yep, that's true although that definetly does come more into management than law.

I.e. pre match pitch inspection identifies problem, Tell captains that the the ball hits these things you will deem it to have one into touch...

however (Caveat), If both capatins requested or agreed that should it touch these objects they would rather just play on and call it sods law, I would be happy with that too.

And most decent clubs nowadays will do there best to ensure that there are not any of these problems. (I hope)

 

[Dixie]

Just a mention that the ball is in touch when it touches something that's "based" in touch. (ref 1)

So if it hits tree branches or phone or power cables overhanging part of the pitch, it's in touch - despite never having crossed the plane of touch.

And if it hits an albatross or eagle in the air beyond the plane of touch, and bounces back into play?

Definition 6) was the one that caused the problems. Ball in the air 5m infield. I'm running directly across the pitch at full tilt, jump for it, catch it and pass it 4m infield. My momentum (I'm SO fast!:wow: ) in the air means I land with both feet in touch. Definition 6 says the ball is in touch. If we don't accept this, then presumably the rest of the definitions are equally susceptible to interpretation.

There's a recent and lengthy thread on this: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5039

 

[Robert Burns]

If you Catch it YES, you are in touch!

If you knock it backwards and land in touch, you are not!

But lots of people associate both scenarios as if you land in touch the ball is in touch regardless of how you played it.

 

[Robert Burns]

And as for your albatross...I count that as Ref 1 as its touched something befind the touchline. Ball in touch.

 

[OB..]

Robert - have you seen the South African quiz set by Mark Lawrence last summer?

I referred to it on the RFU referees forum and got the following reply:
"Having passed the quiz around England's creme de la creme of TJ authorities here are the collated responses.
1. A. As long as feet are over Field of Play when caught. If not, D
2. E
3. E
4. B if rolling but E if stopped
5. E if grounded immediately, if not B
6. A
7. C
8. C
9. C
10. A
11. A Someone who shall remain nameless added the following amplification here - "However, if one considers (a) that the sole reason for introducing 21.4(d) was to reduce time wasting and (b) that the kicker has done nothing wrong because he did not intend to miss kicking a goal, it could be B."


Andy Melrose "

Question 1 is the only real difference.

 

[Robert Burns]

Er, Answer 1 is crap, where does it say anything about where the feet are in law???

It's where the player lands nothing to do with where the players feet or upper body (australia) is when they caught it. I believe England and the UK use the feet as a description but that's fully going against what the laws say. (IMO)

The law may not seem fully fair, but it is very clear!

Therefore the answer is ALWAYS D, as rightly answered by Mark Lawrence.

Changed my response to answer 4, I read touch in goal for some strange reason. Only one I disagree with is 1.

I agree with 11, players responsibility to make sure they kick at goal properly, knock on's arn't intentional either but they result in scrums.

 

[OB..]

Er, Answer 1 is crap, where does it say anything about where the feet are in law???
It's where the player lands nothing to do with where the players feet or upper body (australia) is when they caught it. I believe England and the UK use the feet as a description but that's fully going against what the laws say. (IMO).

You are relying on
6) If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal. [This does not specify where he jumps from.]

This sometimes conflicts with
1) The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

Scenarios according to (6)
A) Accomplished line-out player leaps, catches ball, and passes to a team-mate, all without crossing the plane of touch, and all before landing. When he lands, his foot hits the touchline.
Decision: ball in touch.

B) Player in touch leaps and catches ball outside the plane of touch, landing with both feet in the field of play.
Decision: play on.

However under (1), is the player in (B) not "anyone on or beyond the touchline"? In which case, how do you decide when he has become "beyond" if he is in the air? It is quite possible for a player to jump, knock the ball back in just after it has crossed the plane of touch, and land off-balance with both feet in the field of play. Was he in touch or not?

We already know that referees have to make the laws work sensibly, and here we have one that is badly written. In England, I think we would be well advised to follow the top level guidance as quoted by Andy Melrose.

Given the problems the law has caused, I hope it will be re-written along with other changes following the incorporation of some or all ELVs.

 

[MattSei]

Scenarios according to (6)
A) Accomplished line-out player leaps, catches ball, and passes to a team-mate, all without crossing the plane of touch, and all before landing. When he lands, his foot hits the touchline.
Decision: ball in touch.

If the ball is passed before it breaks the plane of touch, isn't it still in play regardless of where the passer lands? Because the ball never broke the plane.

 

[beckett50]

No. If the player has CAUGHT the ball before passing it and then LANDS in touch the ball is deemed to be in touch.

However, if he just 'pats' it back and lands in touch and the ball never crossed the plane of touch then PLAY ON.

Clear really, if you read the LotG with an open mind.:biggrin:

 

[OB..]

However it does seem rather odd that the ball, never having crossed the plane of touch, or been touched by a player who had broken the plane of touch, could be many metres away by the time the catcher lands, and have to coma back for a lineout.

We are always going to have difficulty with boundary conditions, but this one seems to me (and England TJs, apparently) to be in the wrong place. I think it pretty clear that the law makers assumed a player catching the ball would land with it.

 

[beckett50]

Its a similar case in cricket.

Another of the world's games played by, and with Laws written by, gentlemen

 

[Robert Burns]

But the thing is the Laws are consistant, if you start bringing in mystical reasons for changing what the law says where will we stop.

It clearly says if the ball is caught and the player lands out play then it's in touch....

If this accomplished line out player wants to have the game play on they should knock the ball backwards and not catch it.

 

[chopper15]

But the thing is the Laws are consistant

Anybody think of an inconsistancy? I'm sure I'll find one . . . .in the morning!

 

[Robert Burns]

Not in this law I don't think you will, I think Mark Lawrence's write up about them was excellent!

As it says, it may on first glance not seem fair, but they are consistent.

 

[OB..]

I have already pointed out a problem: if a player jumps from in touch but lands in the field of play, referees (including Mark Lawrence) call it out. Why?

 

[Robert Burns]

Because the ball has passed or is on the plane of touch, if it hasn't passed and isn't on the plane of touch and a player jumps in and catches it or bats it then it's play on.

Remember:

1) The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the
touchline.

The exception to this is 7:

7)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.

So in this instance a player in touch can be on the touchline and kick/knock the ball back into play (providing the ball hasn't touched or gone over the plane of touch) and it's play on.

Now, to pre-empt the scenario someone will come up with:

If a ball is kicked and a player is standing on the touch line with their back to play and the ball hits the back of their head and bounces back into the field of play is it play on under 7, or touch as in 1)?

I believe the ethos of the Exception in 7 is that A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it. This to me is stating that the knock or kick needs to be intentional (i.e. the player has a choice of whether to play it or not, hence the inclusion of the word MAY).

So in this scenario (or any other where it hits their body unintentially and bounces back into play) the ball is in touch under ref 1.

Now, this is the only point I can see that could be contentious, but that scenario is going to be very rare, very rare indeed.