PDA

View Full Version : offside from charge down



ex-lucy
30-09-06, 12:09
red 10 runs from defence in 22m, just outside 22m he chips ahead, white 12 charges ball down. white 6, in front of white 12 at the time, backs off and leaves the ball. red 8 collects ball.
Commentator: "Oh, he (white 6) could have played that ball, he was ok."

OB..
30-09-06, 12:09
Law 10.4 (f) The 10-Metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside.

The 10-metre law section is an odd place to find an exception to the general provisions on off-side.

PeterTC
30-09-06, 14:09
White 6 was offside though, hence why he left it.

Jacko
30-09-06, 18:09
White 6 was offside though, hence why he left it.

I agree. OB appears to just be musing on how daft the law book is again. We should leave him in peace.

Brian Ravenhill
03-10-06, 09:10
Its not daft an exception or anything else

Its open play whites last played the ball therefore any red player is on side, and any white player in front of the last white man to have played the ball is offside.

Simple

OB..
03-10-06, 10:10
Looking at this again, I realise I mis-read the original. The 10 metre law does not come into it.

I agree the white player was offside and the commentator was wrong.

Deeps
03-10-06, 10:10
Good stuff guys, keep it up. This is why I enjoy these pages. Just as long as one of us is sharp at some point in order to keep the rest of us in line. :D

Tibbs
03-10-06, 12:10
I had to give a scrum after a charge down when the white player charged down a red kick and it hit a white player in front of him. It was a shame because otherwise the white kick-blocker would have had a walk in try...

Chris

didds
04-10-06, 15:10
I had to give a scrum after a charge down when the white player charged down a red kick and it hit a white player in front of him. It was a shame because otherwise the white kick-blocker would have had a walk in try...

Chris


<Devils advocate>

Under the basis of Safety - Equity - Law, under equity before law therefore, could you not have ignored the accidental offside and permitted the blocker to have collected and scored? ie the accidental offside was not MATERIAL to the game and what would have occurred would have happened anyway i.e. try scored?

didds

Robert Burns
04-10-06, 15:10
Isn't that like saying you should award a winger a try even though he accidently knocked it on as the error was not material?

It was material as the offence leads to the opposition getting control of the ball.

Material in my eyes is when the defending team (normally) makes an error that doesn't make a difference, i.e. opponant goes for ball at a ruck to early, realises he is offside, stops and retreats, IMO no advantage as he got back and if anything put himself at a disadvantage by getting WELL back onside.

OB..
04-10-06, 17:10
Law 11.6 (a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
Seems clear enough to me.

didds
04-10-06, 19:10
so in the scenario described the blockers team gained no advantage as it made no difference to the end result. ie try scored (going by OP's description of charge down and events i.e "walk in try").

maybe not so much devil's advocate after all :-)

didds

OB..
04-10-06, 22:10
The original is short of detail. I can paint two different scenarios.

(1) White gains an advantage because the ball is deflected away from a defender, into the path of the blocker.

(2) White gains no advantage because the ball is deflected near a defender, who misses a possible tackle.

didds
05-10-06, 11:10
OB - no nproblkem with what you say, but vthe OP merely said it would have been a walk-in try for the blocker. i can only take from that that whatever the circumstances of the block there were no defenders remotely near to the ball, including in effect the kicker.

didds

SimonSmith
05-10-06, 12:10
so in the scenario described the blockers team gained no advantage as it made no difference to the end result. ie try scored (going by OP's description of charge down and events i.e "walk in try").

maybe not so much devil's advocate after all :-)

didds

Um, I could challenge that O Devil's Advocate.

Your definition of "advantage" obviously include a degree of materiality. I think if you used the Law definition of EITHER tactical freedom to use the ball as you wish OR territory, then you end up with the conclusion that the scenario DOES result in an advantage. The fact that a try may very well have been scored had he been onside is neither here nor there.

Davet
05-10-06, 13:10
white player charged down a red kick and it hit a white player in front of him. It was a shame because otherwise the white kick-blocker would have had a walk in try

I'm a tad confused - the "white kick blocker" was the one who was in front of the "white kicker" - correct?

So if the blocking of the kick conferred no advantage on white we would play on.

However - the player who would have had the clear run in to score (had the kick gone through) was the "white kick blocker", who was in front of the kicker. So surely he could not have run in to score as he would have been offside, and penalised?

Tibbs
05-10-06, 17:10
Dave, I didn't explain it very well, so I've drawn a picture!

White 13 got tackled by Red 15 who grabbed ball, moved to kick. Kick was charged down by White 11, ball hit 13, who had since stood up, rebounded into path of approaching Red 3 who fell on it (in a legal way). If it had missed 13, the ball would have gone over the try line, and the 11 would have been the first to it, as he was the fastest guy on the pitch by about 10 yards. I had to blow the scrum as the 3 was mobbed by the 11 and 13, so no advantage...

Hope this clears things up! :D

Chris

Deeps
06-10-06, 12:10
A picture is worth a thousand words and, while having difficulty keeping track of the thread, I assume white 13 was judged as being accidentally offside with advantage to red that red could not capitalise upon so scrum to red?

I would have difficulty playing on here on the grounds that white had not gained an advantage from 13's accidental offside; it would be a difficult one to sell to the red skipper, particularly if you had just then penalised red 3 for not releasing or something. One needs to be pragmatic and have a product you can sell for, regardless as to the probability of white 11 scoring had 13 not been in the way, it is irrefutable that white 11 was in an offside position, albeit not waiting to play the ball, which is why you are only awarding a scrum.

No one on the field should have any argument with that as being a fair and equitable outcome.

Tibbs
06-10-06, 16:10
Deeps,

Exactly. I think if it had been a back in Red 3s position he may have gotten into a position to get the ball away, but I don't think so. The white 11 was just too quick.

The 3 was trapped with nowhere to go, so it was whistle - no advantage - accidental offside.

Chris

baaas
08-10-06, 08:10
how is white six off-side from charge down?the ball is in open play as no knock-on has occured.

OB..
08-10-06, 09:10
Law 11 Definition (part of) 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.


11.6 (a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.


The team-mate who last played the ball was the player who charged it down, and White 6 was in front of him.

Davet
11-10-06, 12:10
Where on earth has white 6 suddenly appeared from?

White 13 was offside, he was infront of the player on his side who last played the ball. Charging the ball down is playing it.

Because the contact with the ball was unavoidable then the offside is accidental.

If it had not struck White 13 then many things may have happened, but what is certain is that red 3 was left isolated holding the ball on the ground, and to penalise him would have been a huge advantage to white, which they would have got as a result of the accidental offside.

Scrum down - red ball. Good decision. As Deeps says, one which the players and spectators would understand and be quite happy with.

However - I hear the crunch and hiss of a canopener digging into a tin of worms.

1) Is refereeing all about making a decision which helps the flow of the game, is in the spirit of the game, and which is open to a braod concensus of players and spectators, or is the strict word of the Law more important? If the latter then I can see a ref calling (at the speed of a cattle auctioneer) -Charge down, accidental offside, DISadvantage to white, play on - penalty! Red three holding on on the ground! Technically correct (though advantage/disadvantage is a subjective call by the referee at the time).

2) The advantage to White obtained by the fact that Red 3 infringed (or may have done so) is part of the reason for saying that the accidental offside, by placing red 3 in that position actually gave an advantage to White. But surely Red 3's actions should be taken as being his responsibility when faced with the circumstances on the pitch. He was not forced to kill the ball - he chose to, and therefore the penalty should stand.

- having waffled, I would repeat that I support the decision to blow and scrum for accidental offside - it is far more in the spirit of the Laws and the game, but on a very strict interpretation may be questionalble.

Personally I think that the Laws are mainly for the refs use in finding a way to control and manage a game that the players can enjoy. It is not really a good plan to be the cleverest and most knowledgeable person on the pitch, and invoke the laws to the confusion of all others.

Davet
11-10-06, 12:10
duplicate removed

Tibbs
11-10-06, 13:10
2) The advantage to White obtained by the fact that Red 3 infringed (or may have done so) is part of the reason for saying that the accidental offside, by placing red 3 in that position actually gave an advantage to White. But surely Red 3's actions should be taken as being his responsibility when faced with the circumstances on the pitch. He was not forced to kill the ball - he chose to, and therefore the penalty should stand.



Hang on a sec...

The Red 3 went to ground to get the ball (I did say he fell on the ball legally), he had done so and was getting up when the white players converged on him. There was no advantage to red from the original offence, the accidental offside so I stopped it, and went back for the scrum.

Chris

Davet
13-10-06, 09:10
Briefly - I had assumed that Red3 was in danger of being penalised for not releasing. A lack of advantage to red from the accidental offside is not a reason in Law to blow for accidental offside - the criterion is was there an advantage to white? If so then blow. If neutral then play on.

But the heart of my comment relates to referees managing the game, and how we make use use of the Laws. Are the Laws absolute, or are they a tool to be used to get an enjoyable game - and how far are people prepared to move towards an agreement from those two fairly opposed stances?

OB..
13-10-06, 10:10
As per original, Red 15 kicks, White 11 charges down, the ball hits White 13 and rebounds to Red 3, who falls on it.

Extra scenario: White 11 and 13 converge on Red 3 before he can get up and grab at the ball. Red 3 resists firmly.

We have agreed that White 3 was accidentally offside. Clearly Red 3 would be penalised for holding on if there were no other consideration. The accidental offside did prevent White getting a straightforward shot at a try (disadvantage), but it gave them a second shot at obtaining the ball right near the try line (advantage).

My view is that White have gained an advantage, therefore scrum Red. Unless it was for foul play, I would not reverse the decision because of Red’s subsequent infringement.