IT’S THE LAW: Did Cory Jane score a try?

Matt Rowley October 24, 2012 96

No GravatarI’m sure those of us not wearing black eyepatches on Saturday breathed a sigh of relief when another pesky piece of Cory Jane aerial acrobatics wound up with his running into touch before being able to dot the ball down.

I even joked that I’d be able to name the Kiwi posters on the GAGR forum who would swear blind it was a try — as deluded as that might be.

Well, maybe it wasn’t quite so cut and dried. Here’s the vid of what happened.

And here’s the LAW.

According to Law 19 Touch and Lineout:

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.

This is exactly what Jane does twice to start with — so, ‘play on’ at that stage.

Jane then jumped up from outside the touch line, caught the ball and landed in the field of play. The law says:

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. 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.

Therefore, if Jane caught the ball in the air he was not in touch and so the plane of touch reference to the ball doesn’t apply.

So it all comes down to whether he was in touch as he finally caught the ball. Here are the two 1/25th-second frames from the video around when Jane caught the ball.

Toe on ground, ball not in hand

Toe not on ground, ball in hand

You can argue either way that when he finally caught the ball he was or was not in touch. In one frame his toe is on the ground but ball is not in his hands; in the next frame ball is in his hand but his toe has left the ground. The difference between the frames is 1/25th of a second so it’s almost impossible to say for sure.

On the night, the Assistant Referee must have incorrectly judged Jane to be in touch when he first juggled the ball, as that’s where he called the lineout.

So what do you say?

Law 19: Touch and Lineout

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. 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.

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. 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.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

Discussion

  • Keith

    The ball’s about 1 foot over the try line when he grabs it from outside of touch. Absolutely no doubt it’s out.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      “Try line”? Assuming you’re talking about the “touch-line” then according to the law it doesn’t matter if it’s gone over the plane of touch as long as he doesn’t have a foot outside of touch as or after he catches it.

      • Jimmy

        Hi Matt – you opened up a great discussion here. Nice article.

        Not sure if I agree with your interpretation though. I believe the rules are not as clear on this point as you have interpreted.

        “f 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.”

        But he did cross the line and so did the ball! So maybe it is out??

        But then they say this – without clarifying it “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.”

        Maybe I’m wrong but I think these laws need to be written a little better. I can see both sides of the argument here.

      • Keith

        sorry, I meant touch line, not try line.

  • Parker

    This is fabulous. Love the precision and specificity this affords us. Thank God they didn’t have access to this during the game!

  • Jimmy

    At 0:29 he appears to have just grazed the touchline with his left foot as he touches the ball – but I’m prepared to say that possibly this isn’t the case. But this may be what the linesman judged. Have a look at see if you do or don’t agree.

    At 0:34 I believe the ball has crossed the plane of the touchline. Having read the rules – I’m a little confused. According to what you have posted above, if he “knocks” the ball at this time then the ball is out according to this section.

    “A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. ”

    But he actually catches it.

    “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. 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.”

    Surely they aren’t saying that if a player catches the ball (which has crossed the plane of the line), having jumped from outside the touchline, and lands in the field of play – then it is play on???

    This would seem to be against the spirit of every other law that is posted.

    I’m not rules expert but I would assume if you are out and the ball has crossed the plane of the line, you can’t jump back into the field and catch it half way. If you could, why would you see so many people ensuring their feet are in the field of play when they tap penalty kicks etc back into the field? Surely they would just stand outside the field and jump and catch the ball and land back inside the field??

    • Jimmy

      “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.”

      Having read this again I’m fairly confident the ball is in touch given it has crossed the plane of the touch line.

      The confusing part is the sentence ” 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.”

      Maybe the IRB needs to clarify this one??

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002583740113 Cave Dweller

        Law is not confusing nor was it a try. It is so simple.

        Law 19 DEFINITIONS
        The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.
        The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.

        Yes, Cory Jane did well to keep the ball in play. Yes, he did not carry the ball while he was in touch. Unfortunately for him, the ball crossed the line of touch, and because he was beyond the touchline, the ball is deemed out, even though he jumped and landed in the field of play.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      “I’m not rules expert but I would assume if you are out and the ball has crossed the plane of the line, you can’t jump back into the field and catch it half way.”

      Where does it say that?

      “If you could, why would you see so many people ensuring their feet are in the field of play when they tap penalty kicks etc back into the field? Surely they would just stand outside the field and jump and catch the ball and land back inside the field??’

      Yes, as long as you were in the air when you caught it and landed both feet in the field of play. Often players stand over the touch line for kick off receipt for example.

      • Jimmy

        Agreed that it doesn’t specifically say that but if you read the section of rules posted as a whole my interpretation was that this was going against the “feel” of them.

      • Jimmy

        Matt does this also mean that a player can jump from inside the field of play, catch a kick and land out. Effectively ensuring that the kick is judged to be out on the full?

      • Brumby Runner

        The crucial issue for me is whether a player who jumps from in touch is judged to have both feet in the playing area while he is in the air. Personally, I think in that case the player and therefore the ball are both in touch, but it is confused by the second part that refers to both feet landing in the field of play. I think this reference probably should be read as meaning the player has jumped from the playing area and then lands with both feet still in the playing area. Despite the confusing laws, common sense says Jane was in touch, and that was what the touch judge ruled.

        • Jimmy

          Yes – that’s what I was trying to say. Just not as clearly.

      • Steve

        I’m not sure who’s right and who’s wrong, but this debate has been had before (with similarly unclear outcomes).

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA3amXZ4l5I

        http://www.facebook.com/rugbydump/posts/200306773315122?comment_id=2845971

  • Keith

    argh, first poster from above. I meant ‘touch line’ not try line. Still think the ball’s out when he grabs it.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      I agree with you, but that doesn’t matter.

      Question is whether his foots on the ground or not when he does

  • TerribleTowel

    I’d say he’s deliberately passing it forward (even though it is to himself) so as to ensure he can’t be hit when he doesn’t have the ball. Should have been penalty Wallabies. (Only kidding, line out to the wallabies seems reasonable)

    • Train Without A Station

      Yes I agree to an extent. Should it not be a knock on? He juggles the ball forward and steps out in the process. Once your fingertip touches the ball you are able to be tackled, because you are judged in possesion. If it bounced into a Wallaby it would have been a knock on, so once he steps into touch after first touching the ball, it’s a knock on.

  • Raury

    Matt, I tip my hat to starting a conversation which precludes “troll” interaction.

    At the end of the day, the adjudication of the rule by the video referee produces the “correct” decision. Therefore, no try.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      er, the video ref didn’t rule?

  • robbo

    Go back to 30 secs on the vid – at his very first touch his right foot is just touching the line – the rest is OK, but he was out. However it would be interesting to know at which point the touchie decided he was out

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      He can have both feet out of touch as long as

      1) ball hasn’t crossed the plane of touch

      2) He doesn’t hold the ball

      • suckerforred

        However that is not how it has been adjucated in the past. If you are touching the ball (not holding) & have touched the line it has been adjucitated to have been out. I think the touchie has got it right based on precedent & in the spirit of the game if not in the strict sense of the laws.

  • Gibbo

    What is the law that defines if a player is in Touch? not the ball but the player. If I remember rightly (a few revisions ago) a player’s “Last place” his feet were defined his place.

    Ie if his feet were last in the field of play he was able to jump, catch/knock the ball back into the field of play.

    If this is the case – kick off receipts could take place outside of the field of play by lifting the catcher and passing it back in field.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      Find me that and you’ve solved it!

      • Red Kev

        According to “rugbyrefs.com” (credit to poster “Davet”):
        1st touch: his left foot was on the touch line as he touched the ball which stayed infield of the plane of touch.
        2nd touch: he was also in touch and knocked the ball again, which this time crossed the plane of touch.
        Catch: he was outside the plane of touch even though in the air, and the ball was across the plane of touch when he caught it – which means the 2nd touch didn’t knock the ball back into the field of play.

        He may be in touch and knock the ball back into the field of play. He didn’t he knocked it and it crossed the plane of touch where he caught it.

        Apparently Mark Lawrence was asked about this exact situation once (if a player jumping from touch catching the ball in the air and landing in the field of play was allowed to play on) and he responded that no the ball was in touch once it was touched by the player in touch.

        Apparently there is also possible cause to classify Jane’s actions as a deliberate knock forward to himself which is a penalty offence.

    • Ian

      That was an old law thrown out in the late 90′s i think. Cause i remember my team started to jump from in touch to the field of play to keep the ball live and it infuriated the opposition for a few weeks.

    • CT Hong Kong

      The laws on this issue are quite poorly written, would it not be easier for all involved if the law was simplified to look at the origin of the player holding/touching/knocking the ball?? Ignore the “plane of touch rule”, this is not the NFL and I don’t want to see the game going that way.
      If a player jumps from inside the field of play and knocks the ball into the field of play, game on! If a player starts from outside the field of play (whether jumping, skipping, hopping, whatever), then that player is declared “in touch” and any contact with the ball will render the ball “in touch” and the ball is dead. If a player starts from outside the field of play, they will be declared “in play” if they make contact with playing surface, before making contact with the ball and so, play on.
      Simple!

      • CT Hong Kong

        Obviously in relation to the below, the ball itself must not have touched any object outside the field of play (grass, hoardings, touch-judge, ball-boy, etc) before the “in play” player makes contact with it.

        If a player jumps from inside the field of play and knocks the ball into the field of play, game on!

  • Raury

    Apologies Matt, I was under the influence while watching so my recollection is a touch hazy.

    Regardless, the referee’s job is to interpret the particular rule. Again, no try.

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      Raury – clearly it’s not in the scorebook so it wasn’t.

      Question is – should it have been?

      Be a dangerous free thinker!!

      • Dave

        Oh, you old anarchist, you!

  • Gibbo

    To look at this another way – think about 19.2(e)
    Quick throw-in

    • robbo

      You don’t get the throw in when you put it into touch

      • Gibbo

        Exactly. I deem it No Try.

        The last time he touches the ball before catching it and scoring is at 0:30. He has his foot on the touch line and as a result is in touch.

        If the tap on is deemed a “quick throw in” he has browen 19.2(e)

        Raury

        http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/5/19/169/during-the-match/touch-and-lineout/definitions/#clause_169

        • Brumby Runner

          So, in that situation, if he had knocked the ball sideways or backwards and it had crossed the 5m line, it would have been deemed a quick throw in? If so, that surely implies that he and the ball were therefore in touch?

  • Jimmy

    Seems to me that we need someone from the IRB to clarify their interpretation of the rules for us – maybe the next podcast guest could be someone with knowledge in this area?

    Make sure they read this thread first.

    • Dave

      “Make sure they read this thread first” I think that would just confuse them.

      NTA below seems to clarify the issue, although my head is still spinning.

    • Dirty Socks

      This is a great article and a good discussion. But lets be honest amongst ourselves, no one would get any sense out of the IRB. When I refereed my first game in 1964, I had a small breast pocket sized booklet of Laws about an eigth of an inch thick. The last one I have seen was dated 2011, is half an inch thick and does not fit into a breast pocket. Those bastards are the ones who have expanded it to keep themselves busy and us confused.

  • Raury

    Matt / Gibbo – where can I find the “official rules” to dissect this?

    My “dangerous free thinking” analysis is, again, no try. Logically, a player couldn’t “juggle” the ball while “jumping” along outside the field of play. At some point, the ball has left the field of play regardless of the player’s attempts to “keep it alive”.

  • ShtinaTina

    Raury – the “Laws of the Game” are found here:
    http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html

  • ShtinaTina

    Matt – Interesting article, just glad it wasn’t awarded :)

  • ozusa

    So are you saying someone can run down the side line or into the grand stands jumping throwing the ball in the air jumping catching it again and throwing it in the air again on and on and its in play. What happeneds id you pass it to some one as long as they jump in the air to.
    Ok just joking But ?

    • warwick todd

      the image is priceless……..well done!

    • Benny

      You’d need very long arms because while you can be in the grandstand, the ball can’t have crossed the touch line.

      What I would like to know is, what happens if I run down the sideline, in touch, carrying one of my team mates sideways, with him holding the ball but making sure it is not carried over the touch line. He probably isn’t in touch so can hold rather than juggle the ball. Can the opposition tackle me even though I’m out?

  • Red Kev

    My understanding is that if he jumps from outside the touch line and catches a ball (that is across the plane of touch) carrying it back into the field of play it is still out. Am I wrong in that? (That is a genuine question by the way).

    According to the first part of the law “A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.”
    Jane is in touch after your stills, at 0:33 Jane is in touch. He then jumps. He is still in touch until he lands in the field of play – this is the corollary of a player jumping from the field of play to hit a ball – he’s not “in touch” until he lands (which is the point you are making with your stills). He has jumped from “in touch” while in the air he he is still in touch, he isn’t back in the field of play until he lands.
    He then catches the ball. A player in touch may not hold the ball.
    At 0:34 Jane is holding the ball in the air and that ball is across the plane of touch.
    Both Jane and the ball are in touch at this moment.

    The law states that “such a player” may knock the ball back into the field of play. That “such” ties it to the previous sentence where a player has both feet inside the field of play. Similarly it is saying that a jumping player must land inside the field of play to keep the ball in play, the inference from that sentence and it’s position in the paragraph is that he started in the field of play as well. I think that last sentence is somewhat ambiguous and needs a modifier that says such a player may not start his jump outside the field of play.

  • stinger

    Nice article Matt. I have spent a few beery sessions arguing this very LAW (nb rugby has laws not rules) with Barry Leask to the point of his frustration. When coaching I spend more than one session with backs (esp wingers & FBs) talking about these laws & how to use them to your advantage – it shows that Corey Jane is a competitor & a thinker.
    My feeling is that after his second tap of the ball it crosses the plane of touch before he leaps & catches therefore it is deemed out. If he’d leapt & caught the ball still inside the plane of touch I think it should have been a try.

    Furthermore – can we see a clip of Harris grounding the ball in goal at the oppsite end to this. I think there is more grounds with that one being a try than this (thank God they didn’t ask the TMO). Did anyone else think we got away with one there???

    • Dave

      Although it happened quickly I thought it was pretty clear that he grounded the ball. What was more of a worry though was that no other Wallaby made sure of the grounding and were just casually meandering as Conrad Smith jumped on it.

      But one confusing try interpretation at a time please!

    • sarco

      good spot – doesnt look like harris gets any pressure on it – thats a try

      • Red Kev

        There was beautiful clear footage of it on Total Rugby tonight, very obvious controlled downward grounding pressure.

  • NTA

    Yet another area where the Law is not precise in rugby. I’ve done the AR’s course and this was the most confusing bit without doubt, which sucks given its a primary purpose of an AR.

    The only relevant fact is that he caught the ball while it was on or outside the plane of touchm and at that point, he is an object in touch because he is not in the field of play.

    The instance you’re speaking of Gagger – where a player jumps and has his feet in the field of play at the end, only covers the situation where the ball has not crossed the plane of touch. That vertical line is all the difference. Correct call from the AR.

    Similarly, if a player is outside the field of play and knocks a ball (without carrying it) back into the field of play from beyond the line of touch, the ball is out.

    But a fabulous awareness of the Laws from Corey Jane – had that ball been two feet to his left when he jumped, try is on.

    • NTA

      The actual bit that counts: “… touches the touchline or anything or ANYONE on or beyond the touchline. “

    • Jimmy

      Great post NTA – many thanks for the clarification.

      • Red Kev

        Agreed, great post NTA. Also kudos on being an AR.

    • JimmyC

      Nice post but you are giving Jane too much credit. His IQ would struggle to top his shoe size.

      • NTA

        An impressive rugby player nonetheless – you don’t have to be a genius to understand the Touch Laws, you just have to know how the important bits work for you. As a winger, I’d say he’s had a fair bit of time to think about them, given its what he’s paid to do.

  • Raury

    ShtinaTina / Gibbo – thanks for the links.

    Red Kev – I agree with your comment in respect of “such”, it is certainly not a single rule … apologies, “law”, but an interaction of several laws which will resolve this one.

    Have to get back to my day job, but I will review this today and come back with my “opinion” (fear not Matt, this will be pro bono).

  • Timbo

    No because the Kiwi’s aren’t jumping up and down about how they were robbed.

    No Try.

  • Loito

    I always thought that a player had to leave the ground still in play to be able to keep it in, otherwise on a kick for touch you could stand 5 meters out and bat it back in?

    • Jimmy

      If the ball crosses the plane and you are out you can’t bat it back – that seems to be relatively clear.

      But Matt believes you can stand outside the line and jump, catch a ball that has crossed the plane and land in and that it would be considered in….I’m not so sure.

  • Jimmy

    So anyone got an opinion as to whether he was in touch before the point raised above.

    ie – at 0:29 – 0:30 in the video. Is his left foot on the line or not and is he touching the ball at the same instant.

    Is that out?

  • Gibbo

    NTA – nailed it.

    Pay the man.

  • Ian

    Every team gets rough calls against them every now and then…

    This is not one of those times,

    No Try, Australia A wuz Robbed!

    • Jimmy

      I see you got that avatar Ian. Should solve the problem.

      • Ian

        Yeah, It’s a tribute to Nathan Shar-pei

  • D-Box

    Despite the discussion re planes of touch and where did he jump from surely the more important issue to discuss for this particular situation is possession.

    Taking away the sideline for a moment, if the ball had hit an Australian player it would have been a knock on, but if he caught it again play on. In the first case jane would have lost possession in the second maintained it. The aussie players could also have tackled Jane the whole time he was juggling it too. If not as TwrribleTowl said before it would be a forward pass.

    If a player in possession of the ball touches or goes over the line – out therefore no try.

  • Bay35Pablo

    “provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline”

    Um, I think it has done this ….

    “knock the ball, but not hold it”

    He doesn’t knock it, he catches then flicks it. That’s enough to fall foul of the law.

  • ooaahh

    at 31 seconds precisely his foot is on the line (out) and he is holding the ball which is still in play (I have screen grab… how do I upload?), it’s clear as day.

  • Bruwheresmycar

    He complied with the touch laws in terms of body position. But you can’t run up and down the touch line juggling the ball to yourself. He passes it to himself on the 2nd touch, which constitutes holding it IMO. (and around about there the AR has signaled out) He should have just tapped it back infield and tried to regather or hope a team mate was nearby.

    Also the 3rd touch is one the IRB is yet to clarify. So it can go either way but possibly will be outlawed in the future.

    Oh well, maybe SA refs will give their take soon. It is an interesting case.

  • gel

    [IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img822/6435/notry.jpg[/IMG]

    Out. No try.

    • gel

      dammit – can one of the admins please edit that coding so the image comes up properly?

      • ooaahh

        same screen grab i have. Was touch and go and would be hard to see at full flight but in the cold hard light of video pause, definitely out.

        • gel

          Now, I am confused…

          “A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.”

          “The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the
          touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.”

          Those two lines are contradictory.

          Jane was knocking the ball – therefore according to the first statement the ball is not in touch..

          Jane was not carrying the ball – therefore according to the second statement the ball is in touch.

          Which is it????

  • p.Tah

    If it was a try Hansen would have had a whinge about it by now and blamed Harris’ grandmother for it

    • Bobas

      If he had thought to Hansen would have complained it wasn’t a regulation sized field.

  • the ardent b’stard

    Great piece Matt and I was left wondering at the time how close it was – no way any video ref (and I know he didntlook) or touchy would award it though.
    Still demonstrates the guy is a freak show and that a wingers primary job is to score in the corner!!!

  • redbull

    There needs to be photos of the lead up where he is “juggling” the ball while he is out of touch.

    Law 19 is interesting. So a player could stand (or run) outside touch and bat it back in without the effort of trying to jump off the ground at the same time? So long as he catches it back inside the field of play?

  • piggy

    Why did the AR not put his flag out, rather than go all Napoleon and only talk to Joubers…

    • piggy

      okay, he puts it out right at the end…

      the Honey Badger didn’t look very committed to stopping Jane getting to the line, lucky for him the try wasn’t awarded…

      • Jimmy

        I’m guessing the Honey Badger was thinking “This bloke is miles out”

  • Nutta

    Great article Matt.

    But I’m a simple man and this is hurting my head.

    I’ll come from a different angle and recite a story I was told by an old wizened leather-patched geezer who reminded me of the Badger from Wind in the Willows. Badger was despatched from the NSWRU to do a “country referees accreditation tour” when I first did my refs ticket back in the late 80′s (injury meant I was contemplating becoming “one of those”. Faced with such a choice I recovered). The story was how Law 6 came to spell out the bleeding obvious (“Why does it have to be so pedantic? Isn’t it obvious?”). In a cloud of smoke and smelling of brandy he drew a deep breath, smiled benevolently and with just a hint of condescension told me a story. It is probably a load of shit, but it was an old man explaining life to a young man, it makes sense and I remembered it ever since.

    Back in “The Day” Dally Messenger was apparently famous for running to the defensive line, throwing the ball in the air, running through the line and catching it. He would claim no “fumble” as it was termed then as the act was both intentional and regathered (so no fumble) and he also claimed no-one could tackle or impede him as he did not have the ball.

    This caused a real conundrum until the law was clarified some 12mths later to make an opponents touch on the lobbed ball to constitute a knock-on. But it screwed things up for a while.

    Then in 1923 (I think) the AB’s toured NSW and played with a 2-man front row. They argued this was perfectly legit as the laws at that time did not specify a 3-man front row. They put about 4 hookers in hospital in 3 games before the end of the tour. But they were allowed to “play on” as there was no law to prevent it there & then. It also screwed things up for a while. 6mths later there was a letter from the equivalent of the IRB sent afterwards clarifying the need for a 3man front row henceforth.

    According to the Badger it was these two issues that led to expansion of Law 6 to include sub-section A.4 to give a ref the clear authority to adjudicate “something sticky” in real time and clarifying that the sole judge of time, law & score is the ref.

    “If you’re confused or unsure young man, forget the rest of the Laws. They are trivial. Law 6 is the clincher. And don’t make the mistake of explaining yourself. Blow the whistle, call your decision and move on.”

    As such the Badger would of said “Out” so “Out” it is…

    • Dirty Socks

      Nutta I love it.

      However I was reading a book a few years ago about tours in Bok Land prior to WW2 and the ABs it seemed still had a two man front row then. I have the residual sense it was mid late 30s). They got their beans from the Bok three man front row.

    • Kiap

      Great stuff. Law 6, you know it makes sense!

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      Nice one nutsford. Could’ve saved me a few hours putting that post together!

  • Lachlan

    Great piece of play. Even if it meant the evil Blackness running away with a win I would have liked to have seen it awarded. Magnificent skill and body awareness from Jane.

  • Raury

    Nutta – you have made my day!

    Matt – I’d like to remind you of something:

    “Apologies Matt, I was under the influence while watching so my recollection is a touch hazy.

    Regardless, the referee’s job is to interpret the particular rule. Again, no try.”

    p.s Nutta, the cheque’s in the mail.

  • Lance Taylor

    My understanding is that he jumped from outside the field of play. Therefore, when the ball crossed the plane of touch and he touched it it was out.
    Agree with the AR ruling

  • phantom65

    Seriously, you guys have way too much time on your hands. (I’m just going to give myself a jab to the head for taking the time to write this comment now… And anybody scrolling down this far to read what I’ve written needs to quietly do the same.)

    • boutbloodytime

      Noted…jab administered, need a lie down…

      • bill

        poojab?

  • Rick with a silent p

    Jimmy – I agree. I thought he was out at 29secs when hand made contact with ball and left foot made contact with touchline. Everything after that looked fair enough for a try.

    • bill

      no,leaving aside he was in touch when he first touched the ball he never got back into the field of play before regaining control of the ball. He landed in play at best at the same time as regaining the ball.

  • http://rjboulton-thatcher.co.uk Bob

    I thought you had to be in play when you left the ground and as long as you didn’t touch the ground while playing the ball, it was OK

  • Graeme

    He was in touch the first time he touched the line with his foot. Even though he was juggling it he would have been considered to have “caught” the ball from the first time he gained possession of it.

    “A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline”

    This is poorly worded but, I’m pretty sure “knock” refers to tapping the ball backwards.

  • KingofDubai

    I hate to say this but thats why the AB’s are the best in the world. No other winger would have been able to pull off that weird sequence on the touch line, and Jane alsmost did.

    The AB’s have a knack of mastering these little magical things on all facets of play due to skill level of their players.

  • Jon

    This is a bit of a stretch. He was out because his foot was on the line when he first touched the ball forward and the ball broke the plane before his second touch. I’m glad the ref didn’t refer it because it would have wasted 5 minutes of my life i wouldn’t get back. Lastly is it really in the spirit of the game to reward knock forwards and jumping out and into play. It shows what a dull test it was, Gregor Paul wrote a similar article in the NZ Herald on the non forcing of the ball by Harris being a try to Smith. Erase the game from the tape and the IQ, delete the torrent Apart from a decent Wallabies forward performance the game isn’t worth remembering let alone writing about.

Close