Where's the line?

[Browner]

The answer to all three of your questions (bold above) is Yes.

SARU are advising 'both feet' behind the line .... See episode 3 here

http://www.sareferees.com/refs-tv/

PS.... Episode 13 is interesting, 0.45s onwards Stuart Berry Says " the approach we took with that game was to really referee the laws"

Eh!?!

 

[Camquin]

Maul and Ruck offside lines are "through" the HMF, and you have to be "behind" it, so one foot ahead of it does mean you've complied 100%, only 50% IMO. So both feet behind please, and hands if they are on the ground.


1) is there any concensus on what "through" means? Heel/middle/toe ???

2) if a rucked player has his head south and his feet north when he's been cleared away then is his HMF taken to mean his HMHead/or Arm or is it his size 12 boots that always are the trigger OSL?

Pre-TMO the subjectivity of these Q's weren't open to scrutiny

Thoughts?

Surely if a player is taking part in a ruck thy only have their feet on the ground.
If any other part of their anatomy is on the ground they are off their feet and no longer part of the ruck. They will of course be rolling away.

But back in the real world.

 

[Browner]

Surely if a player is taking part in a ruck thy only have their feet on the ground.
If any other part of their anatomy is on the ground they are off their feet and no longer part of the ruck. They will of course be rolling away.

But back in the real world.

Just noticed that "does mean you've complied 100%" in my prev post should have read " doesn't mean you've complied 100%" ...clearly a critical typing error caused by sausage fingers!!! Sorry.

Yes, once upon a time ruck collapsing was considered illegal, players were in the main shoved backwards whilst remaining on their feet, then the elitists started scattering /rolling opposition in all directions. So other parts of anatomy could be further south on the ground ( sometimes held or sometimes landed upon) , which law doesn't seem to cater for the possibility that feet are further north, the assumption seems to be that its the furthest south.

Personally it's HMBody part for me, on the ideology of 'further away is a better game' , anyone do it different?

 

[Ian_Cook]

But a SH can be reaching forward (hands well forward of last foot) when he picks it up. As he is lifting the ball it may still be in the ruck BUT once it is clear of bodies it IS out and he is now fair game for on side defenders. This can happen forward of where the last feet are.
He cannot get his hands on and then fanny about looking from side to side deciding what he is going to do and he cannot lift the ball and hold it inside the ruck and then fanny about looking from side to side deciding what he is going to do.
The ball is out when it is clear of bodies and that can include horizontal or vertical movement.

100% behind this view.

Its the easiest to understand and the easiest to implement as a referee, and gives the SH the best chance to get the ball away without giving him too much advantage.

"...when the ball is clear of bodies" is the catchphrase in this video (which I have posted before). Its pretty much how referees in this part of the world rule "ball out".....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG3LPFVMfeQ


I subscribe the the 3D version because Rugby Union is a 3D game played in a 3D world, not a 2D game played in "Flatland"

 

[Lee Grant]

There was another incident about the line that was confusing to this non- referee in Super Rugby—and it was more about what the TMO said.

Hurricanes v Crusaders

Beauden Barrett charges a kick down just after it had cleared the Crusaders goal line and after chasing it he tries to hook it backwards with his right arm before it goes over the dead ball line. A Crusaders' player grounds the ball in his in-goal and the correct decision of a Crusaders' 22 drop out is given.

But in the course of a discussion between referee Mike Fraser and the TMO, the TMO said "… Dead in goal by yellow: his hand was on the dead ball line when he played it back…"

(Incidentally, it was the left hand that was on the ground, not the swiping hand—and it was certainly on the dead ball line or beyond it.)


If he had done that action in a different circumstance: when he was trying to swipe the ball backwards (without holding it) before it went over the touch line, the referee or AR would be thinking about whether it had passed the line of touch. If it hadn't, it would be "play on".

Question: Back to the game—if it was clear and obvious that the ball had not passed the plane of the dead ball line (and it wasn't) would it be play-on (as in the case of the touch line), or is the dead ball line treated differently to the touch line in the circumstances mentioned?
.

 

[TNT88]

If the ball crosses the plane of touch, and touches something beyond the plane of touch, the ball is out.

If the ball is inside the field of play, the only way it can be out is if someone who is deemed "in touch" catches or holds onto the ball.

I did not see this incident, but the answer generally reflects what you define as "holding" the ball. If it is tapped or punched back, I'd call play on in the scenario you have given. If however, he absorbed some of the ball's momentum and then threw it back into play, kind of like a tennis shot. I would deem the player has held onto the ball in the process and hence if his arm is on the dead ball line the ball is now in touch.

However, in the age of TMOs where most of them haven't played for decades you could get any crazy interpretation of what constitutes holding the ball. Don't take my opinion on its own.

 

[OB..]

Since his hand was on the dead ball line, he was out of play, so what matters is whether or not the ball had crossed the dead ball line.

However, in the age of TMOs where most of them haven't played for decades you could get any crazy interpretation of what constitutes holding the ball. Don't take my opinion on its own.

How many top international referees have played recently?! Do you really think TMOs make no effort to keep up?

 

[Lee Grant]

I did not see this incident, but the answer generally reflects what you define as "holding" the ball. If it is tapped or punched back, I'd call play on in the scenario you have given.

If however, he absorbed some of the ball's momentum and then threw it back into play, kind of like a tennis shot. I would deem the player has held onto the ball in the process and hence if his arm is on the dead ball line the ball is now in touch.

There was no "holding" under any definition of the word.

It would have been interesting if an attacking Hurricanes' player had grounded the ball in goal instead of a defending Crusader, and the TMO had made the same comment, yet it was clear and obvious that the ball had not passed the plane of the dead ball line.

I think it did, but it was not the point of my question which you guys have cleared up.

Thank you.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

There was another oddity about "the line", in this case the offside line, in the Super Rugby final two weeks ago.

Before the event from which McCaw was penalised at the end of the game there was a ruck which was started after Bernard Foley of the Waratahs was tackled. He presented the ball to his side of the ruck after he was grassed.

It ended up that Foley had his body in the ruck and his legs were sticking out on the Crusaders side.

Had he been a Crusader his foot would have been the hindmost foot, notwithstanding that he was on the ground.

But he was a Waratah. McCaw was behind the Crusader last foot but in front of Foley's fast foot.

McCaw was not pinged for this reason but was he technically offside?

If so, is this circumstance always ignored by referees?
.

 

[MrQeu]

[LAWS]The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal line.[/LAWS]

Even though the law doesn't explicitly mention it, I'd assume that hindmost, which means "furthest to the rear" per merriam-Webster is related to the point of view of the player on the ground. Therefore, a player of the tackling team which lies nearer to his attacking DBL than his team-mates cannot make the offside line further back to the non-tackling team. And same on the other way around (tackling team <--> non-tackling team)

On the other hand, a tackling team whose players lie in the "other side" of the ruck may very well "charge" the ruck as their off-side line is nearer to their attacking DBL than the ball itself.

 

[OB..]

If the tackled player could stick his legs out of the opponent's side of the ruck and thus create an offside line, no opponent could get to the ball (if they won it) without going offside. It therefore makes sense to assume that the offside line is formed by the players of one's own side, not any opponents.

In the law book picture quoted by Mr Qeu, the red offside line for Yellow runs THROUGH the blue player, not behind him.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There was another oddity about "the line", in this case the offside line, in the Super Rugby final two weeks ago.

Before the event from which McCaw was penalised at the end of the game there was a ruck which was started after Bernard Foley of the Waratahs was tackled. He presented the ball to his side of the ruck after he was grassed.

It ended up that Foley had his body in the ruck and his legs were sticking out on the Crusaders side.

Had he been a Crusader his foot would have been the hindmost foot, notwithstanding that he was on the ground.

But he was a Waratah. McCaw was behind the Crusader last foot but in front of Foley's fast foot.

McCaw was not pinged for this reason but was he technically offside?

If so, is this circumstance always ignored by referees?
.

Nope. Mr Qeu probably should have also posted the caption text for this image from the lawbook

At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the
player of the same team. The player in the yellow jersey on the right hand
side is offside."

 

[Lee Grant]

Ah - I didn't see the image nor the caption.

Thanks - that makes it clear.

 

[SilverMoon]

Hi Lee

The kick starts when the ball makes contact with/leaves the boot.
The other players must be behind the kicker or a line across the pitch, level with him. Think of a kick off, it's just the same.

Phil - just to clarify your post. The feet of the "other players" must be behind the line across the pitch. It's possible for their bodies and head to be in front and feet marginally behind. See Wasps vs Gloucester at Twickenham last season.

 

[Lee Grant]

Here's one about the touchline,

Ireland v. England

Early in the game Ireland are awarded a penalty kick and Sexton kicked the ball towards touch,

Alex Goode of England tries to tap the ball back: he leaps from the field of play reaches out and after the ball passed the plane of the touchline he tapped it back before landing outside the FOP.

A lineout to Ireland is awarded and the Irish commentators said the referee had made a mistake - it should have been "play on" and England should have had the ball.

I thought the critical point was where Goode tapped the ball back from - over the plane - and the ball was therefore in touch - and it didn't matter where he landed.

But I can't find the matter addressed in the laws. Where is this covered?
.

 

[crossref]

Here's one about the touchline,

Ireland v. England

Early in the game Ireland are awarded a penalty kick and Sexton kicked the ball towards touch,

Alex Goode of England tries to tap the ball back: he leaps from the field of play reaches out and after the ball passed the plane of the touchline he tapped it back before landing outside the FOP.

A lineout to Ireland is awarded and the Irish commentators said the referee had made a mistake - it should have been "play on" and England should have had the ball.

I thought the critical point was where Goode tapped the ball back from - over the plane - and the ball was therefore in touch - and it didn't matter where he landed.

But I can't find the matter addressed in the laws. Where is this covered?
.

that deserves to be a new thread on it's own (mods?)
Here's the defintions in Law 19

A
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

B
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

A doesn't apply, as Goode didn't have his feet in the field of play
B doesn't apply, as the ball had crossed the plane

So I think the call was correct. It was touch, and the kicking team put the ball into touch
because it was a PK it's an Ireland throw. If it had been an ordinary kick it would have been an England throw

 

[Lee Grant]

I saw those in the Definitions but was not sure about about B because of my doubt as to whether or not he was "A player in touch" when he hadn't landed yet—and could be treated the same as a player with both feet in the field of play tapping the ball back, notwithstanding that the ball had passed the POT.

I suppose that it it is not mentioned as being "not in touch" (as it is in A when a player has both feet in the PA) then one must assume that it is in touch.
.

 

[crossref]

I saw those in the Definitions but was not sure about about B because of my doubt as to whether or not he was "A player in touch" when he hadn't landed yet—and could be treated the same as a player with both feet in the field of play tapping the ball back, notwithstanding that the ball had passed the POT.
.

I wonder about that as well ---

If a player is standing in the field of play he can bat the ball, even if the ball is beyond the POT
If a player is standing in touch he can bat the ball ONLY if the ball hasn't passed the POT

If a player is in mid-air, then there is some ambiguity about his status, and therefore what he can do.

 

[ChrisR]

..... and if Goode had started in touch, jumped and caught the ball landing with both feet in the field of play?

There is a well worn thread somewhere on this subject.

 

[OB..]

This one keeps going round and round, and will presumably continue until we get a proper ruling.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?8432-Slapping-the-ball-back-into-play

in the late 90s I got a ruling from Castlecroft (then the RFU refereeing centre) that a player was deemed to be in touch if he had crossed the plane before playing the ball. The Australian "line ball your call" site agrees.