[In-goal] when is the ball in goal?

[OB..]

What if the ball is not touching the goal line, but part of it is hovering over it?

Is it any part of the ball past the plane of goal or the whole ball past the plane of goal?

There is no concept of "plane of goal" in the laws.

 

[Baylion]

I don't understand AG's reference to the "plane". The goalline per definition is part of the ingoal area.

If the ball had come to a stop on the goalline and Jantjies had picked it up and dotted it down behind the goal line would the decision have been the same?

From the video evidence, and because it didn't go to the TMO for more and better views, the ball stopped on the goalline, rocked back infield and then rocked back onto the goalline again, from where Jantjies picked it up.

This should have gone to the TMO as it was a grounding issue.

That said, it was a risky and unnecessary decision by Jantjies as he had more than enough time to pick up the ball and kick it out.

 

[Dickie E]

There is no concept of "plane of goal" in the laws.

it must be otherwise how would we tell at an attacking charge down on or near the goal line what the restart will be.

 

[Dickie E]

If the ball was still touching the goal line when he picked it up, then to me the restart should be a 22m DO because the ball had been put in-goal by an opponent.

Unless, in so doing, the defender swings his arms (and the ball) in a pendulum over the goal line back into FoP, then back again into in-goal.

 

[ChrisR]

There is no concept of "plane of goal" in the laws.

If that is so then how do we resolve this:

A player with one foot in goal and one in the field-of-play catches a ball. Did he take the ball into goal?

In 2017 Laws (other than the trials) it was clearly stated:

[LAWS]22.9(c) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in
motion within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball within in-goal.
[/LAWS]

I think we can consider "picking up" and catching as equivalent.

The 2018 Laws now say:

[LAWS]21.14. If a player, who is in in-goal, catches or picks up a ball that is still in the field of play, that
player has taken the ball into in-goal.
[/LAWS]

Without a 'plane-of-goal' how is the referee to determine that the ball is/isn't in the field-of-play?

 

[OB..]

If that is so then how do we resolve this:

A player with one foot in goal and one in the field-of-play catches a ball. Did he take the ball into goal?

In 2017 Laws (other than the trials) it was clearly stated:

[LAWS]22.9(c) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in
motion within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball within in-goal.
[/LAWS]

I think we can consider "picking up" and catching as equivalent.

The 2018 Laws now say:

[LAWS]21.14. If a player, who is in in-goal, catches or picks up a ball that is still in the field of play, that
player has taken the ball into in-goal.
[/LAWS]

Without a 'plane-of-goal' how is the referee to determine that the ball is/isn't in the field-of-play?

Give the "no change" mantra, I think we have to use the old approach. 21.14 seems to say it is where the player is that matters. The change, despite the mantra, is that rolling or stationary is no longer significant (AIUI!).

It seems better than inventing a new concept that is definitely not in the laws (and is hard to assess).

 

[Camquin]

No change apart from the law trial which has now been adopted.

 

[crossref]

... and he was exactly right.

He wasn't though, was he as he talks about the plane , which isn't relevant in Law .

What is relevant is : was the ball touching the line or not ?

If the ball was not in fact touching the line then AG got to the the right outcome , but for the wrong reasons..

 

[Ian_Cook]

What if the ball is not touching the goal line, but part of it is hovering over it?

Is it any part of the ball past the plane of goal or the whole ball past the plane of goal?

"This is not Soccer" :biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is no concept of "plane of goal" in the laws.

I don't understand AG's reference to the "plane". The goalline per definition is part of the ingoal area.

He wasn't though, was he as he talks about the plane , which isn't relevant in Law .

What is relevant is : was the ball touching the line or not ?

If the ball was not in fact touching the line then AG got to the the right outcome , but for the wrong reasons..

In the following, I have highlighted the important words in red

Here are touch Law Trials introduced in 2017

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS
‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch without
landing on the playing area , and without touching a player or the referee.
‘The 22’ is the area between the goal line and the 22-metre line , including the 22-
metre line but excluding the goal line.
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the
touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.
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 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.
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. 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.

LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
In this case , if the ball has reached the plane of touch when it is caught , then the
catcher is not deemed to have taken the ball into touch. If the ball has not reached
the plane of touch when it is caught or picked up , then the catcher is deemed to
have taken the ball into touch , regardless of whether the ball was in motion or
stationary.[/LAWS]

And here is a Clarification, specifically asked for by the RFU in 2016 prior to their inclusion in the 2017 Laws

[LAWS]Clarification 5 2016
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Clarification 5-2016
Union / HP Ref ManagerRFU
Law Reference 19
Date19 December 2016
Request
We are seeking clarification that the changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) in the Global Law trials will also apply to the dead ball line. If this is not the case then there will be significant differences in outcome in the following circumstances:


How the game is restarted could depend on whether or not the ball was picked up by a player who had a foot over a touch in goal line or whether the players foot was over the dead ball line; and

Whether or not the ball is dead following a player returning the ball to the playing area could depend on whether the ball was over the touch in-goal line or dead ball line. The different outcome could lead to a try being awarded in one case and not in the other.

There is urgency to this request as the Global Law trial will commence in the Southern Hemisphere on 1st January 2017


Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
The changes to the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line.

Also, note that whether the ball is moving or stationary is no longer relevant.

To be applied from: As per global law trial implementation dates:
January 1, 2017 – Southern Hemisphere
July 1, 2017 – Northern Hemisphere[/LAWS]

Since the Clarification specifically states "...the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line"...then I read that as them inferring there is indeed a "plane of goal".

If the ball had come to a stop on the goalline and Jantjies had picked it up and dotted it down behind the goal line would the decision have been the same?

No.

From the video evidence, and because it didn't go to the TMO for more and better views, the ball stopped on the goalline, rocked back infield and then rocked back onto the goalline again, from where Jantjies picked it up.

I disagree with the highlighted....

This should have gone to the TMO as it was a grounding issue.

... the TMO looked at it but did not call it in. I thought there was a clear gap between the ball and the goal-line.

That said, it was a risky and unnecessary decision by Jantjies as he had more than enough time to pick up the ball and kick it out.

I agree, it was a brain fart by Jantjies.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Hi jolly .
The laws you have pasted have now been amended & brought into law.
If you havent already ,,down load the world rugby laws app .

Under the laws section ,,some are still the old laws .
Even under the text of smaller law book . ( this im sure will change when next season book comes out )
But there is also a law section showing laws 2018 ammendments . ( we all need to read these laws & take them on board where applicable )

Just for the sake of clarity the laws and definition that I quoted were copied and pasted directly from the WR LotG App.
Are you saying that the Laws section of the App has not been updated with the recently adopted Law amedments? If so which ones?
All of the amendments that I have looked at have been incorporated into the Law section.

 

[Christy]

Just for the sake of clarity the laws and definition that I quoted were copied and pasted directly from the WR LotG App.
Are you saying that the Laws section of the App has not been updated with the recently adopted Law amedments? If so which ones?
All of the amendments that I have looked at have been incorporated into the Law section.

This is no longer the law.
Pasted from your previous post

15. If a player who is on or beyond the dead-ball line or who is in touch-in-goal, picks up a moving ball within in-goal, that player is not deemed to have made the ball dead.

( HE IS NOW DEEMED TO OF MADE BALL DEAD ,,WHERE AS BEFORE THIS PLAYER COULD OF BEEN AWARDED SCRUM BACK FROM WHERE IT WAS KICKED ,,HE NOW WILL BE AWARDED 22 DROP OUT ONLY )
Go back to the app , dont click on the laws .
But look below & im sure its titled law ammendments / similar .

All the amendments are there .
Hope this helps

 

[Jason R]

Jolly, Christy is right. While it appears they have updated the laws section for virtually all of the new May 2018 amends, they appear to have messed up their edits to Law 21.

Here is an excerpt from the May 2018 Amends section in the app:



whereas in the Laws section, it shows this:



As you can see it appears they made most of the edits correctly, but they forgot to amend the text of the newly numbered 21.15.

 

[crossref]

They didn't adopt the Law Trials verbatim . . The new laws were slightly different from those actually trialled

It's another case where the press release is misleading

 

[Jolly Roger]

15. If a player who is on or beyond the dead-ball line or who is in touch-in-goal, picks up a moving ball within in-goal, that player is not deemed to have made the ball dead.

I initially had a double take when I read that text before posting but what is being stated here is that a player PICKING UP THE BALL has not made it dead. In other words a player can pick up a ball on the ground in-goal and play on.

This is a separate issue from picking up the ball within in-goal or outside of in-goal and then touching it down.

 

[Baylion]

No.



I disagree with the highlighted....



... the TMO looked at it but did not call it in. I thought there was a clear gap between the ball and the goal-line.



I agree, it was a brain fart by Jantjies.

Here and on other forums there are people who disagree with you and feel it should have gone to the TMO as neither the ref nor the ARs were in a position to see. The fact that the TMO didn't call it is meaningless, he also didn't call the Saders player attempting to kick the ball out of Jantjies's hand when he stretched to "score"

 

[Christy]

15. If a player who is on or beyond the dead-ball line or who is in touch-in-goal, picks up a moving ball within in-goal, that player is not deemed to have made the ball dead.

I initially had a double take when I read that text before posting but what is being stated here is that a player PICKING UP THE BALL has not made it dead. In other words a player can pick up a ball on the ground in-goal and play on.

This is a separate issue from picking up the ball within in-goal or outside of in-goal and then touching it down.

He has , if he has a foot on or over dead ball line & touch in goal line .

 

[OB..]

Since the Clarification specifically states "...the touch definitions (Law 19) will also apply to the dead ball line and to the goal line"...then I read that as them inferring there is indeed a "plane of goal".

I think that inference is unnecessary and creates judgement difficulties that are best avoided.

... the TMO looked at it but did not call it in. I thought there was a clear gap between the ball and the goal-line.



I agree, it was a brain fart by Jantjies.

Yes.

 

[Dickie E]

I think that inference is unnecessary and creates judgement difficulties that are best avoided.

you haven't addressed my #23 which requires a plane of goal line

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here and on other forums there are people who disagree with you and feel it should have gone to the TMO as neither the ref nor the ARs were in a position to see. The fact that the TMO didn't call it is meaningless

The view from behind the dead ball line line shows clear separation between ball and goal line.

I can confirm that the TMO DID look at it and was happy that AG got the call right.

he also didn't call the Saders player attempting to kick the ball out of Jantjies's hand when he stretched to "score"

Well actually he did. If you listen during TMO review at 46:47 on the game clock, you hear the last part of the TMO saying "... he kicked the ball", and AG replying "he didn't, he didn't" (which is correct, because the player missed the ball). Its moot in any case, AG was already playing advantage for offside by 4 Red.