"It should still be a line-out."

Should it still have been a line-out?

Matt Giteau of the Brumbies kicks a huge kick down towards his right. Stefan Terblanche of the Sharks tries to prevent the ball from going out. He knocks the ball back infield. The ball rolls over the dead-ball line and the referee awards a five-metre scrum to the Brumbies.

The commentators debate the issue and believe it should have been a line-out because Terblanche was in touch.

He was in touch when he played the ball because his right foot was on the line.

But a player in touch is allowed to play the ball provided that he does not hold it. Terblanche did not hold the ball.

But that is not all.

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

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.

But in this case the ball had crossed the plane of the touch-line. The player was in touch and the ball was over the plane of the touch-line. The ball was out.

If Terblanche had not had a foot on the touch-line what then?

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
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 Terblanche had had both feet in the field of play, it would have been a five-metre scrum, for knocking the ball over the dead-ball line.

It was not an easy decision - just a sliver of boot between a line-out to the Sharks and a scrum to the Brumbies.

Easier to work out with slow motion and replays.