Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland vs England, Sunday 1st March 3pm; RTE/BBC

Options
1…4546485051

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah, I think the 'plane of touch' thing is hard for refs to make a call on. It's easy if it's in slow-mo, but watching a player, where he jumps from, and where he taps back the ball in mid-air, is very hard, so often the ball will breach the plane of touch from the line and they'll still allow the ball to be played. But the law states if it goes over the plane of touch it's then out.

    We'll it's the ARs call to make, it's one of a few difficult things they need to determine but generally they should be in a pretty good position to tell.


  • Options
    #1413
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    This explicitly contradicted what we were told when we got our ref qualifications... So I thought I'd check to see if this interpretation has changed since then, but refs forums seem to completely contradict you. What you are saying is only true if the ball has not crossed the plane of touch when you play it in the air. If you are in the air and you play the ball in the air (assuming you and the ball are over the touchline) the ball should be considered out, regardless of where you started. In fact you can be standing on the ground in touch and that is true, but it's a really odd exception that's only really there for try scoring situations. There are some elements of the interpretation which differ based on your home Union's interpretation it seems, but not the main point, mostly what determines whether or not you're in touch.

    All that actually matters for knocking the ball into play is that the ball must not yet have crossed the plane of touch.

    The laws don't seem to cover it very well. They say that the ball is only in touch if it touches the ground on or beyond the line where a player isn't involved. If a player is involved the player must stay in-field when they land after catching the ball. A player can bat the ball back into play when they are in touch so long as the ball hasn't crossed the line.

    I don't think it actually explicitly covers the scenario where a player is not in touch (because they are in the air and haven't yet touched the ground) and the ball is not in touch (because it hasn't yet touched the ground). I would have always thought the most logical interpretation would be that if neither are deemed to be in touch at the point of contact then its completely okay to bat it back. Its a strange one.


  • Options
    #1414
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    .ak wrote: »
    Yeah, I think the 'plane of touch' thing is hard for refs to make a call on. It's easy if it's in slow-mo, but watching a player, where he jumps from, and where he taps back the ball in mid-air, is very hard, so often the ball will breach the plane of touch from the line and they'll still allow the ball to be played. But the law states if it goes over the plane of touch it's then out.
    That's not what it says though:
    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.


  • Options
    #1415
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    rrpc wrote: »
    That's not what it says though:

    I think that's why its confusing. If the player is in touch the "plane of touch" matters. If not then it doesn't. That seems to be what it is saying. But then it specifies both feet being in the playing area which isn't quite the same as not being in touch.


  • Options
    #1416
    total former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭total former


    But no-one thinks that the ref/AR got it wrong in the Goode instance? No-one thinks that it shouldn't have been a lineout?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    molloyjh wrote: »
    I think that's why its confusing. If the player is in touch the "plane of touch" matters. If not then it doesn't. That seems to be what it is saying. But then it specifies both feet being in the playing area which isn't quite the same as not being in touch.
    I would have thought that's exactly what it means :confused:


  • Options
    #1418
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The laws don't seem to cover it very well. They say that the ball is only in touch if it touches the ground on or beyond the line where a player isn't involved. If a player is involved the player must stay in-field when they land after catching the ball. A player can bat the ball back into play when they are in touch so long as the ball hasn't crossed the line.

    I don't think it actually explicitly covers the scenario where a player is not in touch (because they are in the air and haven't yet touched the ground) and the ball is not in touch (because it hasn't yet touched the ground). I would have always thought the most logical interpretation would be that if neither are deemed to be in touch at the point of contact then its completely okay to bat it back. Its a strange one.

    The laws don't cover it entirely but that is where unions interpretation differs. For example you describe a player in the air as not being in touch, that isn't completely true, and the Unions actually differ on which part of their body needs to have crossed the plane of touch to determine at what point they are outside the field of play. Some say their feet and some say their torso (I believe it's feet for most in the NH).

    Another example which isn't covered entirely is if a player jumps from touch, catches the ball and lands in the field of play. Again thats a matter of jurisdiction, not sure how the elite refs would call that one (fairly sure it'd also come down to where the ball is when caught).


  • Options
    #1419
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    total former wrote: »
    But no-one thinks that the ref/AR got it wrong in the Goode instance? No-one thinks that it shouldn't have been a lineout?
    No, because he was in touch when he jumped to bat the ball back in. So both he and the ball were across the line of touch at the same time.


  • Options
    #1420
    Wang King
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,169 ✭✭✭Wang King


    Someone tweet Nigel Owens with this link


  • Options
    #1421
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    rrpc wrote: »
    That's not what it says though:

    That covers an entirely different situation though than this, if the player has feet on the ground in play then he can catch the ball and it isn't in touch.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The laws don't cover it entirely but that is where unions interpretation differs. For example you describe a player in the air as not being in touch, that isn't completely true, and the Unions actually differ on which part of their body needs to have crossed the plane of touch to determine at what point they are outside the field of play. Some say their feet and some say their torso (I believe it's feet for most in the NH).

    Another example which isn't covered entirely is if a player jumps from touch, catches the ball and lands in the field of play. Again thats a matter of jurisdiction, not sure how the elite refs would call that one (fairly sure it'd also come down to where the ball is when caught).

    Yet if I'm attempting to score a try by the touch line I can have both my feet across the "plane of touch" but not be in touch if my feet are in the air. It's just a tad confusing. And they seemed to have legislated for every eventuality but the one we're talking about.


  • Options
    #1423
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Yet if I'm attempting to score a try by the touch line I can have both my feet across the "plane of touch" but not be in touch if my feet are in the air. It's just a tad confusing. And they seemed to have legislated for every eventuality but the one we're talking about.

    The laws don't legislate for every eventuality though, they're not really supposed to. They are left open to interpretation by Unions.

    The act of scoring a try and the in goal area have their own strange issues in the laws, you can score a try from touch for example!


  • Options
    #1424
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That covers an entirely different situation though than this, if the player has feet on the ground in play then he can catch the ball and it isn't in touch.
    I was replying to molloyjh who said that if the ball crosses the plane of touch, it's out.

    From the part of the law I quoted, it's not (if the player who taps it back in has both feet in play).


  • Options
    #1425
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    rrpc wrote: »
    I was replying to molloyjh who said that if the ball crosses the plane of touch, it's out.

    From the part of the law I quoted, it's not (if the player who taps it back in has both feet in play).

    Ah yeah, its important to make the distinction between the ball being dead and the ball being in touch.


  • Options
    #1426
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    This explicitly contradicted what we were told when we got our ref qualifications... So I thought I'd check to see if this interpretation has changed since then, but refs forums seem to completely contradict you. What you are saying is only true if the ball has not crossed the plane of touch when you play it in the air. If you are in the air and you play the ball in the air (assuming you and the ball are over the touchline) the ball should be considered out, regardless of where you started. In fact you can be standing on the ground in touch and that is true, but it's a really odd exception that's only really there for try scoring situations. There are some elements of the interpretation which differ based on your home Union's interpretation it seems, but not the main point, mostly what determines whether or not you're in touch.

    All that actually matters for knocking the ball into play is that the ball must not yet have crossed the plane of touch.

    The plane of touch only applies to when the player is in touch. It's not a law I was aware of. So, when a player is in touch they can bat the ball to stop it going into touch, as long as the ball does not pass the plane.


  • Options
    #1427
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    You're correct. There's a lot of misinformation here.

    If you are in the field of play and jump up, and play the ball in the air, it doeesnt matter where you land or where the ball is when you are in contact with it, as long as you are no longer in contact with it when you get touch the ground in touch (or touch something in touch). So if you bat it so it lands in play then it was never in touch.

    This is correct as far as I am aware, i.e. it relates to when the player is not in touch. The plane of the ball is not relevant. It only becomes relevant when playing the ball when in touch.


  • Options
    #1428
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Ah yeah, its important to make the distinction between the ball being dead and the ball being in touch.

    I don't think there is a distinction. The laws apply surely.


  • Options
    #1429
    total former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭total former


    BoardsMember wrote: »
    The plane of touch only applies to when the player is in touch. It's not a law I was aware of. So, when a player is in touch they can bat the ball to stop it going into touch, as long as the ball does not pass the plane.

    Yes, this is correct.

    But again, none of this applies to Goode's case.


  • Options
    #1430
    accidentprone1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 541 ✭✭✭accidentprone1


    total former wrote: »
    Yes, this is correct.

    But again, none of this applies to Goode's case.

    Wait, so I can stand with two feet completely in touch, reach back into the field of play, and bat the ball to another player (if the ball was in the air, having not crossed the plane of the touchline)?


  • Options
    #1431
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    total former wrote: »
    Yes, this is correct.

    But again, none of this applies to Goode's case.

    Well, it sort of does. He started off in touch and therefore had he batted the ball back before it passed the plane of touch it would have been ok. This is not a law I was aware of.

    The confusion was because the commentators made the call based on the slo-mo replay, which did not show Goode's starting position, in touch. Therefore the plane law applies, as opposed to the one relating to the player being in touch.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    accidentprone1 wrote: »
    Wait, so I can stand with two feet completely in touch, reach back into the field of play, and bat the ball to another player (if the ball was in the air, having not crossed the plane of the touchline)?

    That appears to be the case based on what people are quoting.


  • Options
    #1433
    total former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭total former


    accidentprone1 wrote: »
    Wait, so I can stand with two feet completely in touch, reach back into the field of play, and bat the ball to another player (if the ball was in the air, having not crossed the plane of the touchline)?

    That's my understanding of it.

    But again, since the ball passed the plane of touch, it's not relevant to this case.

    Edit: Yes, see below
    http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=19
    A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.


  • Options
    #1434
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,291 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    England
    accidentprone1 wrote: »
    Wait, so I can stand with two feet completely in touch, reach back into the field of play, and bat the ball to another player (if the ball was in the air, having not crossed the plane of the touchline)?

    yes

    doesnt happen often as the first reaction is to catch


  • Options
    #1435
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,291 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    England
    total former wrote: »
    That's my understanding of it.

    But again, since the ball passed the plane of touch, it's not relevant to this case.

    i think theres a dichotomy here where people are exploring the general laws... and people commenting on the specific incident


    i dont think anyone can argue that it wasnt a line out.


  • Options
    #1436
    Flipper22
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭Flipper22


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Does it matter that he's in touch before jumping? I wouldn't have thought so

    Yes.


  • Options
    #1437
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    /looks through the last page or so

    Oddly, this is why I love rugby...


  • Options
    #1438
    ssaye2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭ssaye2


    OptaJonny @OptaJonny · 24h 24 hours ago 52 - @JordiMurphy1


  • Options
    #1439
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    Jesus. I feel exhausted just reading that.


  • Options
    #1440
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,200 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    It's a fairly remarkable statistic. That's close to hitting every second ruck which is freakish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,563 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Buer wrote: »
    It's a fairly remarkable statistic. That's close to hitting every second ruck which is freakish.

    I'm surprised this wasn't linked already:

    http://www.the42.ie/analysis-ireland-england-rucks-1971929-Mar2015/

    Murphy hitting that many is freakish, but POC's first arrival numbers are just insane.


Advertisement