GO BOKKE!!!

The Welsh when carring the ball were protected by the ref, they could hold on, go over the top and carry on as they wished and that enabled them to carry the ball through multiple phases of play. We didn't enjoy such protection and were blown for holding on or going over the top or going off our feet etc etc I must say, though, holding onto the ball and setting up several phases of play has been an element sadly lacking in our game not just now but a number of seasons. If we don't score from either set pieces or 2nd or 3rd phase we not lightly to..
 
sandmanm34 said:
Agreed but not if the ball has bounced in the field of play.. once is has bounced in the field of play it's in play...
Click to expand...

Yes, the ball is in play at that point. But if the player is outside of the field of play and touches the ball, he is effectively out and has never touched the ball. Therefore, it's his team's line-out. Nothing wrong there! Now had he been in the field of play, picked the ball up, then put a foot out, it would be the opposition's throw in. The rules are simple - touch the line and you are out of play.

There is an alternative, come to think about it - no player outside of the field of play may interfere with another player or the ball. That would solve the issue I suppose, without contravening any other laws and seems fair as well. If you're out, you cannot touch the ball - I'd agree with that. Although I don't have much of an issue with the rules as they are at the moment - both teams are afforded the same luxuries...
 
DJK said:
Effectively merely touching the line puts a player out. If he were holding the ball at the time and it was his possession, it would be our ball. But if he initially touches the ball from outside of the field of play, he effectively hasn't touched the ball at all and it is his possession. Personally I have no issue with it - how does one change the law then to accommodate for this without contravening other laws? And even if they fixed it to say that a player with one foot in the field of play is considered in, well that just changes rugby to an extent then. They cannot stipulate conditions for this either, because the ball could travel to the touch-line in any number of different ways.

Bissie was penalised fair and square IMO though - he interfered with quick line-out from within the 5m line...
Click to expand...

Well here you go DJK, from a forum I found as I was sure I had read something about it before. It is long but I have bolded the relevant parts :

Subject: Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
Date: January 21, 2008
Ruling: 1: 2008
The RFU has requested rulings relating to IRB Ruling 14:2003.
Under IRB Ruling 14: 2003, the Designated Members ruled the following:
Ruling

If a player with one or both feet inside (presumably on or behind) the 22-metre line, picks up the ball which was stationary outside the 22-metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and therefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball was kicked.

If a player with one or both feet inside (presumably on or behind) the 22-metre line, picks up the ball which was in motion outside the 22-metre line, and kicks it directly into touch, then the player has not taken the ball back inside the 22-metre line, and herefore the line-out is formed in line with where the ball crossed the touch-line.

With this in mind, the RFU requests a ruling with regard to the following:
(In both the above and in our request, we have assumed that ‘in motion’ applies to both a ball in the air and to a ball rolling along the ground).

1. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line, picks up the ball, which was stationary within the field of play, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in the field of play and thereby that player has taken the ball into in-goal?

2. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line picks up the ball, which was in motion within the field of play, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball within in-goal?

3. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the deal ball line, picks up the ball, which was stationary within in-goal, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball in in-goal and thereby that player has made the ball dead?

4. If a player with one or both feet on or behind the dead ball line picks up the ball, which was in motion within in-goal, is that player deemed to have
picked up the ball outside the playing area?

5. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was stationary within the playing area, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in the playing area and thereby that player has taken the ball into touch (or touch-in-goal)?

6. If a player with one or both feet on or beyond the touch-line (or touch-in-goal line), picks up the ball, which was in motion within the playing are, is that player deemed to have picked up the ball in touch (or touch-in-goal)?

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question
raised:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes

Yours sincerely,
David Carrigy
Click to expand...

Not sure if these are in effect yet (and today's example proves nothing as the ref missed so much else - think Welshman carrying the ball over the goal line from Ruan's kick!) but it means that in today's case the Welshman would have been ruled to have taken the ball into touch and hence an SA lineout.

By the way this is a rugby referees forum : http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5346
 
Last edited:
LancelotSA said:
Well here you go DJK, from a forum I found as I was sure I had read something about it before. It is long but I have bolded the relevant parts :
Click to expand...

Thanks - interesting. I wasn't aware that a ruling had been made in this respect. I still think it would have been easier had they just stated that no player considered outside of the field of play may interfere with play in any way.

Ah, hang on - then it removes the option of catching a ball with a foot in touch I suppose. Ah well - learned something new today. I agree with the ruling that if the ball is stationary then it should be possession to the opposition - makes sense.

The one thing to bear in mind, is that that was a ruling made by the RFU's interpretation of IRB rules, not an IRB decision as far as I read it...
 
DJK said:
Thanks - interesting. I wasn't aware that a ruling had been made in this respect. I still think it would have been easier had they just stated that no player considered outside of the field of play may interfere with play in any way.

Ah, hang on - then it removes the option of catching a ball with a foot in touch I suppose. Ah well - learned something new today. I agree with the ruling that if the ball is stationary then it should be possession to the opposition - makes sense.

The one thing to bear in mind, is that that was a ruling made by the RFU's interpretation of IRB rules, not an IRB decision as far as I read it...
Click to expand...
Yeah that's the point. Had Ruan kicked the ball from outside his 22 and the Welsh full back had caught the ball before it bounced in field, with one foot in play and one foot out, then the line out would have taken place from the Springbok 22 with a Welsh put in...
 
I really think that the only option should be to be standing with both feet in touch and then lean in field and catch it if you want it to be ruled out. Or jumping and catching it in field and then landing with BOTH feet in touch.

Think about the fact that the Welshman effectively killed play. In some instances a player will stretch across the touch line, with both feet in field, to keep the ball live. The aim of rugby rules should be to keep the ball alive. We want more play not less.

There should be no option to put both feet in touch and then lean across, resting on one hand in field, and dotting the ball down to make it dead, as I have seen. No part of your body should be allowed to be in field if you want the ball to be called out.... and I think this is what the interpretations above are suggesting.

A further problem with the way it currently is, is if you watch a replay in slow motion the player often gets the timing slightly wrong and touches the ball a little while before putting the foot in touch... too much of a grey area that we don't need! It also usually penalises the attacking team!
 
LancelotSA said:
I really think that the only option should be to be standing with both feet in touch and then lean in field and catch it if you want it to be ruled out. Or jumping and catching it in field and then landing with BOTH feet in touch.

Think about the fact that the Welshman effectively killed play. In some instances a player will stretch across the touch line, with both feet in field, to keep the ball live. The aim of rugby rules should be to keep the ball alive. We want more play not less.

There should be no option to put both feet in touch and then lean across, resting on one hand in field, and dotting the ball down to make it dead, as I have seen. No part of your body should be allowed to be in field if you want the ball to be called out.... and I think this is what the interpretations above are suggesting.

A further problem with the way it currently is, is if you watch a replay in slow motion the player often gets the timing slightly wrong and touches the ball a little while before putting the foot in touch... too much of a grey area that we don't need! It also usually penalises the attacking team!
Click to expand...

If this were a common occurrence I would tend to agree with you - but it isn't, and it doesn't interfere with the flow of a game too much. I don't have that much of an issue with working the law to your favour. Had we been under as much pressure and Jantjies had intentionally put a foot in touch while taking a kick, I doubt we would be having this conversation right now. I don't have an issue with what you suggest as far as an idea goes, but to change the laws for the few times that it happens, well I'm not sure about that.

Although I can imagine that had this been a common occurrence back in Andre Houbert's heyday, we probably wouldn't have seen as many successful 80m kicks (besides his 50m passes). Sometimes as a flyhalf you think you've kicked the perfect attacking ball, only to be called out by a conniving little full-back.

I see where you're coming from - and I wouldn't lose sleep over a decision being made either way about it TBH...
 
I seem to notice it happening a lot nowadays and it never used to. The professional era probably means the players and coaches have more time to pick apart the amateur rules and see where they can exploit them.

I recall an All Black player sticking his feet over the dead ball area in one game and then lying across the field to touch a ball in goal and thereby getting a scrum where the ball was kicked.

I do not think frequency should play a part in determining if something is right or not. Imagine that one decision would have been a lineout five metres out when your team in 5 points down with 5 minutes on the clock!

It would not involve changing the laws but rather tweaking and clarifying the exisitng laws (although this is a necessity with any laws. Things change and so the laws need to too. Especially when you are using amateur rules in a professional era!). Just for your information, the current law only states, amongst others :

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a
foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. (1)

If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and
holds the ball, the ball is in touch. (2)

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the
playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
Click to expand...

(1) The welshman did not catch the ball...
(2) An area which needs clarification and what we are discussing really... was he "holding" the ball. Very vague to say the least....


EDIT : I'm sorry it takes away from the game...when someone hoofs the ball down field and it goes in goal, all us fans sit with baited breath hoping it does not go dead... the balls jumps a few times and then slowly rolls towards the dead ball line.... it slows... it stops..... and we start to cheer... then the opposition player goes around and positions himself in the dead ball area leans across and touches the ball that came to a stop just inside the field of play.... play is taken all the way back to where the kicker kicked it even though it was actually a PERFECT kick by him! NO, I just don't like it.....





.....AND...... :)

Had we been under as much pressure and Jantjies had intentionally put a foot in touch while taking a kick, I doubt we would be having this conversation right now
Click to expand...

If the truth be known, as a fan of the game of rugby, I would much prefer to see Jantjes forced to pick up the ball and counter attack or weasel his way out of the pressure put on by the advancing players.... the foot in touch option does not make for interesting viewing! ;)
 
Last edited:
Pathetic showing from the 'ref' .... he might as well have just worn a red jersey to make his bias official ffs.

That said, it wasn't the greatest of games from us ... we need to step it the hell up because we are supposed to be much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X