Laws Question? Ask here!

Shelflife

daveharnett wrote: »

Hang on, doesn't that mean that we've all been doing this wrong for years? When a player points (or indicates) to the posts, we send the TJs to the goal and insist that the kicking team stick with their decision. According to this, there is no binding decision until the tee arrives?

I suspect that if we are happy ignoring one implication of this law, we should ignore the other too. If a team is playing sillybuggers with the tee, i'm going to start counting.

Two separate things dave, capt makes a decision to kick at posts once , then the tee should appear sharpish, if it doesnt you always have the option of penalising them for time wasting .

karlitob

the groutch wrote: »

can someone explain to me when the ball has to be kicked into touch, and when it can, or has to bounce inside before going out of play?
I know that with penalties or if the mark has been called it has to go straight out of play, but what are the rules for other circumstances?

Interestingly, a ball is only in touch if it strikes something that is in the touch area ie the ground, a person etc. If the ball is kicked through the plane of the touch line and comes back in again there is no touch.

If I'm correct, a player, who may be standing in touch, can thump the ball (not cathc) back in the filed of play and not be in touch.

cython

karlitob wrote: »

Interestingly, a ball is only in touch if it strikes something that is in the touch area ie the ground, a person etc. If the ball is kicked through the plane of the touch line and comes back in again there is no touch.

If I'm correct, a player, who may be standing in touch, can thump the ball (not cathc) back in the filed of play and not be in touch.

I have seen the likes of this before, but generally the player is in the air when hitting the ball, and makes their jump in the field of play, though possibly landing in touch. Surely if they were to just stand in touch (or even jump while in touch and land there again) it would count as striking a person in the touch area, as per your first paragraph?

ETA: I'm not trying to be argumentative or pedantic here, even if it might sound that way. I actually wouldn't be 100% on the intricacies of the scenario, so would like to know, and to see if my interpretation is accurate or way out!

cython

cython wrote: »

I have seen the likes of this before, but generally the player is in the air when hitting the ball, and makes their jump in the field of play, though possibly landing in touch. Surely if they were to just stand in touch (or even jump while in touch and land there again) it would count as striking a person in the touch area, as per your first paragraph?

ETA: I'm not trying to be argumentative or pedantic here, even if it might sound that way. I actually wouldn't be 100% on the intricacies of the scenario, so would like to know, and to see if my interpretation is accurate or way out!

yes, this is correct. The player technically does not leave the field of play until he touches the ground. Therefore if he jumps and knocks the ball back into play before it (and he) touches the ground then the ball is still in play.

amacachi

It's the same principle as catching the ball with a foot in touch when the ball isn't going out.

cython

Deleted User wrote: »

yes, this is correct. The player technically does not leave the field of play until he touches the ground. Therefore if he jumps and knocks the ball back into play before it (and he) touches the ground then the ball is still in play.

Cheers Emmet, I suspected as much. Otherwise it made little sense the acrobatic lengths that I have seen players go to in order to remain in the field of play while keeping a penalty from going into touch, only to fall off balance and into touch themselves once they had knocked it back in.

karlitob

cython wrote: »

I have seen the likes of this before, but generally the player is in the air when hitting the ball, and makes their jump in the field of play, though possibly landing in touch. Surely if they were to just stand in touch (or even jump while in touch and land there again) it would count as striking a person in the touch area, as per your first paragraph?

ETA: I'm not trying to be argumentative or pedantic here, even if it might sound that way. I actually wouldn't be 100% on the intricacies of the scenario, so would like to know, and to see if my interpretation is accurate or way out!

Thanks Cython - I'll qualify what I mean. A player in touch may kick and knock tha ball, but not hold it, as long as the ball hasnt passed the plane of the touch line.

Got love them lineouts

karlitob

karlitob wrote: »

Thanks Cython - I'll qualify what I mean. A player in touch may kick and knock tha ball, but not hold it, as long as the ball hasnt passed the plane of the touch line.

No you can't!

Evidence - Luke Fitzgerald putting one foot over the dead ball line and picking a rolling ball up. Result - Scrum back as if ball had been kicked dead.
Evidence - Player catching a box kick plants left foot in touch before catching the ball. Result, kick is treated as if it was kicked on the full.

Edit - wait, just saw "not hold it", and am trying to rack my brains for a reasoning behind this, or an example. I might be mistaken here.

karlitob

Deleted User wrote: »

No you can't!

Evidence - Luke Fitzgerald putting one foot over the dead ball line and picking a rolling ball up. Result - Scrum back as if ball had been kicked dead.
Evidence - Player catching a box kick plants left foot in touch before catching the ball. Result, kick is treated as if it was kicked on the full.

Edit - wait, just saw "not hold it", and am trying to rack my brains for a reasoning behind this, or an example. I might be mistaken here.

Sorry but yes you can. Law 19.

If you were sprawled on the ground in touch and the ball is in play near the touch line. You make kick it or hit it backwards but you cant hold it.

Sundy

karlitob wrote: »

I know it is. I didn't say anywhere in my post that it wasn't from a kick off or restart. And yes, it is an excuse to smash someone.



No it basically means what it says - play on! If I tackle that player in this instance the chances are that he will either ground it again or will be tackled into the dead-ball or touch-in-goal - 22 out, as you say. However, that may not happen, as the player with the ball may evade the tackle and 'play on'.

No your still wrong, your getting the sequence wrong.

Its ball in goal - Player delays touching it down - Therefore play on - player touches it down - Drop out 22.

The play on happens before he ever touches the ball down. the ball does not have to be touched down a second time. If you tackled the man after he touched it down you would be giving away a penalty for sure. Its not an excuse to smash anybody.

karlitob

Sundy wrote: »

No your still wrong, your getting the sequence wrong.

Its ball in goal - Player delays touching it down - Therefore play on - player touches it down - Drop out 22.

The play on happens before he ever touches the ball down. the ball does not have to be touched down a second time. If you tackled the man after he touched it down you would be giving away a penalty for sure. Its not an excuse to smash anybody.

Ah, no - if you read it correctly, I'm right.

My point still stands. If the ball is in the in-goal area, and the defender is, for example, standing up waiting for the opposition to come near the ball before he touches it down, then his delay is seen, by law, as his intention to play on then, be definition he can't touch it down. It would be like him touching it down in the playing area. (I am also assuming that he touches it down and still has it in his hands as he is naturally thinking of a 22-out).

So, if he has delayed in making the ball dead, waits for the opposition to come close, touches it down and keeps it in his hand, the law sates that this is not making the ball dead and since the player is aimlessly standing there with the ball in his hands and without a knowledge of the laws - SMASH HIM!!!!

And on another point - there are plenty of ways in the game of rugby to legally hit somebody, least not in a tackle. You seem aversed to the full contact nature of the sport - I'm sure there's a soccer forum on here somewhere

Sundy

karlitob wrote: »

Ah, no - if you read it correctly, I'm right. Your not

My point still stands. If the ball is in the in-goal area, and the defender is, for example, standing up waiting for the opposition to come near the ball before he touches it down, then his delay is seen, by law, as his intention to play on then, be definition he can't touch it down. It would be like him touching it down in the playing area. (I am also assuming that he touches it down and still has it in his hands as he is naturally thinking of a 22-out).

So, if he has delayed in making the ball dead, waits for the opposition to come close, touches it down and keeps it in his hand, the law sates that this is not making the ball dead and since the player is aimlessly standing there with the ball in his hands and without a knowledge of the laws - SMASH HIM!!!!

"Play on" in Law 13.15 merely means that play should continue under whatever other laws of the game are appropriate, and that Law 13.15 is no longer involved.

Your belief that "play on" means the player must attempt to run out into the field of play has no basis, and has never been the case.

And on another point - there are plenty of ways in the game of rugby to legally hit somebody, least not in a tackle. You seem aversed to the full contact nature of the sport - I'm sure there's a soccer forum on here somewhere
No idea what your on about here? Have to try insults when someone knows the laws better than you?

No idea where you got your interpretation of that law from but its wrong.

karlitob

Sundy wrote: »

No idea where you got your interpretation of that law from but its wrong.

No, I'm right and your wrong.

I quoted Law 13.9 - keep up, please.

The law states that if the player doesn't ground the ball, he has elected to play on. You incorrect assumption that he can then just ground the ball it dead is the incorrect assumption. IF the law states that you must play on if don't immediately ground the ball, THEN YOU CANT GROUND THE BALL to make it dead. If the defending player wants to play in his own in-goal or in the playing field is his business.

My point still stands, that if a defending player delays the grounding of a ball from a kick-off (Law 13.9) or a 22-drop out (Law 13.15) and hasn't been touched by anyone, then the player has elected to play. He cannot then ground the ball if it suits him. he defending player will, generally, be not aware of it, I would imagine that he would there stand ignorant of the law, as you are, and legally be SMASHED!!!!!

Sundy

karlitob wrote: »

No, I'm right and your wrong.

I quoted Law 13.9 - keep up, please.

The law states that if the player doesn't ground the ball, he has elected to play on. You incorrect assumption that he can then just ground the ball it dead is the incorrect assumption. IF the law states that you must play on if don't immediately ground the ball, THEN YOU CANT GROUND THE BALL to make it dead. If the defending player wants to play in his own in-goal or in the playing field is his business.

My point still stands, that if a defending player delays the grounding of a ball from a kick-off (Law 13.9) or a 22-drop out (Law 13.15) and hasn't been touched by anyone, then the player has elected to play. He cannot then ground the ball if it suits him. he defending player will, generally, be not aware of it, I would imagine that he would there stand ignorant of the law, as you are, and legally be SMASHED!!!!!

Haha il leave you thinking that then so mate.

As a mater of interest has anybody ever confirmed your interpretation of law 13.9 or is it just your own?

Because i just had my interpretation confirmed by one of the top ref advisor's in the uk.

smug:

Steve Perchance

karlitob wrote: »

No, I'm right and your wrong.

I quoted Law 13.9 - keep up, please.

The law states that if the player doesn't ground the ball, he has elected to play on. You incorrect assumption that he can then just ground the ball it dead is the incorrect assumption. IF the law states that you must play on if don't immediately ground the ball, THEN YOU CANT GROUND THE BALL to make it dead. If the defending player wants to play in his own in-goal or in the playing field is his business.

My point still stands, that if a defending player delays the grounding of a ball from a kick-off (Law 13.9) or a 22-drop out (Law 13.15) and hasn't been touched by anyone, then the player has elected to play. He cannot then ground the ball if it suits him. he defending player will, generally, be not aware of it, I would imagine that he would there stand ignorant of the law, as you are, and legally be SMASHED!!!!!

Of course he can ground the ball. That law means that if he dots it down immediately, its a scrum back at halfway, however if he delays, its a 22 drop out, as he's played on and normal rules apply, including the one about touching the ball down in goal.

If you were to smash someone who'd touched down, depending on how hard you got him, your team would be down to 14 for ten minutes or else the rest of the game.

karlitob

Sundy wrote: »

Haha il leave you thinking that then so mate.

As a mater of interest has anybody ever confirmed your interpretation of law 13.9 or is it just your own?

Because i just had my interpretation confirmed by one of the top ref advisor's in the uk.

smug:

Well, I've had my interpretation of the law confirmed by two of the top ref advisors in Ireland, three of the top ref advisors in Scotland, 4 of the top ref advisors in New Zealand and an extremely pleasant Tongan.

*Even More Smug* Its great being right!



What amazes me is that you think that if the player delays, when he's obliged to play on, that he can just ground the ball and be allowed to drop-out. Why go to the bother of writing this into the law then.


You also fail to realise that like all laws, they are open to interpretation and since, as a referee, and being fully aware of Law 6.A.4 (a) - I am the sole judge of fact and law, so by definition, on the pitch, my interpretation is, and always will be, correct.

Sundy

I'll leave you at it so.

Im sure others here will back me up on this too.

daveharnett

karlitob wrote: »

No, I'm right and your wrong.

I've got to disagree with you too. Lets follow your argument to it's conclusion - the ball carrier is brought to ground inside his goal area - he can't be 'taclked', tackles can only happen in the field of play. He isn't obliged to release, because he hasn't been tackled. Players can pile on from whatever direction they like (ruck/maul laws don't apply in goal either), and have no obligation to stay on their feet or make the ball available.

There is just no logical conclusion to this mess unless something happens when the defender grounds the ball.

In this situation, 'play on' means that the restart has concluded successfully, and all of the other laws of the game apply as usual.

Losty Dublin

daveharnett wrote: »

I've got to disagree with you too. Lets follow your argument to it's conclusion - the ball carrier is brought to ground inside his goal area - he can't be 'taclked', tackles can only happen in the field of play. He isn't obliged to release, because he hasn't been tackled. Players can pile on from whatever direction they like (ruck/maul laws don't apply in goal either), and have no obligation to stay on their feet or make the ball available.

There is just no logical conclusion to this mess unless something happens when the defender grounds the ball.

In this situation, 'play on' means that the restart has concluded successfully, and all of the other laws of the game apply as usual.

I'm with you on this, Daveh, and as an active referee I fail to understand how Karli can come to such a conclusion. Once the ball is grounded in goal by a defender the game restarts with either a scrum or a 22 depending on the circumstance before the grounding; that is what the law is stating.

Karl, which referee advisors back or agree with your stance?

Sundy

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm with you on this, Daveh, and as an active referee I fail to understand how Karli can come to such a conclusion. Once the ball is grounded in goal by a defender the game restarts with either a scrum or a 22 depending on the circumstance before the grounding; that is what the law is stating.

Karl, which referee advisors back or agree with your stance?

I have a funny feeling he was just making that up.

I know a ref advisor in england so i asked him just to be sure. Confirmed my interpretation.

Steve Perchance

karlitob wrote: »

Well, I've had my interpretation of the law confirmed by two of the top ref advisors in Ireland, three of the top ref advisors in Scotland, 4 of the top ref advisors in New Zealand and an extremely pleasant Tongan.

*Even More Smug* Its great being right!



What amazes me is that you think that if the player delays, when he's obliged to play on, that he can just ground the ball and be allowed to drop-out. Why go to the bother of writing this into the law then.


You also fail to realise that like all laws, they are open to interpretation and since, as a referee, and being fully aware of Law 6.A.4 (a) - I am the sole judge of fact and law, so by definition, on the pitch, my interpretation is, and always will be, correct.

The reason this law exists is because once upon a time, teams kicked the ball in goal from a restart to force a 22 drop back, gaining territory.

The law was changed so that a scrum at halfway would ensue if that happened, but players took the mick with that and waited until the opposition ran half the length of the pitch before dotting down.

The solution to this was to change the law again to its current form, where the defender could have a scrum back if he acted immediately, otherwise, it'd be a 22 drop out if/when he grounded it.

There just doesn't exist a situation where a player can be set up for a hit by kicking a restart or drop out into the oppositions in goal.

Sundy

On the button steve

MungBean

karlitob wrote: »

Sorry but yes you can. Law 19.

If you were sprawled on the ground in touch and the ball is in play near the touch line. You make kick it or hit it backwards but you cant hold it.

The ball is deemed to be in touch when it makes contact with anything not in the field of play. Doesnt matter whether its grass, fan, advertising board or a player its in touch. If you were sprawled on the ground in touch and kicked the ball it would be an opposition line out from where you were just as it would be if you held it.

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

.

Sundy

Skunkle wrote: »

The ball is deemed to be in touch when it makes contact with anything not in the field of play. Doesnt matter whether its grass, fan, advertising board or a player its in touch. If you were sprawled on the ground in touch and kicked the ball it would be an opposition line out from where you were just as it would be if you held it.

.

Actually in the laws it says

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.

I wouldnt bank on any ref knowing that though.

daveharnett

Skunkle wrote: »

If you were sprawled on the ground in touch and kicked the ball it would be an opposition line out from where you were just as it would be if you held it.
.

Read a little further.

Law 19 Definitions, Last paragraph:

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.

While we're at it, a player may also ground the ball in the goal area (for a try, 5m scrum, or 22 as appropriate) while they are in touch (or touch-in-goal) provided they don't pick it up or carry it.

MungBean

So the law is contradictory?

If it says.

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.

And then.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline

Or do both of those refer to two different instances ?

If I was to kick for touch from a mark and you stood in touch and knocked it back in are you ok because of the second one or is the ball in touch because of the first ? Or does it depend entirely on the ref ?

Sundy

Skunkle wrote: »

So the law is contradictory?

If it says.


And then.


Or do both of those refer to two different instances ?

If I was to kick for touch from a mark and you stood in touch and knocked it back in are you ok because of the second one or is the ball in touch because of the first ? Or does it depend entirely on the ref ?

Yes two different instances. One refers to the ball being in play and the other the ball is out side the field of play.

MungBean

Sundy wrote: »

Yes two different instances. One refers to the ball being in play and the other the ball is out side the field of play.

I dont understand, the second one says that the ball can be touched when your in touch as long as it doesnt cross the line and its not held.

First one says if the ball touches anything thats on or beyond the line the ball is in touch. First one still covers the ball being in the field of play as it doesnt specifically mention that the ball must cross the line just make contact with anyone who is in touch.

daveharnett

Skunkle wrote: »

So the law is contradictory?

I suppose it is when you put the two side by side. In practice, the second quote is an exception to the first.

Skunkle wrote: »

Or does it depend entirely on the ref ?

There is no dispute on it - all refs should know it (but it's a pretty unusual scenario, so no guarantees).

In reality, the decision is more likely to depend on the touch judge. It's unlikely the ref will be close enough to overrule with confidence. All bets are off if you're talking about club level where the TJs may well be appointed by the teams, clueless, 30 meters away, and busy playing angry birds.

daveharnett

Skunkle wrote: »

If I was to kick for touch from a mark and you stood in touch and knocked it back in are you ok because of the second one or is the ball in touch because of the first ?

Sorry, I'll take another stab at this - I missed a key detail in the question. If the ball has not crossed the plane of touch when you touch it (ie it is still in/over the field of play), the play on.

If the ball is already on/above/beyond the touch line when you touch it, then it's a lineout (to the non-kicking team).