PDA

View Full Version : Intercepting a pass 'from behind'... 'Offside'?



Steve70
13-10-14, 10:10
Evening all. I know this was previously answered in another thread, in a roundabout way, but I've invited some fellow coaches to take a look at this forum - in particular for this question, but for general stuff in the future.


so...


A breakdown occurs on the pitch. Red and blue players form up nicely both sides of the tackle/ruck - whatever it is - all onside and legal.


Red wins ball, heads off towards goal, with reds in support.


Blue player gives chase - let's say he was the tackler in previous phase, or just slow off the mark - but for some reason, is 'not his side of the ball'.


This Blue player then catches up with the reds and intercepts a pass from red to red.


"Offside!" Shout the crowd....


No, I explain, as this is open play and the blue player was never offside to start with.


Offside lines are created from rucks, tackles, mauls, scrums, kicks and line-outs. There is no offside in open play. If you are not offside from one of these, you are not offside. You can tackle or intercept the ball from 'behind' / 'the wrong side'.... If the blue player WAS offside at that previous ruck/tackle/maul etc - then he would be pinged for the interception for still being offside, unless played onside by the various actions - and thus could intercept that pass legally.




It doesn't 'look' right/pretty, but that's the law as far as I understand ....?

Pegleg
13-10-14, 10:10
He was offside at the previous ruck ( je was not behind the hindmost foot on his side, from your description). So was he put back on side as per:


11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as
required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the
applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s
team mates can put the offside player onside.

If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing
team.

There are two such actions:
1; Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres,
the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent
passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put
the offside player onside.

2; Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.

Steve70
13-10-14, 10:10
No, I mean he was not offside at any phase prior to the intercept - the tackle is over/the ruck is over - the reds run forwards, the blues give chase - the blue player just happens to find himself behind the running reds, chasing. But he intercepts their pass.....

He is not offside.....

Adam
13-10-14, 10:10
As an addendum, there is no offside line at the tackle.

Phil E
13-10-14, 11:10
As an addendum, there is no offside line at the tackle.

As a second addendum,


There is no offside in open play.

Isn't strictly true. There is no offside in open play "for the team not in possession of the ball".
The team with the ball can be offside if they are in front of the ball carrier, or the last person from their team to play the ball.

From your scenario the intercept player was legal, and you were correct.

Pegleg
13-10-14, 12:10
Right sorry Missed the bit that he was in the Tackle / ruck, yep all legal.

Taff
13-10-14, 13:10
No, I mean he was not offside at any phase prior to the intercept - the tackle is over/the ruck is over - the reds run forwards, the blues give chase - the blue player just happens to find himself behind the running reds, chasing. But he intercepts their pass..... He is not offside.....
He's not offside. It looks wrong but isn't.

andyscott
13-10-14, 14:10
never listen to the crowd, they are usually stupid, incorrect, and clouded by alcohol.

mike_fernlea
13-10-14, 17:10
That's why crowds go dolally when this happens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCV1SOrneIc)

Ian_Cook
13-10-14, 20:10
How is this any different from tackling a player from behind?

chbg
13-10-14, 20:10
Dastardly colonial tactic.



:biggrin: (honestly)

Daftmedic
13-10-14, 20:10
I would say it's more French

Browner
13-10-14, 21:10
That's why crowds go dolally when this happens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCV1SOrneIc)

I can't imagine that this suppressive defensive tactic is going to remain legal for long .... It will be outlawed as soon as coaches show that it stifles the game. Then some daftass bright spark will go further & suggest the defending team retreat 5m at each tackle,

and then Browner goes to load his gun and unbox his crucifix !!!!

Taff
13-10-14, 23:10
Dastardly colonial tactic. :biggrin: (honestly)
I think it's quite clever. Shows a clear understanding of the laws and how to use them to your advantage.


I can't imagine that this suppressive defensive tactic is going to remain legal for long .... It will be outlawed as soon as coaches show that it stifles the game.It does make it more awkward for the SH to chuck the ball to the No 10, but equally if there are 3 or 4 opponents blocking your back line, there must be gaps either out in their back line or around the tackle area allowing someone to pick the ball up and run upfield with it. As Carwyn James said "Its a thinking game".

chbg
14-10-14, 00:10
I think it's quite clever. Shows a clear understanding of the laws and how to use them to your advantage.


I meant the tackling from behind mentioned by Ian C!

Steve70
14-10-14, 08:10
How is this any different from tackling a player from behind?

Absoutely - there is no difference

amyway, thanks for the replies

Browner
14-10-14, 14:10
I think it's quite clever. Shows a clear understanding of the laws and how to use them to your advantage.

It does make it more awkward for the SH to chuck the ball to the No 10 ......

It was interesting to watch none of the players attempt to get the ball going around the side of the tackle to get the ball or ruffle up the scrum half. Instead they cut off the pass option , I can only imagine that they feared that the referee might consider them offside??? - presumably by virtue of the non existent tackle offside line that they have just stepped beyond.

It seems kinda strange that you can pressure so deep beyond the ball (ie.. stand by the 10) , but you'd be pinged if you went after the ball from a 90 angle at the tackle area or laid a finger on the 9....... Or maybe you wouldnt??

FlipFlop
15-10-14, 09:10
I've never understood why teams "contest the ruck", and don't just leave it as a tackle, and allow the defence to form a "V" around the tackle, cutting out space for the attack.

Seem it done a few times (deliberately) on the field when reffing in RFUland. But not a consistent tactic.

Ian_Cook
15-10-14, 09:10
I've never understood why teams "contest the ruck", and don't just leave it as a tackle, and allow the defence to form a "V" around the tackle, cutting out space for the attack.

Seem it done a few times (deliberately) on the field when reffing in RFUland. But not a consistent tactic.

Its only the team that didn't take the ball into contact who would want to do this. The team that took it in will be trying to create a ruck to generate an offside line to keep the opposition back.

The only way I can see this working is for the tackler to "roll away and stay away", and/or to not get to his feet in the tackle area (ping) and/or for there to be no tackle assist, and therefore no-one for a team-mate of the tackled player to come into contact with while on his feet. This is not going to happen very often.

damo
15-10-14, 09:10
It was interesting to watch none of the players attempt to get the ball going around the side of the tackle to get the ball or ruffle up the scrum half. Instead they cut off the pass option , I can only imagine that they feared that the referee might consider them offside??? - presumably by virtue of the non existent tackle offside line that they have just stepped beyond.

It seems kinda strange that you can pressure so deep beyond the ball (ie.. stand by the 10) , but you'd be pinged if you went after the ball from a 90 angle at the tackle area or laid a finger on the 9....... Or maybe you wouldnt??
If they did either of those things they would be rightfully penalised.

15.6(d) and 15.6(g)

FlipFlop
15-10-14, 12:10
Its only the team that didn't take the ball into contact who would want to do this. The team that took it in will be trying to create a ruck to generate an offside line to keep the opposition back.

The only way I can see this working is for the tackler to "roll away and stay away", and/or to not get to his feet in the tackle area (ping) and/or for there to be no tackle assist, and therefore no-one for a team-mate of the tackled player to come into contact with while on his feet. This is not going to happen very often.

I agree the ball carrying team want to create the ruck. It is to their advantage.

Easy to create - tackler just needs to release and not prevent the ball being played (not material affect on play - so play on). Or roll away out of the way (such that when they get to feet they cannot be "bound in").

The risk is the Referee decides (incorrectly) it is a ruck, when it is not. Also risk is the ball is so quick, your defence isn't properly aligned. Plus risk the front of the tackle is not properly defended - leaving a pick and go option risk. But if done properly - the ability to shut the attack down quickly, and behind the gain line is huge.

The team that I saw do it, had a clear call for it, and were very effective at cutting out the #9 to #10 channel, preventing quick wide ball, so allowing the defence to concentrate on the close attack, giving more time for the wide defence to get in place.

Browner
15-10-14, 12:10
If they did either of those things they would be rightfully penalised.

15.6(d) and 15.6(g)

Exactly, which means a daft 'state' exists... that you cant go and get the ball that way ( yet you can stand 10 m further into the backfield cutting off the receiver pass , its contrary to all game logic

Browner
15-10-14, 12:10
But if done properly - the ability to shut the attack down quickly, and behind the gain line is huge.


And that m'lud is the case for the introduction of an offside line at each tackle !

Taff
15-10-14, 12:10
And that m'lud is the case for the introduction of an offside line at each tackle !
Which I understood they had introduced once, but ditched when it became unworkable.

Browner
15-10-14, 12:10
But if the receiver either side of the tackle is routinely cut off ..V style...., what sort of game will we have?!?! .......errr a narrow one me thinks ?

OB..
15-10-14, 13:10
Which I understood they had introduced once, but ditched when it became unworkable.Precisely.

Dixie
16-10-14, 14:10
Exactly, which means a daft 'state' exists... that you cant go and get the ball that way ( yet you can stand 10 m further into the backfield cutting off the receiver pass , its contrary to all game logic I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.

Browner
16-10-14, 15:10
I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.

I'm not commenting on what BC team should do to force/ create an offside line, ( how can they ever do this IF the opposition never engage beyond merely tackling?)

I'm merely pointing out that an opposition routinely standing (legally) betwixt 9 &10 &12 will mess up the flow/expansivity of this code. We'll just get narrow attack off the tackle just like ....... Crucifix unboxing commences ...
..... If anyone can't see that, then they should aspire to climb to a wit dimmer level. :shrug:

OB..
16-10-14, 17:10
Box kick. Pick and drive. Surely the defenders are in a weaker position by their actions? It's a gamble which may or may not pay off.

Dixie
16-10-14, 18:10
I'm not commenting on what BC team should do to force/ create an offside line, ( how can they ever do this IF the opposition never engage beyond merely tackling?)

I'm merely pointing out that an opposition routinely standing (legally) betwixt 9 &10 &12 will mess up the flow/expansivity of this code. We'll just get narrow attack off the tackle just like ....... Crucifix unboxing commences ...
..... If anyone can't see that, then they should aspire to climb to a wit dimmer level. :shrug: It is the defender's entire objective to mess up the flow/expansivity (is that even a word?) of the attack, and it is the attack's objective to circumvent those efforts. That's what we call the contest for the ball - one of rugby's key principles. Check out page 17 of the LoTG:

It is the aim of the team in possession to maintain continuity by denying the opposition the ball and, by skilful means, to advance and score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the opposition defence. Contest and continuity, profit and loss.

As one team attempts to maintain continuity of possession, the opposing team strives to contest for possession. This provides the essential balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession. This balance of contestability and continuity applies to both set piece and general play.

Taff
16-10-14, 23:10
But if the receiver either side of the tackle is routinely cut off ..V style...., what sort of game will we have?!?! .......errr a narrow one me thinks ?
I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.
Exactly. Turn the tackle into a ruck (it only needs physical contact) and hey presto ... you now have an offside line and the opponents who were being clever in standing between the No 9 and No 10 now have to retire behind the offside line. Or .... Pick and go down the middle as the opponents are effectively 2 or 3 players down because they are now out of position.

I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.

Ronald
17-10-14, 10:10
I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.[/QUOTE]

Agree, players usually fall back to a defensive line even if just a tackle...I have, however, had a few law-savvy players that played the tackle law beautifully...they are rather the exception, than the rule, though.

Browner
17-10-14, 10:10
Exactly. Turn the tackle into a ruck (it only needs physical contact) and hey presto ... you now have an offside line and the opponents who were being clever in standing between the No 9 and No 10 now have to retire behind the offside line. Or .... Pick and go down the middle as the opponents are effectively 2 or 3 players down because they are now out of position.

I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.

Which is why I said "IF" & "ROUTINE" in the same sentence.

If someone had suggested teams would decide to not contest/ruck 10 years ago, many on here might equally have scoffed , but gradually they have evolved , and the lack of engagement after a tackle is gaining popularity .... Watch this space