Law discussion: Who put it out?

 

They are similar in that a flyhalf kicked the ball, a opposing left wing caught it, he was out and a line-out was called, and the line-out throw was awarded to the kicker's team.

 

They both concern the touchline and who put it out.

 

In the first one, Bernard Foley of Australia kicks towards the touchline on his right. Terry Thomas of France catches the ball. There is to be a line-out because Thomas, holding the ball, is in touch. The line-out throw is given to Australia, the team that kicked the ball.

 

In the second clip, Owen Farrell of England kicks the ball towards the touchline on his right. Bryan Habana of South Africa catches the ball. There is to be a line-out because Habana, holding the ball, is in touch. The line-out is given to England, the team that kicked the ball.

 

In neither case did the ball cross the touchline or the plane of the touchline, which is the airspace up from the touchline.

 

For the ball to be out, it does not have to cross 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.

 

We see it often – a player carrying the ball puts a foot on the touchline. That produces a line-out.

 

Then why should there be any debate about these situations? The player with the ball was in touch. That means a line-out – other team's ball. But does it?

 

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.

 

Both Thomas and Habana had a left foot in touch. That meant that the ball was out. But who put it out?

 

Look carefully at what Thomas does and what Habana does.

 

Thomas catches the ball before going into touch. Then he puts his left foot into touch. When he caught the ball, he was not in touch and so the ball was not in touch. When he put his foot into touch, the ball was also in touch. He was a player carrying the ball who had gone into touch while carrying the ball. And so it was Australia's throw-in. The place would be where Thomas stepped out.

 

The Habana case is different. It was not an easy decision but replays show that Habana's left foot was in touch before – fractionally before – he caught the ball. The ball was in touch when Habana caught it because he was in touch and it was put there by the kicker's team. The decision should have been a throw-in to South Africa.

 

Because Farrell was outside his 22 when he kicked the ball, the place where South Africa would throw in would be opposite the place where Farrell kicked the ball.

 

The assistant referee did not have thew advantage of a slow-motion replay but it is always wise to use the principle of clear and obvious. It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out, because that did not happen. The second principle involved is the absolute ban on guessing. Guess and you get it right, you are lucky; guess and you get it wrong and you deserve censure. It is after all a form of dishonesty.

 

Could the matter have been referred to the TMO?

 

No. It would have been out of protocol as touchline decisions are reserved to the scoring of a try.

 

England did score a try in this case and Jean de Villiers, the South African captain, asked the referee to look into the line-out decision, but this is also not in protocol. The TMO could be consulted if in scoring the try England had gone into touch or if England had infringed in scoring the try.

 

Clearly they did not go into touch and the wrong line-out award was not an English infringement.

 

The line-out was some 30 metres out but England mauled and scored. They had to get a lot of things right to do so and South Africa had to do a lot of things wrong to allow England to do so.

By Paul Dobson