[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 08 March 08 01:35 GMT
|
It is very easy to write a simple law. It is not so easy to make it work sensibly.
The current one has been built up over the years to try and keep the game flowing. It now reeks of exceptions to exceptions, so need re-drafting, but beware of oversimplifying - babies and bath-water.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 07 March 08 21:14 GMT
|
I'll tell you the law we need to loose, this one:
"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."
This is bonkers. It means that if I'm standing with a foot in touch but the ball is in play I can kick it or knock it and that's fine but if I 'hold' it then suddenly it is out. It also means that if I'm standing completely off the pitch I can stop the ball going in touch as long as I don't let it cross the plane of the touchline. How hard is that to judge? And what if it has gone out, been blown back and then I touch it? It's just all unecessarily complicated!!!!
If you are out and touch the ball then the ball should be out. Easy.
This message edited on Fri, 07 March 08 by HighsideUK
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 07 March 08 21:04 GMT
|
Oldmanmartin
Yes your rules are nice and simple but they change the game a bit. It may also be hard to decide if the ball in the wingers outside hand crossed the plane of touch as he stepped off his outside foot to cut inside the fullback.
|
|
|
ctrainor
|
Fri, 07 March 08 20:35 GMT
|
guys am I right here.
1. Ball kicked towards touch.
Defender with both feet in play stretches out and catches the ball though it is over the plane of touch. Play on.
2. Same scenario but at full stretch flicks the ball backwards into play, then loses balance and falls over line. Play on.
I'd hate to lose the wind blows it back in option, one of our own specialities that law which is unambiguous and everyone knows that one.
|
-------------------------
Ciaran Trainor |
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 07 March 08 18:19 GMT
|
The ball is in touch-
(a) When, not being in the possession of a player, it touches or crosses a touch line.
If the ball cross a touch line and is then blown back, it is in touch at the place where it first crossed the line,
(b) When the ball in a player's possession or a player carrying It touches a touch line or the ground beyond it.
A player may be in touch and yet play the ball with his foot if the ball is not in touch.
The ball must be brought into play by an opponent of the player whom it last touched in the held-of-play, unless such player carrying the ball is physically forced into touch by an opponent, in which case it shall be brought into play by the player so forced or by one of his team.
That is an extract from the 1949 Laws. Laudator temporis acti!
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Fri, 07 March 08 17:04 GMT
|
Easier still:-
1. The ball is in touch if, having been in play, it crosses the plane of the touchline.
2. The throw-in from the lineout shall be taken by a player from the opposite team from the player that last touched it, unless that last touch a penalty kick.
3. The lineout shall be taken from the point where the ball crossed the plane.
|
|
|
HighsideUK
|
Fri, 07 March 08 16:09 GMT
|
Why are the laws so confusing around touch?
All this "jumping up" and "where you land" and "where the ball lands" and "we do it diifferent from the Australians" malarkey. And "Plane of the torso?!!!!" please!
Surely this IS an area that could easily be simplified without changing the game?
How about
The ball is in touch if it makes contact with something or someone that is in touch or if it makes contact with the ground in touch.
Something or someone is in touch if they are in contact with the ground in touch or if they are airborne, but were in contact with the ground in touch where they took off.
This means you can be on the pitch and jump up and bat the ball back and it doesn't matter where you land. But you have to start from on the pitch.
Also:
The last person to touch the ball before it goes out, loses it.
What would be complicated/unacceptable/ambiguous about that?
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Fri, 07 March 08 07:28 GMT
|
Hi Andy,
>I think you are missing the point, what Clive was offering was a way of self learning and thus understanding, not merely knowing facts.
Were you there Andy? ( :-) )
(Everyone please note I'm not really trying to criticise Clive - I'd need at least another 30 years of refereeing and a lot of time spent at higher levels than I'm ever going to achieve anyway before I'd be qualified to do that! I'm honestly absolutely delighted that we in East Mids have someone like him prepared to give his time the way he does and to share his wealth of experience & bang-up-to-date knowledge.
Frankly, having the opportunity to be at his training sessions is reason enough on its own to join East Mids.
And yes, I do mean that.)
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 07 March 08 01:43 GMT
|
Thanks, Andy.
For the benefit of others, the only disagreement with Mark Lawrence's answers was in Question 1. It seems we are taking the same line as the Australians: look where the feet are. New Zealand, I understand, looks at where the torso is (or used to).
I wonder what happens in the S14?!
|
|
|
meldt11
|
Thu, 06 March 08 15:35 GMT
|
pauldg
I think you are missing the point, what Clive was offering was a way of self learning and thus understanding, not merely knowing facts
ob
Having passed the quiz aroung 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
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 29 February 08 13:55 GMT
|
Andy - unfortunately that also conflicts with Mark Lawrence's answers. Can we have an authoritative view (even if only for England) - or was that one?
For example Mark's Q1: Kicker kicks the ball from the Half way with a punt.
Receiver is at the 22m but standing in field
Receiver jumps in the air and catches the ball which is infield. He then lands in touch.
Obviously the ball is in touch, but who takes the throw-in?
It seemed clear to me that the catcher had taken the ball into touch, so it was a throw to the kicker’s team. However Mark’s answer was “If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch” In other words, because the catcher landed in touch, he was deemed to have been in touch at the time he caught the ball, so the kicker was responsible for putting it there – throw to catcher’s team. This was apparently the agreed position of the 2003 RWC Referees and TJs. (The quiz was set in the middle of last year.)
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Fri, 29 February 08 09:29 GMT
|
Andy,
Fantastic though he is, Clive isn't always right about some of the details of the way "Touch" is interpreted - as some who were at the January East Mids meeting may remember.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
meldt11
|
Fri, 29 February 08 08:50 GMT
|
Some of you may have had the pleasure of meeting that doyen of touch judging and touch judge coaching Clive Leeke. When matters like this were raised Clive always used to ask "What is the defintion of in touch?"
The answer being "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."
After that he would add something to the effect that where feet ended up was irrelevant and we should work out the answers based on the two paradigms (I think that is what he called them) above.
"Simple game, played by simple folk, refereed by even simpler folk" as someone once said
Andy Melrose
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 29 February 08 02:07 GMT
|
The most recent information I have comes from a test set by Mark Lawrence on the SA referees site.
You can link to both the test and the answers from here:
http://www.sareferees.co.za/interactive/test_yourself/
Test and answers are in PowerPoint format. For some reason the first slide in the answers is a blank page, so just click for the second.
Subsequent discussion elicited the innformation that the answers were based on agreements reached between RWC referees and TJs.
|
|
|
pg
|
Thu, 28 February 08 22:10 GMT
|
ob and others
There was a detailed directive from Castlecroft around the options here 3 - 4 years ago and posted on this formum ... haven't looked to see if it is still there .. but from memory, in the case described in this thread, if both player and ball fall back into the field of play, separately or together, even though the ball was touched beyond the line of touch then ball not in touch, play on. Any other combination, line out.
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 28 February 08 11:49 GMT
|
It is an area of law full of "understandings" between referees as they try to get a consistent approach to it. An Australian website from 2002 http://www.rugbyref.com/lbyc/index.htm is quite useful in illustrating various tricky situations.
|
|
|
sw
|
Thu, 28 February 08 11:32 GMT
|
I must admit, I agree with MarPy7#f9, as nothing has touched the ground; hence my original post. Judging by replies it clearly remains a grey area.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 27 February 08 15:12 GMT
|
MarPy7#f9 - my understanding is that if a player jumps from in touch and touches a ball that has crossed the plane of touch, the ball is out because the player is still deemed to be in touch.
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Wed, 27 February 08 13:06 GMT
|
(continued!) I suppose a player can jump up from inside or outside the touchline and bat it back while he's in the air.
Probably the law should be changed or clarified so that it's out if it breaks the plane, because this is the point at which the lineout is (or should be) taken.
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Wed, 27 February 08 13:00 GMT
|
Big grey area! As I 8understand it the ball's in touch if it is in contact with the ground on or outside the touchline, or with a player grounded on or outside. In all other circumstances it's still in play. So technically
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 25 February 08 18:04 GMT
|
joe@thurrock - it used to be a muddle with some countries going one way, some the other.
In 2000 the IRB decided that kicking for touch was not positive play, so chose to make it harder to gain ground that way.
|
|
|
joe@thurrock
|
Mon, 25 February 08 14:31 GMT
|
I can't argue with the law but it seems unfair a kicker can angle his kick to land a metre and a half in the field of play and still have to come back to where it was kicked
|
-------------------------
Joe |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 25 February 08 14:06 GMT
|
joe@thurrock - "I can't get my head around, if you catch a ball with a foot in touch YOU get the throw in "
If you have your foot in touch, you are in touch. Therefore if you catch the ball, the ball is in touch. You did not put it there since you were there already, so it was the responsibility of the previous person to play the ball (usually the kicker).
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Mon, 25 February 08 13:00 GMT
|
>Defender leaps through the air (from infield across plane of touch) and taps the ball back into field of play before his feet touched the ground in touch.
Ball AND the player are in Touch. Yes, that's "touch".
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
joe@thurrock
|
Mon, 25 February 08 12:42 GMT
|
Not in my mind but then I can't get my head around, if you catch a ball with a foot in touch YOU get the throw in
|
-------------------------
Joe |
|
|
[
NEXT
|
LAST
]
|
|
|
