When is a ball in the air in touch?

[Robert Burns]

So the consistant for the Grassroots referee is to look where the player played the ball? Isn't it easier to just see where the feet land? (As it says to in law?)

How does anyone else referee the Jumper catching and landing in touch?

 

[chopper15]

Chopper15 - are you saying this did happen, or it nearly happened? Where was the player when he caught the ball - in the air over the field of play (feet? torso?)?

I said it 'nearly' happened, OB. I only wish it had!

Fr v Italy, caught and passed the ball in the air in/over? the FOP and Fr. scored. Unfortunately he came back down just short of the TL!

Would loved to have heard the crowd's, commentators' and Fr. players' reaction and comments if he dared call them back for LO!

Defending side throw and the Fr. wouldn't have even put the ball thro' the plane of touch let alone making contact in touch!

Some explaining to do . . . but would he have had the nerve to have done it?

 

[OB..]

So the consistant for the Grassroots referee is to look where the player played the ball? Isn't it easier to just see where the feet land? (As it says to in law?)

How does anyone else referee the Jumper catching and landing in touch?

As I wrote ealier: "I have not seen anybody referee touch the way you suggest, though we are talking about fairly rare situations."
I also pointed out that (according to Mark Lawrence) uastlaia and New Zealand don't either (or perhaps didn't before that pre-RWC discussion).

(We seem to have got caught in a time-loop.)

 

[Robert Burns]

Yes I read that, But they also have top level TJ's and Referees and are doing their best to make rugby entertaining with less stoppages, so I can see where they get the idea from. As I stated before we know of quite a few occassions where they referee the laws different to what we are required to do in Grassroots rugby.

My comment was with regard to us, the people who referee without an official touch judge, we are rarely on the Touchline so the chance of seeing the body position in regards to it is very difficult.

However seeing where the player lands is very easy.

Also,

How would you explain to a coach who knew the laws that a player had passed the ball in the air while in the field of play but had landed in touch which led to a match winning try, they would ask you to justify how you came to the decision to play on in law.

You couldn't because the law states it should be a lineout.

Would an assessor back you up if you said that the player hadn't crossed the line when they played it?? It could be a critical decision....and if play on IS an option depending on body position) why doesn't it state this in law?

 

[chopper15]

So the consistant for the Grassroots referee is to look where the player played the ball? Isn't it easier to just see where the feet land? (As it says to in law?)

How does anyone else referee the Jumper catching and landing in touch?

Doesn't ref rote yet accept that the foot/feet reference is just a metaphor for 'body parts' in the knowledge that the IRB still can't differentiate between its a*rse and elbow?

 

[OB..]

Robbie - as far as I am aware, nobody referees in the way you are advocating.

 

[chopper15]

So the consistant for the Grassroots referee is to look where the player played the ball? Isn't it easier to just see where the feet land? (As it says to in law?)

How does anyone else referee the Jumper catching and landing in touch?

Isn't the foot/feet reference just a metaphor for 'body parts'?

I apologise for my previously posed question and disrespectful comment!

 

[OB..]

Isn't the foot/feet reference just a metaphor for 'body parts'?

No. Apparently Australia used feet and New Zealand used torso as the deciding factor.

 

[chopper15]

No. Apparently Australia used feet and New Zealand used torso as the deciding factor.

In what context, OB?

 

[PaulDG]

In what context, OB?

In deciding if the player is in touch if he's not actually touching the ground on or beyond the touch line.

In England we are directed to look at the position of the player's feet - if they are in the field of play, then the player is in the field of play.

As OB says, other nations have different interpretations.

 

[chopper15]

Would I be correct in assuming that this is the laws literal intention?
Which if correct I can make sense of. But any ideas what eg.s the NZ's would use?

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.

Examples;

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

 

[OB..]

That doesn't work. For example, a player who catches the ball cannot also be a ball-carrier. Because he is not a carrier, his team can get the throw-in.

The bits you label (i) to (iv) are meant to cover special situations. Unfortunately (cf (iv)) they don't do it very well.

 

[chopper15]

That doesn't work. For example, a player who catches the ball cannot also be a ball-carrier. Because he is not a carrier, his team can get the throw-in.

The bits you label (i) to (iv) are meant to cover special situations. Unfortunately (cf (iv)) they don't do it very well.

'. . . . a player who catches the ball cannot also be a ball-carrier'?

Don't get that one, OB! If he's moving as he catches the ball he is!

Bit pedantic I know, but it puts a different slant on the interpretation!

 

[OB..]

'. . . . a player who catches the ball cannot also be a ball-carrier'?

Don't get that one, OB! If he's moving as he catches the ball he is!

Bit pedantic I know, but it puts a different slant on the interpretation!

You quoted the law:
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.

At the moment when the player catches the ball, he has a foot on the touch line. Before he catches the ball he obviously cannot be a carrier.
As soon as he catches it, the ball is in touch because he is in touch. Therefore the ball is dead. so he cannot become a carrier.

 

[Robert Burns]

I've had time to reflect on this and I'm thinking that OB is right (not unusual though :clap: :chin: :wink: ).

Whilst it's not quite what the law states I think I would be happy if the player played it before they went over the line.

Although still not quite sure how I would explain it if ever questioned about it. I suppose technically he's no longer a catcher if he doesn't have the ball???

I'll see if I can reword the management part to this, Any ideas on phrasing to explain it Peter?

 

[PaulDG]

'. . . . a player who catches the ball cannot also be a ball-carrier'?

Don't get that one, OB! If he's moving as he catches the ball he is!

Not if he's already in touch.

 

[Martin Axon]

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:



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?

Robert.

I have seen somewhere a graphic/pictoral explanation of this somewhere but cant remember where. Perhaps some of our colleagues can help if they remember the website.

Martin

 

[ddjamo]

now....if the player catching the ball purposely stands in touch and reaches over to catch the ball - which has not crossed into touch...but he does so to make it look like it was in touch...the tj has the call to whether or not it has crossed the vertical space directly above the touch line - correct? and if so - or if not...what do we have here?

 

[David J.]

If a player standing (or with a part of his body) in touch catches a ball in motion, even if it hasn't crossed the plane of touch, the ball is in touch and the player is not responsible for causing it to go into touch by that action.

 

[Pablo]

An ever popular link when this topic comes up: http://www.rugbyref.com/lbyc/