PDA

View Full Version : More in-goal shenanigans...



Pablo
18-04-04, 21:04
One more thing about in-goal... can you be offside in in-goal? We all know that defenders are permitted to move up to the tryline when their team-mates back feet go into in-goal during a ruck or maul... but what about open play?

Consider, because this happened to me recently...

At a 5m defensive scrum, the ball is won with the head by the defending team. Defending (green) SH plucks ball from scrum and, under legal pressure from attacking (red) SH, makes abysmal pass to his own FH who drops ball and knocks-on. I call "advantage red". Ball is bobbling in in-goal and both green and red SHs are going for it shoulder-to-shoulder. Green SH dives on ball, hoping to escape with an attacking 5m scrum. And I give...*ping*...

LAW 11 - OFF-SIDE AND ON-SIDE IN GENERAL PLAY

Definition

In general play a player is off-side if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball. Off-side means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalized if they take part in the game.

Law 11.1
(a) A player who is in an off-side position is liable to penalty only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play, or
Moves forwards towards the ball, or
Fails to comple with the 10-metre Law (Law 11.4, not relevant for our purposes here)

A player who is in an off-side position is not automatically penalised.

A player who receives an unintentional throw-forward is not off-side.

A player can be off-side in the in-goal (AHA!)

(b) A player who is off-side must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.

Law 11.7

OFF-SIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an off-side team-mate next plays the ball, the off-side player is liable to penalty if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage. Penalty: Penalty Kick

So... I awarded a penalty try... and got howls of protest from the green defenders. Was I justified?? I reckon it was the right call, but I'd like your opinions and comments...

Pablo
18-04-04, 21:04
And here's another one! Again this happened to me, this time in an Under 14s match...

Black win turnover ball just inside red's half and begin a counterattack. Black fly-half threads a chip through the red defensive line for black 12 to chase. However, black FH has put a bit too much into the kick and it goes well ahead of black 12 into red's in-goal, where it stops a little way short of the dead-ball line. Red 15 is coming across to cover and gets to the ball at least 10 metres ahead of black 12 (so never any chance of a try being scored). However, as Red 15 dives on the ball, he can see black 12 coming and consequently panics and pushes the ball over the dead-ball line. So...*ping*...

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(c) A player must not intentionally knock or throw the ball out of the playing area.Penalty: Penalty Kick

So I awarded a penalty to black on the 5m line, from which they score a converted try to put them 5 points behind red. As it happens, red win anyway, but they really didn't like that call...

Poor Red 15 didn't know what he'd done wrong, so I explained it to him and his coach after the game. (Funnily enough, it was the black coach that was whinging the most about me though!...)

Would you lot have done the same?

Deeps
18-04-04, 21:04
[QUOTE=Pablo]... can you be offside in in-goal? QUOTE]

Law 22.15 'All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.'

The answer is yes, however, I would suggest that a penalty try is appropriate only if a try has been prevented through foul play. Offside is a penalty kick offence in this case on the 5 metre mark.

Rocky
18-04-04, 22:04
Well done Pablo on getting both correct. It's another example of how hard it is when you are out there. Quick decisions, sometimes unsure of whether you have made the right one.

Pablo
19-04-04, 12:04
however, I would suggest that a penalty try is appropriate only if a try has been prevented through foul play. Offside is a penalty kick offence in this case on the 5 metre mark.

But the green scrum-half was offside, as we've agreed, and therefore "out of the game" (Law 11 Definition). So he must not obstruct the red SH in his chase for the ball (Law 11.1 (a) and (b))... which he did... Basically, if green SH hadn't been there, the red SH would have been the first person to reach the ball and so would have scored... does that not sound like grounds for a penalty try?

Pablo
19-04-04, 12:04
Poor Red 15 didn't know what he'd done wrong, so I explained it to him and his coach after the game.

It does seem a little odd that if he'd picked the ball up and run out with it, touched the ball down to make it dead, or kicked it out (or indeed, chested, headed or used anything except his arms to get it out), he would have been within the bounds of the Law and awarded a 22m drop-out. (I explained this to both player and coach so that if ever such a situation arose again, then they would know the legal ways of getting the drop-out).

However, is this an aspect of the Law that needs changing? Clearly it's designed with time-wasting in mind (or trying to end the half or match unfairly), but the way it's written is inflexible. Should the penalty be reduced to a free kick? Was I being too picky? (To clarify, the red FB did have to take a pretty big and obvious swipe at the ball to push it out)

Pablo
19-04-04, 13:04
Was I being too picky?

Which raises another question - how do you adjust your style of refereeing for kids? Don't answer this question on this thread, go here (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104). But it's an interesting point...

Davet
19-04-04, 16:04
In the first instance clearly the player was offside, in-goal or not makes no difference to offside in General Play. As described that act prevented a try, and if some inist that a PT is only awarded under Law 10, then I would offer Acts Contrary to Good Sportsmanship. But a PT would seem perfectly equitable. And remembering all the way back to my Foundation Course, the 3 principles of refereeing are, in order of precedence, Safety, Equity and Law.

In your second example, then perhaps - given the nature of the game - it may have been possible to declare that the ball was grounded by the defenders hand BEFORE it was knocked out of play...and thus made dead before any offence.

PeterTC
19-04-04, 23:04
The Law 10 you could use was Intentional Offending for the Penalty Try, as the player could have left it alone, but chose to play it, thus intentionally offending, preventing a try which is permissable under Law 10.

Deeps
20-04-04, 00:04
Basically, if green SH hadn't been there, the red SH would have been the first person to reach the ball and so would have scored... does that not sound like grounds for a penalty try?

Pablo, you are quite right, I stand corrected. It's one thing to have been there when it happened and another thing to read about it.

Robert Burns
20-04-04, 02:04
When i read both i have to admit i went........swoooo (inward suck of air), but after reading the laws, i must concede that i believe you are right, although i bet you were popular in the bar afterwards, depending on how that game was going would have made my decisions up i think, even more so with the chool game.

good calls pab!

Account Deleted
20-04-04, 09:04
The first a PT no question Law 10.1(d) covers it, as does10.2(a).

Good call

The second, I think, depends on how you saw it. Could yo uargue that the defender applied downward pressure and then scooped the ball out of play? If so with youngsters I'd probably go for saying that it was minored and then have a quiet word with the defender telling him that it was a borderline call and penalty could easily have been awarded if I'd "read" it differently.

With seniors I would problably be a bit stricter.

didds
20-04-04, 14:04
seems fair enough in a "equity" sort of concept, but its in that realm of "what if" penalty tries...

e.g. winger versus fullback for winger to score in the corner... FB gets really close to winger - and high tackles him. Winger does nor score. PT - or just penalty? One argument is a PT because the try was prevented by use of an illegal action (the high tackle). Alternative view is "penalty only" because the try probably wouldn't have been scored if the FB had chosen instead to perform a proper tackle. Its dodgy ground - my instinct is that its a PT as it was the FB's own decision to reject the normal tackle and instead tackle high illegally. Others have told me that they would award just the penalty ...

For the OP's query... gut feeling is penalty only purely based on the otherwise unlikelihood of a try being scored. But I can symapthise withthe PT call (as its simil;ar to mt PT for the high tackle above).

didds

didds
20-04-04, 14:04
[I would suggest that a penalty try is appropriate only if a try has been prevented through foul play. Offside is a penalty kick offence in this case on the 5 metre mark.


Hmmm.... forget the in-goal bit for now.... consider the following... red break away and almost score, but runner gets tackled by covering black fullback. Black winger and another red player then ruck for the ball (so ruck has formed), black win it, acting black scrum half picks up ball and with the line just before him with no red defender is tackled from behind by a retreating red player... (ie red tackler is offside from the ruck).

If that's is only a penalty (plus presumably sin bin!) then the law is an ass!


And... PTs are awarded for obstruction - obstruction isn;t foul play (is it?).

didds

Davet
20-04-04, 14:04
Didds asks - obstruction isn;t foul play (is it?).






LAW 10 FOUL PLAY




DEFINITION




Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct.

Note as well that bit about "unfair play", the Law says a player must not "intentionally infringe ANY Law of the game"

So the interpretion of your tackler who was offside could easily be covered by this, and the PT awarded without a problem.

didds
20-04-04, 15:04
fair dos Dave! :-)

what about the offside at a ruck tackling the probable try scorer situation?

Didds

Davet
20-04-04, 17:04
fair dos Dave! :-)

what about the offside at a ruck tackling the probable try scorer situation?

Didds
Luckily, whatever I decide is right!!

Either its;
PEEEP "bad timing tackler - penalty here", or;
PEEEP "He knew what he was doing, deliberate, Penalty Try!" or even;
PEEEP "He knew what he was doing, deliberate, cynical, Penalty Try, Yellow Card!!"

And ALL are right, based on my interpretation at the time, which will be, thoughtful, considered, unbiased, and take all relevant factors into account; AND delivered within 0.5 of a second.

And if thats not a weaselly get out, I don't know what is!

Pablo
20-04-04, 17:04
e.g. winger versus fullback for winger to score in the corner... FB gets really close to winger - and high tackles him. Winger does nor score. PT - or just penalty? One argument is a PT because the try was prevented by use of an illegal action (the high tackle). Alternative view is "penalty only" because the try probably wouldn't have been scored if the FB had chosen instead to perform a proper tackle. Its dodgy ground - my instinct is that its a PT as it was the FB's own decision to reject the normal tackle and instead tackle high illegally. Others have told me that they would award just the penalty ...



My view on this one is to give the PT. My line of reasoning is that the covering FB has, in effect, taken himself out of the game by electing to use foul play. So the question I then have to ask myself is: what would have happened if the FB hadn't been there at all? (Note: I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he could have made the tackle legally. He has just vanished for the purposes of my decision) Clearly there is no argument in this case that if there were no FB, the winger would have scored an unopposed try, ergo Pen Try. I think this is a pretty reasonable attitude to take, no?

Besides, Law 10.2 (a) only requires "a try that would probably have been scored". So I could equally ask: could the winger have reached out of a legal tackle to ground the ball? Probably!

Ultimately though, I think this comes back to our discussion of positive v. negative play from the other in-goal thread.

Running with ball towards opponents' try-line: positive play.
High-tackling opponent who is about to score: negative play.

Which am I going to reward?

Pablo
20-04-04, 18:04
Hmmm.... forget the in-goal bit for now.... consider the following... red break away and almost score, but runner gets tackled by covering black fullback. Black winger and another red player then ruck for the ball (so ruck has formed), black win it, acting black scrum half picks up ball and with the line just before him with no red defender is tackled from behind by a retreating red player... (ie red tackler is offside from the ruck).

If that's is only a penalty (plus presumably sin bin!) then the law is an ass!


And... PTs are awarded for obstruction - obstruction isn;t foul play (is it?).

didds

Tough just to go on a description, but the intent and awareness of the tackler needs to be weighed up here. The way you describe it didds, I'm leaning towards a PT, but if it reallt happened, then depending on the positioning of other defenders, etc., I might give a PK and a yellow card. If I think the tackler is totally brainless, clueless and gormless and genuinely didn't realise he was offside (yeah, right!!!) maybe just a penalty and a stern talking-to. but that last one's pretty unlikely!

Pablo
20-04-04, 18:04
The second, I think, depends on how you saw it. Could yo uargue that the defender applied downward pressure and then scooped the ball out of play?


The trouble was, he didn't ground it. He dived towards the ball and then quite clearly swiped it over the back of the dead ball line.



If so with youngsters I'd probably go for saying that it was minored and then have a quiet word with the defender telling him that it was a borderline call and penalty could easily have been awarded if I'd "read" it differently.

With seniors I would problably be a bit stricter.

This is a good point. But then I have to start asking myself where draw the line between minor and major?

didds
21-04-04, 09:04
If I think the tackler is totally brainless, clueless and gormless and genuinely didn't realise he was offside (yeah, right!!!) maybe just a penalty and a stern talking-to. but that last one's pretty unlikely!

... even though it still prevented a "probable try" ? Aren't you now penalising the attacking side?

didds

Pablo
21-04-04, 10:04
... even though it still prevented a "probable try" ? Aren't you now penalising the attacking side?

didds

...hence why it's a pretty unlikely decision...

didds
22-04-04, 09:04
Luckily, whatever I decide is right!!

Either its;
PEEEP "bad timing tackler - penalty here", or;

...

And ALL are right, based on my interpretation at the time,

So - even if totally ignorant of the laws, the tackler is undoubtably offside - yes? And his offside tackle prevented a probable try?

And you wouldn't give a PT? Doesn't that penalise the attacking side?


didds

Davet
22-04-04, 12:04
didds

PT is under law 10 - Foul Play.

I can concieve of a purely timing issue, attacking half-back is extracting ball, he has hands-on (so strictly its out) but the ball gets caught for a spilt second on the leg of one of his own players before the ball has actually cleared enough for the proverbial bird to do its business on it.

Now - is it in or is it out; each call is judged on its merits at that instant - and many, if not most, refs give the split second privilege to the half-back, in an attempt to prevent a very stodgy game. Maybe not strictly legit, but certainly practised all over the world and by all levels of ref.

In those circumstances its possible that the player coming offside simply got it wrong by that spilt second. A PT would be VERY harsh, especially when there is actually a case for saying play on....

OK - so lets pick this one up and run with it.....bearing in mind that Law is the final priority out of the 3 principles of refereeing. First and most important is Safety; then comes Equity; and finally the letter of the law.

SimonSmith
22-04-04, 17:04
I can concieve of a purely timing issue, attacking half-back is extracting ball, he has hands-on (so strictly its out) but the ball gets caught for a spilt second on the leg of one of his own players before the ball has actually cleared enough for the proverbial bird to do its business on it.

That depends....<see how clever I am, protecting myself in case anyone disgarees...;) > I'd say out. The second principle is equity, and I think that the defence is entitled to as much protection as the attack.

HOWEVER if I've been telling the defence to wait/hold on/stay back foot/not out yet, then I might have a problem - the attack will think that they're entitled to the split second.

There is no hard and fast answer. Each time that issue occurs has to be judged on its own merits.

didds
23-04-04, 10:04
pablo obviously great minds think alike :-)

didds
23-04-04, 10:04
ah - I see where we are talking different situations. Forget the "is it in/out" - I meant the acting SH has picked and started to run (maybe he's a metre away from the ruck now), is approaching the try line, no defenders in front of him, and is prevented from scoring by a tackle from a retreating player copming from an offside position. He could not be stopped by any defender in an onside position, and is only (say) 3m out unopposed.

didds

Davet
23-04-04, 12:04
So are we saying that a player who was never on-side at the ruck, but who was retreating trying to get back on-side, tackles the 9 from behind? Nobody else in a position to tackle.

I think a PT is fine. Quite possibly a Yellow as well.

Of course if it were simply a tackle and not a ruck, then play on.

So, what if we have a tackled player on the floor, a tackler on the floor, attacking player comes in grasping for the ball, gets hands on, but then a defender comes in and competes with him, and both go to ground, simply because of loosing their footing....then the next attacker picks up and scuttles forward, then the defender who was behind play tackles him....