How do you regulate all those irritating foot out of play/over a line when the ball is not going that way any time soon?

Anyone who knows anything about modern rugby knows what I'm on about.

My Dad absolutely hates it Portnoy when players do that.

I don't see the problem with it

Nah HoT, It's just an exploitation of a loophole like a tax avoidance measure.

I'm sure that the law was not made with this in mind.

It was a clever loophole that was cleverly exploited a few years back. But now that the RWC hiatus on Law changes is over, I think that it's time for a re-think.

For one thing it makes the game even more impenetrable to the new spectator. (as if it is not like Greco-Mandarin already).

How is it a loophole? Isn't it specified that if the ball is moving and picked up by a player in touch it counts as going into touch? That's not a loop hole.

And how is it impenetrable? It's pretty basic

The point is HoT that the ball may be moving but never likely to go into touch (or equivalent).

The Laws were always framed with the ball in mind and not with an unforeseen 'clever' interpretation. It is entirely consistent with a tax avoidance loophole analogy.

Here's a quote from Law 19.5

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 in motion within the playing area, that player is deemed to have picked up the ball in touch (or touch-in-goal).

That's not a loophole. It is specifically outlined in the laws. It's not a grey area, it's not an undefined area, there's no interpretation issues involved. Nowhere does it suggest the ball would have to be going out in order for this law to apply. If fact that would be ridiculous because of the odd shaped ball, you can never know whether it would have gone out.

So in the spirit consistent with the wording of 19.5 , a player should be able to call a mark by catching a ball outside his 22 so long as his toe is within it.

When was 19.5 added to the laws?

So in the spirit consistent with the wording of 19.5 , a player should be able to call a mark by catching a ball outside his 22 so long as his toe is within it.

When was 19.5 added to the laws?

Sourcing the answer to my own question :

2009. http://essexrugbyrefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2009-law-change-summary.pdf (p 4)

So it is a new interpretation - which needs looking at imo.

What I find more irritating than the law,is players not knowing the law.
In the Blues v Reds game on Friday night, Queensland kicked the ball from about the half way line,as it rolled into the in goal area an Auckland forward caught up to it and just before it reached the dead ball line he forced it with both his feet about 6inches also from the dead ball line.

Had he known the rules,he could have got Auckland a scrum back in the Queensland half,instead it was a 22 restart.

It's not an interpretation. It's a new law (although do we know what changed in 2008?). It's sounds like a new law to clarify a situation that had previous existed. They've already looked into it and come down on the side of right.

If you don't like it then fine, just say so. Don't pretend that it's a loophole or something dodgy. This article would have been fine 5 years ago.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not an interpretation. It's a new law (although do we know what changed in 2008?). It's sounds like a new law to clarify a situation that had previous existed. They've already looked into it and come down on the side of right.

If you don't like it then fine, just say so. Don't pretend that it's a loophole or something dodgy. This article would have been fine 5 years ago.

I am saying so. And I've only just found out it came in with the ELVs.

It just doesn't look or feel right.

And it is for that reason I feel that it should be modified or got shot of.

Changed to what?

A judgement call I'm afraid. That the ball is likely to go into touch/dead. Or to put it another way, that the ball was not likely to do so, then the action is not justified.

Portnoy

But since everyone has to play under the same laws.then what damage does it cause?Dont you think there are plenty of other laws that would warant repealing before this?

Dont see the issue with this at all.

If you are touching a line you are part of the line. It is consistent with the rest of laws.

So yes if your foot is on the 22m line but your arms are outside the 22 you can call a mark.

You can touch a ball in motion and win a lineout.

You can ground a ball against the whitewash of the try line and claim 5 points rather than grounding within the try area.

I certainly dont see the issue with this though there is a hell of a lot of needless exceptions, grey areas and overly complicated laws in the book.

Got to agree with the people saying it really isn't an issue. If it bothers you, stop kicking the ball away!

Conversely of course, it can negate a fantastic kick which is dropped on a sixpence into (say the in-goal area) and is never going out only for a player to take an almighty 1.5-2m stride into dead-ball whist the attacking side are pounding down.

Portnoy
And the way to address that is to have reasonable sized in goal areas,say at least 15 to 22 metres deep. A few weeks ago I was watching a game I think it was Baths ground and the ingoals were about 6 feet deep.Makes it easy from a defensive point of view.

I hate it - especially when you see on replay that the player got it "wrong" - ie tries to have one foot in touch when catching the ball well in the field of play but foot is still in the air when he makes contact.


Funniest/worst I ever saw was when a player lay full length on the ground with toes out and arms stretched forward and touched a slowly moving ball - almost 3 yards from going out.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Portnoy
And the way to address that is to have reasonable sized in goal areas,say at least 15 to 22 metres deep. A few weeks ago I was watching a game I think it was Baths ground and the ingoals were about 6 feet deep.Makes it easy from a defensive point of view.

Youy may have to demolish a few football stands to achieve that laurie.

I like the current law because it is a simple way to play and a simple way to referee. In all Rugby, this is one of the easy laws. I would rather leave the easy ones alone and simplify the hard ones. I think it would be a nightmare for a referee to have to decide whether a ball was going out, going to touch the line or going to drop within play. If a player makes a great kick, then the receiver has the opportunity to negate the great kick, if in position and if he catches the ball.

Nothing wrong with catching the ball with one foot out, it is the same principal with a player running with the ball inside the lines but stepping out, whilst the ball is still in his hand, it just counts aginst him on that occassion.

Personally I like that players can attempt to field a ball with foot out of play - it often takes quick wits to decide to attempt it, and a fair amount of skill and dexterity to achieve it. So why dumb down the game by removing it?

I don't mind it, it encourages the attacking team to keep the ball in hand, or at least kick further infield, rather than kick for territory when they are outside their own 22.

Portnoy wrote:Conversely of course, it can negate a fantastic kick which is dropped on a sixpence into (say the in-goal area) and is never going out only for a player to take an almighty 1.5-2m stride into dead-ball whist the attacking side are pounding down.

Surely a contradiction? If I had a kicker that accurate, I would ask him why he is kicking into their in-goal, when it gives them the option of dotting down for a pressure relieving 22 drop-out?

Good point Robbo, if he is that accurate surely he would kick where the player is out of position.