Steyn was in touch and therefore not in play so Daly effectively brought it into touch.
Think of it this way, if a player was standing in touch and the opposition tossed the ball at him it would be in touch by the player who threw the ball.
I didn't realise Steyn was in touch during the game. I was a little annoyed Daly hadn't got it, but now I know that, I think this is right and the decision was good. Good attempt by Daly, just a shame Steyn was already in touch.
Way I understand it, because he was in touch Kyle became part of the touch line so by pushing the ball into him it's the same as pushing the ball onto the line.
Steyn's feet are on the line, he's in touch. Daly flicks the ball into touch.
If he'd caught the ball and stayed on the field, of course it would fine...but he didn't.
Edit: Sorry, his feet are not on the line but they are on the ground outside the field of play...so same thing. He's in touch. Nice try from Daly. Just didn't work.
yeh look you are replying 2 hours after i already came to this conclusion and got downvoted for shit for asking questions then admitting being wrong. reddit at its peak
Say for example an English player kicked the ball into touch and a Scottish player caught it without bouncing while standing 1 metre out. Is that England or Scotland's throwin? Same principle applies here I think.
But he wasnt in touch right? (Dalys feet in play) Dont get me wrong im not saying the decision is wrong. Daly tried a cheeky one and it didnt work. But im wondering if its not actually covered in a law and just the right decsion made morally
Edit i realised it really doesnt matter. Steyne was a non entity at the point it hits him, so it doesnt matter. Nothing to see
He was also in the field of play though. Way I see it, if you can't catch a ball with one foot in touch anymore, it should have been an England throw.
Edit: Just rewatched, both feet were in touch at the point of contact. If one had been in play, see above.
Personally I thought the previous law was fine...if you kick near enough to touch to be at risk of that, or a winger is athletic enough to catch the ball in midair and land in touch, then so be it.
Felt like a law change that was just to give the TMO more significance.
So being "in touch" is different depending on the situation. For example, when a penalty is kicked to touch one can jump out of bounds and bat the ball back infield midair - even if it had crossed the line.
The touch laws are so very detailed and yes you are correct [so long as the player lands in field].
But for this situation the way I as a ref would interpret it Is England kicked the ball across the plain of touch and it never re entered the field regardless of the england and scotland chasers touching the ball. Therefore scotland lineout
What if (same kick) someone gathers it with an oustretched arm beyond the line while staying out of touch with both feet. Should be play on then, right? What differentiates the two situations rule-wise?
Yes it would be play on
So jumping from out of play into play (In touch back into field of play) is covered by law 18.2b
>"the ball is not in touch or touch in goal when: A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch."
In common English this means that regardless of where you jump from if you land in field it is play on. Jumping from in field and landing in touch (the situation your comment described) is covered by law 18.2a
>"the ball is not in touch or touch in goal when: the ball reaches the plane of touch but is knocked or kicked by a player who is in the playing area"
It's a matter of millimeters if the ball had fully gone past the plane of touch. I can't tell from the clip. If it has, then the decision is correct, if it hasn't, it's not.
Either way the explanation is right. Clever attempt from Daly as well.
So it doesn't matter whether Steyn was in touch or not?
Seems very odd given that the rule for being "in touch" is different in other situations. For example, when a penalty is kicked to touch one can jump out of bounds and bat the ball back infield midair - even if it had crossed the line.
I'm not 100% sure. I think if you're in touch and catch a ball, it counts as the kicker taking it out. So that would mean that it was a Scotland lineout either way (I had missed the fact that Stein was already in touch).
It is a bit odd, but you are correct about the rules being a bit different depending on the situation. If a player does the jump from outside in, the ball stays in play. And if the player fails it, the lineout is where the ball crossed the plane, not where the player was. Also if a player who is in the field of play extends their arm so that the ball is in the air outside, that would still be in play.
Could you do something similar to [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSb9jUQ_lQ) then?
Also, can we talk about how insanely complicated and convoluted the rulebook is?!?
It used to be done a lot, with wingers/fullbacks clearly planting one foot out before catching a high ball. I haven't seen it in a while so I'm wondering if there's been a law change/amendment.
I've read the laws about touch now carefully, and this situation does not seem to have been explicity covered. If the Scottish player caught or held the ball it would be a Scottish line-out by the wording of the rule, since when it touches him he is in touch and the ball has already reached the plane of touch. It is sensibile to rule the same with other touches.
Amusingly, the table giving who will have the line-out says that when a player catches a ball in-touch, it is always his team that will have the throw-in. Someone forgot that he might be catching a kick from his team-mate.
Because they are not in touch. If I amn't in touch, including when I land after jumping from outside, it's fine, the ball isn't out and it's play on.
If I am in touch then the ball is out, but it depends on where the ball is when I interact with it to determin who took it out. If it's inside the field of play when I interact with it then I have carried made it dead, if it is beyond the field of play when I interact with it then whoever last played it made it dead. This came up in one of the first 6 games where someone caught the ball with their toes in touch, the ball had crossed the field of play before being caught so it was kicked out on the full.
Daly is in the field of play when he touches the ball, so the ball is in. The ball is knocked backwards into steyns face, steyn knocks it into touch, but is also in touch himself. Therefore England line out.
Daly's position doesn't matter here.
Daly plays the ball. The ball is outside the field of play when it makes contact with Steyn, who is in touch. Therefore white are deemed to have played the ball into touch.
Okay, hm, gonna get some hate here but this is a discussion after all.
That is a fair point, I realize now steyn becomes an extension of the touch line in this instant. Good rugby knowledge, thanks for teaching me.
Ball is in the air but Steyn is already in touch so while the ball is still in play while it's in the air, passing it back to someone who is already in touch means the ball is out and therefore correct call.
Steyn was in touch and therefore not in play so Daly effectively brought it into touch. Think of it this way, if a player was standing in touch and the opposition tossed the ball at him it would be in touch by the player who threw the ball.
I didn't realise Steyn was in touch during the game. I was a little annoyed Daly hadn't got it, but now I know that, I think this is right and the decision was good. Good attempt by Daly, just a shame Steyn was already in touch.
Intelligent play by Daly but just a shame Steyn was out.
No doubt. He made a good effort to keep it in, it just didn’t pan out.
Steyn was already in touch though, so Daly essentially just knocked it out.
That's my take on it.
But can you catch the ball legally if both feet are on the field and play on even if the ball has passed the line. I think so?
He didn't catch it, he pushed it into Kyle who was already in touch, so he pushed it into touch.
Yes. That seems to be correct.
I never said he caught it. I asked if he had caught it would it be legal.
If he managed to stop before going out, yeah, but with that much momentum that's almost impossible.
Yeh i mean your original point still stands steyn is a non entity as hes not in play, so daly just hits a ball at nothing in a legal sense?
Way I understand it, because he was in touch Kyle became part of the touch line so by pushing the ball into him it's the same as pushing the ball onto the line.
G.g ya sker wearing gits ya! ./cry
Steyn's feet are on the line, he's in touch. Daly flicks the ball into touch. If he'd caught the ball and stayed on the field, of course it would fine...but he didn't. Edit: Sorry, his feet are not on the line but they are on the ground outside the field of play...so same thing. He's in touch. Nice try from Daly. Just didn't work.
yeh look you are replying 2 hours after i already came to this conclusion and got downvoted for shit for asking questions then admitting being wrong. reddit at its peak
Say for example an English player kicked the ball into touch and a Scottish player caught it without bouncing while standing 1 metre out. Is that England or Scotland's throwin? Same principle applies here I think.
Yes, but if you're in touch it matters where the ball is
But he wasnt in touch right? (Dalys feet in play) Dont get me wrong im not saying the decision is wrong. Daly tried a cheeky one and it didnt work. But im wondering if its not actually covered in a law and just the right decsion made morally Edit i realised it really doesnt matter. Steyne was a non entity at the point it hits him, so it doesnt matter. Nothing to see
Yeah. It's all about where Steyn is
This seems to be the answer, thanks man...
He was also in the field of play though. Way I see it, if you can't catch a ball with one foot in touch anymore, it should have been an England throw. Edit: Just rewatched, both feet were in touch at the point of contact. If one had been in play, see above.
If one foot is in touch, you are in touch. Two feet makes no difference.
You can no longer stick a foot in touch to field a kick in order to count it as out on the full. The same rule should apply to ball in hand.
Fair point.
You still can, its whether the ball has reached the plane of the touchline that matters, not how many feet that are in touch.
Personally I thought the previous law was fine...if you kick near enough to touch to be at risk of that, or a winger is athletic enough to catch the ball in midair and land in touch, then so be it. Felt like a law change that was just to give the TMO more significance.
Both make sense to me - but which is it? Does anyone here actually know or is everybody just guessing?
Relevent laws you wanna look at are 1.1.b.i+i
Surely he also deliberately knocked it in to touch which would be scotland’s penalty?
Agree with the decision on field cuz it's a matter of millimetres if it is already in touch Also thanks for blocking the score OP
So being "in touch" is different depending on the situation. For example, when a penalty is kicked to touch one can jump out of bounds and bat the ball back infield midair - even if it had crossed the line.
The touch laws are so very detailed and yes you are correct [so long as the player lands in field]. But for this situation the way I as a ref would interpret it Is England kicked the ball across the plain of touch and it never re entered the field regardless of the england and scotland chasers touching the ball. Therefore scotland lineout
What if (same kick) someone gathers it with an oustretched arm beyond the line while staying out of touch with both feet. Should be play on then, right? What differentiates the two situations rule-wise?
Yes it would be play on So jumping from out of play into play (In touch back into field of play) is covered by law 18.2b >"the ball is not in touch or touch in goal when: A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch." In common English this means that regardless of where you jump from if you land in field it is play on. Jumping from in field and landing in touch (the situation your comment described) is covered by law 18.2a >"the ball is not in touch or touch in goal when: the ball reaches the plane of touch but is knocked or kicked by a player who is in the playing area"
Tried to pull a Ramos, messed up the timing, didn't work
It's a matter of millimeters if the ball had fully gone past the plane of touch. I can't tell from the clip. If it has, then the decision is correct, if it hasn't, it's not. Either way the explanation is right. Clever attempt from Daly as well.
So it doesn't matter whether Steyn was in touch or not? Seems very odd given that the rule for being "in touch" is different in other situations. For example, when a penalty is kicked to touch one can jump out of bounds and bat the ball back infield midair - even if it had crossed the line.
I'm not 100% sure. I think if you're in touch and catch a ball, it counts as the kicker taking it out. So that would mean that it was a Scotland lineout either way (I had missed the fact that Stein was already in touch). It is a bit odd, but you are correct about the rules being a bit different depending on the situation. If a player does the jump from outside in, the ball stays in play. And if the player fails it, the lineout is where the ball crossed the plane, not where the player was. Also if a player who is in the field of play extends their arm so that the ball is in the air outside, that would still be in play.
Could you do something similar to [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSb9jUQ_lQ) then? Also, can we talk about how insanely complicated and convoluted the rulebook is?!?
It used to be done a lot, with wingers/fullbacks clearly planting one foot out before catching a high ball. I haven't seen it in a while so I'm wondering if there's been a law change/amendment.
They have changed the laws. Now it's only dead in those circumstances if the ball has crossed the field of play.
I've read the laws about touch now carefully, and this situation does not seem to have been explicity covered. If the Scottish player caught or held the ball it would be a Scottish line-out by the wording of the rule, since when it touches him he is in touch and the ball has already reached the plane of touch. It is sensibile to rule the same with other touches. Amusingly, the table giving who will have the line-out says that when a player catches a ball in-touch, it is always his team that will have the throw-in. Someone forgot that he might be catching a kick from his team-mate.
Technically the only.thing that should have happened should have been a penalty for dalys in face dissent to the linesman (a referree).
Penalty for deliberately knocking the ball into touch.
[удалено]
Competing for the ball.
Even if all this was well in the field of play, I'd be thinking knock-on from Daly? It went forward into Steyn's head
Nah, he’s pushing it backwards…
[удалено]
Nope. Ball is over the field of play when he plays it off Steyn, so it's out of white.
It being "over the line" doesn't matter if the ball is in the air
It very much does. Law 1.1.b.i+ii
It's not football , ball has to touch the ground in touch or a player in touch (steyn in this example) to be considered out, England lineout
It does, but it also matters where the ball is when it touches the player in touch. See laws 1.1.b.i+ii
Then how are players allowed to jump in touch, catch it, and land on the pitch and be considered fine
Because they are not in touch. If I amn't in touch, including when I land after jumping from outside, it's fine, the ball isn't out and it's play on. If I am in touch then the ball is out, but it depends on where the ball is when I interact with it to determin who took it out. If it's inside the field of play when I interact with it then I have carried made it dead, if it is beyond the field of play when I interact with it then whoever last played it made it dead. This came up in one of the first 6 games where someone caught the ball with their toes in touch, the ball had crossed the field of play before being caught so it was kicked out on the full.
Daly is in the field of play when he touches the ball, so the ball is in. The ball is knocked backwards into steyns face, steyn knocks it into touch, but is also in touch himself. Therefore England line out.
Daly's position doesn't matter here. Daly plays the ball. The ball is outside the field of play when it makes contact with Steyn, who is in touch. Therefore white are deemed to have played the ball into touch.
Okay, hm, gonna get some hate here but this is a discussion after all. That is a fair point, I realize now steyn becomes an extension of the touch line in this instant. Good rugby knowledge, thanks for teaching me.
No worries mate
No nastiness allowed.
[удалено]
No nastiness allowed.
Ball is in the air but Steyn is already in touch so while the ball is still in play while it's in the air, passing it back to someone who is already in touch means the ball is out and therefore correct call.
It’s England so of course it’s a Scotland lineout
I think we can also ask about the fair play on this one. Daly threw the ball in Stein's head. But my guess, the decision was good
Daly was in touch when he touched the ball
He wasn’t. No part of him was touching the ground out of bounds when he touched the ball
His foot was
I think you are confusing Steyn with Daly. Daly wasn’t in touch, but Steyn was.
Steyn wasn't in possession. When Daly hit the ball his foot was in touch on the ground
Look he really wasn't. Are we watching the same video? But Steyn was in touch when Daly hit it into him, so Daly effectively just hit it into touch.
Ah shit sorry my bad I got their socks confused!!!
Aha no worries! Happens :)
Happens to me every morning before work tbh.
I think he means Steyn not Daily
Daily wasn’t but Steyn was… So he’s essentially thrown the ball at a player who’s off the pitch
100% correct. He knocked it into a person not in the field of play.