Touch rules query for Union

[Derek Smith]

We have a bit of an argument going on.

Is there anyone who knows the rules - I've only played Union so I've never bothered to learn them - with regard the decision as to what is or is not in touch at 1.19 in:

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

It's not got violent yet but it might.

[Tuvra]

Im not sure what your asking. However:

1.19 Guy knocks ball out of attackers hands, that to me would be a penalty although its very rare to see someone lose the ball so easily.

1.25 (Which I think your reffering too) Guy jumps and taps the ball back in to play, the players feet never touched outside the playing area whilst making contact with the floor so therefore nothing should be given - Play on. If his foot was planted over the line whilst he palmed it back, it would simply be Blue line out.

Playing Fullback these things matter, for example If someone kicks the ball into my try area but it stops before it goes dead, I can put my foot over or on the dead ball, dab the ball down where it lays and it still counts as going dead, back to where it was kicked from you go then!!

[TheGreatSoprendo]

I'm slightly confused by the question too, but would agree with Tuvra that the attempted kick to touch doesn't make touch as the blue player keeps it in play without touching the ground, so no line out, play on.

Oh, and Richmond - how the mighty have fallen!

[Derek Smith]

TheGreatSoprendo said:

I'm slightly confused by the question too, but would agree with Tuvra that the attempted kick to touch doesn't make touch as the blue player keeps it in play without touching the ground, so no line out, play on.

Oh, and Richmond - how the mighty have fallen!

Sorry not to be clear. It was the chap jumping up to flick the ball back into play. He was in the air. My understanding is that this was OK. But then, the laws are a closed book to me. One mate says that it is where the player lands that's important but he used to be a hooker so that can safely be ignored. (See later in the video, the hooker running for the line then passing it.) The other says that the problem was the player had his foot on the line before jumping. That sounds more likely but still wrong to me.

What's this dig about 'how the mighty'? Worthing are mighty.

It was us who stopped their record-breaking run of victories. 183 or so? I seem to remember a chant about 'no one eight four'.

But they are a very good side. One of the best level fours not to be promoted. Makes the victory all the sweeter and the anihilation so enjoyable.

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Well, I tend to agree with you, although the point about him having his foot on the line when he jumps may have some merit - does anyone know for sure?

And no offence to Worthing intended at all. It's just I remember watching Richmond playing top flight rugby a few years ago with the likes of Scott & Craig Quinnell, Alan Bateman and Augustin Pichot, so it looks like they've come down to earth with a bump since then. Didn't they go into administration at some point?

[JayBM]

Tuvra said:

Playing Fullback these things matter, for example If someone kicks the ball into my try area but it stops before it goes dead, I can put my foot over or on the dead ball, dab the ball down where it lays and it still counts as going dead, back to where it was kicked from you go then!!

This law (19.5) has now been slightly amended whereby the ball must still be moving for it to count as having gone dead on its own. If the the ball has stopped and you put your foot over the line and pick it up you are deemed to have take it dead.

As for the OPs question (and I can't see the youtube vid) but Touch and Lineouts are covered by Law 19. Unfortunately there is still (even at international level) uncertainty on how a jumping player should be considered.

If you consider a player standing in touch (either one foot or both) then the following is true:

• If he catches the ball; then the ball is considered to be in touch whether or not it has crossed the line.
• If he touches the ball other than catching it (i.e. kick or tap with hand) AND the ball has not crossed line then the ball is considered not to have gone into touch.

Now if we consider a player that is in the air having jumped it gets complicated. Up until recently the guidance to referees was that the decision should be based on where the player landed i.e. if he landed in play then the ball was considered to not have gone into touch.

However I think this has been changed again whereby it is now based on where the player interacts with the ball in relation to the touchline i.e. if he catches the ball in mid air and passes it before he crosses the touchline then it is considered play on. However if he taps the ball back in mid air after he has crossed the touchline then the ball is considered to have been in touch.

It is further complicated by a clause in Law 19 which states that if a player catches a ball in mid air (even if he subsequently off loads it whilst in mid air) he must land with both feet in the field of play otherwise the ball will be considered to have been in touch.

Now I think it would be very unlikely for any referee to use the last rule and as a whole the entire subject is down to their own individual interpretation of the rules.

HTH
Jay

[Derek Smith]

JayBM said:

This law (19.5) has now been slightly amended whereby the ball must still be moving for it to count as having gone dead on its own. If the the ball has stopped and you put your foot over the line and pick it up you are deemed to have take it dead.

As for the OPs question (and I can't see the youtube vid) but Touch and Lineouts are covered by Law 19. Unfortunately there is still (even at international level) uncertainty on how a jumping player should be considered.

If you consider a player standing in touch (either one foot or both) then the following is true:

• If he catches the ball; then the ball is considered to be in touch whether or not it has crossed the line.
• If he touches the ball other than catching it (i.e. kick or tap with hand) AND the ball has not crossed line then the ball is considered not to have gone into touch.

Now if we consider a player that is in the air having jumped it gets complicated. Up until recently the guidance to referees was that the decision should be based on where the player landed i.e. if he landed in play then the ball was considered to not have gone into touch.

However I think this has been changed again whereby it is now based on where the player interacts with the ball in relation to the touchline i.e. if he catches the ball in mid air and passes it before he crosses the touchline then it is considered play on. However if he taps the ball back in mid air after he has crossed the touchline then the ball is considered to have been in touch.

It is further complicated by a clause in Law 19 which states that if a player catches a ball in mid air (even if he subsequently off loads it whilst in mid air) he must land with both feet in the field of play otherwise the ball will be considered to have been in touch.

Now I think it would be very unlikely for any referee to use the last rule and as a whole the entire subject is down to their own individual interpretation of the rules.

HTH
Jay

Thanks for that, Jay. It seems as if we were all wrong, so a satisfactory result.

[JayBM]

No problems. At one point in the last 10yrs each one of your assertions would have been right and dependent on the referee you each may be right in the next game you watch.

[Stagpump]

My humble interpretation of this would be that if the ball crosses the line then it is out regardless of where the player is when he taps it. However if he has possession of he ball then it matters greatly where the player is. I'm afraid I am not up on the rules enough to clarify, but if the ball crossed the line in flight (a little tough to tell on the video) then it is out.

[Derek Smith]

JayBM said:

No problems. At one point in the last 10yrs each one of your assertions would have been right and dependent on the referee you each may be right in the next game you watch.

Thanks. That made me laugh. I'm not sure it is funny though.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 26th May 19:16

[JayBM]

Derek Smith said:

Thanks. That made me laugh. I'm not sure it is funny though.

Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 26th May 19:16

I've got to agree if I'm honest; any law which is open to such varied interpretation must surely need clarifying once and for all.