PDA

View Full Version : Offside ingoal



Lex Hipkins
07-03-16, 23:03
Did anybody catch this during the Reds/Force game?

Ignoring the misquoted law on the rugby onslaught web site (should be 11 ... Not 10), was this a muck up by the TMO. The ref was aware but was told to ignore offside by the TMO. Rather than scrum white, shouldn't it have been penalty white?

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2016/03/this-bizarre-tmo-law-fail-might-have.html

didds
07-03-16, 23:03
I must be missing something. I can;t see any offside by any red player whatsoever. There may be a marginal white offside as two attackers are floundering on the4floor, depending on who actually touched it when they are both initially flopping around but its pretty uncertain if the subseqent attempt to score by one of them is a player in an offside position.

That aside, general offisde being in front of your own playter that last played the ball does exist in goal of course.

didds

Dickie E
07-03-16, 23:03
I must be missing something. I can;t see any offside by any red player whatsoever. There may be a marginal white offside as two attackers are floundering on the4floor, depending on who actually touched it when they are both initially flopping around but its pretty uncertain if the subseqent attempt to score by one of them is a player in an offside position.



Red 13 appears to maybe knock it forward then Red 5 comes in from FoP to ground the ball. I think Gardner was aware of this but not sure what TMO was referring to. I think he (TMO) has concluded by then that Red 13 had grounded the ball.

If Red 13 had knocked it forward and if Red 5 had played the ball from an offside position then a penalty try was on the cards.

crossref
08-03-16, 00:03
Red player knocks backwards, then knocks forward in goal, and offside red player touches it down.
PK to white, and has to be a YC doesn't it? Perhaps not a PT as the red player who knocked it on might have got there before white anyway

(Ian will be forced by his oen logic to ignore the offside and award the scrum that he maintains is the only possible outcome of a knock on in goal followed by a touchdown)

Dickie E
08-03-16, 01:03
(Ian will be forced by his oen logic to ignore the offside and award the scrum that he maintains is the only possible outcome of a knock on in goal followed by a touchdown)

3401

Really? You wanna go there?

Taff
08-03-16, 01:03
Isn't Aiub (no idea if that is spelt right) the TMO who was criticised during the RWC for some "interesting" decisions?

Dickie E
08-03-16, 02:03
George Ayoub.

beckett50
08-03-16, 08:03
The way I saw it is that Red #12 loses the ball forward,
then white #9 knocks on and then there appears to be a knock-on by red #13.
Red #5 is clearly off-side - in front of the last red player to have played the ball - but there is no advantage accrued because the 2nd knock-on should bring play back for the red #12 loss forward.
So scrum 5m attacking ball.

However, if the review deems that neither white 9 nor red 13 touched the ball then we start at red #5 being offside and so taking him out of the picture the try would have been scored by white #13 So, then the correct decision IMO should be PT to white and a YC to Red #5

FlipFlop
08-03-16, 09:03
Amazing what some people see....


Red #12 loses the ball BACKWARDS. He is the defender.
White #9. Does he knock on, or does he ground it, or is it "stripped". I think that the actions of Red #13 make it clear that the real option here is grounded or stripped. Personally I think he grounds it for the try, but failing that you have to go with....
Red #13 knocks it backwards, and then forwards.
Red #5 is offside and plays the ball (PK).
Red #13 is closer than White #13, so likely to have played the ball before White #13, so try is not probable. So no PT.


So for me the outcome is Try (White #9 scores), but if you rule that he doesn't score, then PK to White for Red #5 offside.

didds
08-03-16, 09:03
Red 13 appears to maybe knock it forward then Red 5 comes in from FoP to ground the ball. I think Gardner was aware of this but not sure what TMO was referring to. I think he (TMO) has concluded by then that Red 13 had grounded the ball.

If Red 13 had knocked it forward and if Red 5 had played the ball from an offside position then a penalty try was on the cards.

Ah gotcha... I didn;t even see that as a 13 knock on... I thought it had gone backwards/sideways. See what you mean now.

didds

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 09:03
I honestly thought we had agreed (in this other thread) that there is NO offside in-goal (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19553-List-of-widely-believed-Law-myths-Version-2016&p=312247&viewfull=1#post312247).

Law 22.16 infringements in-goal

:holysheep:

didds
08-03-16, 09:03
Well I was pretty dashed sure that we had agreed there WAS offside in -goal, just no offside lines for mauls/rucks etc as they cannot exist in-goal?



didds

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 09:03
Just wondering, have you seen this other discussion thread on the subject (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19586-about-arguments-on-forums&p=313116#post313116)?

Law myths are deep rooted in some regions.
(Plus now we have a TMO on board, I would say this particular myth is gaining ground.) :pepper:

Phil E
08-03-16, 10:03
I honestly thought we had agreed (in this other thread) that there is NO offside in-goal (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19553-List-of-widely-believed-Law-myths-Version-2016&p=312247&viewfull=1#post312247).

Law 22.16 infringements in-goal

:holysheep:


Not sure how you get to that conclusion?

22.16 INFRINGEMENTS IN IN-GOAL
All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.

So if you are offside in the field of play, you are also offside in-goal.

Plus (as stated) 11.1a

11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 10:03
Perhaps neither of you took the time to look at either of those linked threads.
Or perhaps your sense of humor is switched off.

Phil E
08-03-16, 10:03
Perhaps neither of you took the time to look at either of those linked threads.
Or perhaps your sense of humor is switched off.

I did look.....maybe the humour got lost in translation?

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 10:03
Perhaps too dry for your taste.

crossref
08-03-16, 11:03
Amazing what some people see....

So for me the outcome is Try (White #9 scores), but if you rule that he doesn't score, then PK to White for Red #5 offside.

and a YC to Red 5 ?

didds
08-03-16, 11:03
que?

didds

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 12:03
Que? As in [pourquoi] why? :shrug:

que ne l'as-tu (pas) dit plus tôt ! why didn't you say so earlier ?, I wish you had said so (or "said that earlier" !)

Pegleg
08-03-16, 13:03
(Ian will be forced by his oen logic to ignore the offside and award the scrum that he maintains is the only possible outcome of a knock on in goal followed by a touchdown)


A sad post, completetly missing the point.

FlipFlop
08-03-16, 14:03
and a YC to Red 5 ?

No. Why give the card? It didn't (in my opinion) prevent a try, so not under PT law. Wasn't foul play. The knock on by Red #13 isn't C&O from all angles, so not cynical in my view. If the ref needs a video to work it all out, we need to cut the players some slack here as well.

DocY
08-03-16, 14:03
No. Why give the card? It didn't (in my opinion) prevent a try, so not under PT law. Wasn't foul play. The knock on by Red #13 isn't C&O from all angles, so not cynical in my view. If the ref needs a video to work it all out, we need to cut the players some slack here as well.

Being offside and affecting play in a pretty big way in a potentially try-scoring situation (even if it wasn't worthy of a PT)? Ignorance is no defence and the player should have known the law (even if it, understandably, didn't leap to mind at the time).

Phil E
08-03-16, 14:03
It's just NOT a red card and never will be.
Anyone giving a red card there shows no empathy for the game whatsoever. IMO.

crossref
08-03-16, 14:03
It's just NOT a red card and never will be.
Anyone giving a red card there shows no empathy for the game whatsoever. IMO.

no one has mentioned Red.

the question is : is it YC offence ?

it seems to me it is. It's a PK offence, in the in goal, that may well have prevented a try. cynical

although I do take FlipFlop's point that it was very difficulty to see what happened.
In real-life, with no TMO, the ref might have to say that it was impossible to see what happened, nothing was at all clear or at all obvious - - so no try, and also no PK either.

Phil E
08-03-16, 15:03
no one has mentioned Red.

I did. Misread card to Red 5, as Red Card. :redface:

crossref
08-03-16, 15:03
I did. Misread card to Red 5, as Red Card. :redface:

:) - so : would you give a YC ?

Phil E
08-03-16, 16:03
:) - so : would you give a YC ?

No. Took me ages to work out what had happened. I would have probably gone scrum 5 attacking ball in real time.
If I'm not 100% certain what happened (it was very confusing with players travelling in the wrong direction) then I see no value in carding someone.

TheBFG
08-03-16, 16:03
5m Attacking scrum, don't see a C&O knock on at any time.

And TBH not even sure that if I was on my own I'd be 100% sure about Red taking into goal

collybs
08-03-16, 16:03
Surely Red 5 is not offside as at the point of playing the ball Red 13 has moved ahead of him and put him onside. (Red 5 is not in front of the player who last played the ball.)

beckett50
08-03-16, 18:03
Amazing what some people see....


Red #12 loses the ball BACKWARDS. He is the defender..


That'll teach me to post a reply from the iPad first thing in the morning before at least one mug of Earl Grey tea :biggrin:

You are, of course right about the ball going backwards.

If this was realtime and I was on my own I would give PT as I firmly believe that the Red #5 has come into in-goal and played the ball without having been played onside by the actions of a team-mate, and that would mean he gets :yellow:

Law 11.1 clearly states that:

A player can be offside in the in-goal (and as such he is "temporarily out of the game")

and IMO the Red #5 is not put onside by any of the actions in 11.2, or 11.3 and he offends under 11.7 - if we discover, after numerous TMO replays that the Red#13 has knocked the ball forwards and it hasn't been touched by White #9 - because he has come running into in-goal from the field of play (whereas the Red #13 is already in the in-goal area)



As an aside I am not comfortable with this "clear and obvious" knock on malarky. The player has made an attempt to play the ball and so there is intent to play the ball. The fact that the ball has bounced off his fingertips in the attempt because he misjudged the bounce, or whatever, why should that have a bearing on the decision?

crossref
08-03-16, 18:03
What would be unclear in real time is whether white knocked on first, and whether the final red knock on really went forwards (or did it go sideways and bounce forwards, so not a knock on)
In real time I suggest you really woild not be sure what happened

Taff
08-03-16, 23:03
Took me ages to work out what had happened. I would have probably gone scrum 5 attacking ball in real time.
If I'm not 100% certain what happened (it was very confusing with players travelling in the wrong direction) then I see no value in carding someone.

No. Why give the card? .... The knock on by Red #13 isn't C&O from all angles, so not cynical in my view. If the ref needs a video to work it all out, we need to cut the players some slack here as well.
Exactly.

Ian_Cook
09-03-16, 00:03
No. Why give the card? It didn't (in my opinion) prevent a try, so not under PT law. Wasn't foul play. The knock on by Red #13 isn't C&O from all angles, so not cynical in my view. If the ref needs a video to work it all out, we need to cut the players some slack here as well.


No. Took me ages to work out what had happened. I would have probably gone scrum 5 attacking ball in real time.
If I'm not 100% certain what happened (it was very confusing with players travelling in the wrong direction) then I see no value in carding someone.


100% these comments

If a video replay in slowmo from different angles is needed to determine what the ball did during all that pin-balling around, how on earth are the players supposed to work out what happened in a faction of a second, with one look, at full speed, from the singular, individual angles they had?

The Fat
09-03-16, 12:03
This caused some WTF? face pulling in my lounge room as I watched the game live on TV.
Wife, daughter (whose name is Georgia but sometimes gets George for short from me) and daughter's friend are having drinks across the room. TMO George Ayoub comes out with the "but it's in-goal" line and I'm shaking my head saying, "No,no, no. Don't say that George!"
Silence from other side of room and three women giving me the WTF face all wanting to know what was so bad about what my daughter had just said? "Not you darling", says I. "I'm talking to the TMO who should know better. I can't believe he just said that".

For what it's worth, I'm with Phil E. They replayed it multiple times to see if either white 9 or red 13 had grounded the ball. Doubt over grounding, 5m attacking scrum. Not sure if that was Phil's reasoning or if he believed red grounded the ball (after taking it in) but the result is the same.

If no-one had grounded prior to red 5, then it should have been a PK against red 5 for offside. No YC as red 13 was the next man there anyway.

If Angus Gardiner could have turned the microphones down, I reckon the conversation would have gone like this, "WTF are you talking about George?", at which point George would have realised what he had just said (I hope) and given himself a good upper-cut.

TheBFG
09-03-16, 16:03
[/LIST]
As an aside I am not comfortable with this "clear and obvious" knock on malarky. The player has made an attempt to play the ball and so there is intent to play the ball. The fact that the ball has bounced off his fingertips in the attempt because he misjudged the bounce, or whatever, why should that have a bearing on the decision?


C&O knock on by red, when? To me it looks as though red knocks the ball towards his own DBL, therefore Red #5 is not offside :chin:

crossref
09-03-16, 16:03
C&O knock on by red, when? To me it looks as though red knocks the ball towards his own DBL, therefore Red #5 is not offside :chin:

he knocks it twice, doesn't he : first time with his left hand, right from under white's hand to stop white scoring, that's def towards the DBL, so that's OK. then second time with his right hand - which seems to go away from the DBL (so forwards) putting his arriving team mates offside.


but not C&O in real time, no.

beckett50
09-03-16, 19:03
C&O knock on by red, when? To me it looks as though red knocks the ball towards his own DBL, therefore Red #5 is not offside :chin:

You're missing my point, which is probably my fault. I was not, per se, referring to this particular instance but more making reference to the phrase "Clear and Obvious" in the referee review of (this) action replays when adjudging whether there has been a knock-on.

Taff
09-03-16, 21:03
[QUOTE=The Fat;313231]This caused some WTF? face pulling in my lounge room as I watched the game live on TV.
Wife, daughter (whose name is Georgia but sometimes gets George for short from me) and daughter's friend are having drinks across the room. TMO George Ayoub comes out with the "but it's in

merge
09-03-16, 23:03
Does it matter which whether red 13 knocked it forward or back? Or as red 5 is in front of red 13, i.e. "in front of a team mate who last played the ball", is he offside until he's level with red 13 (which on the video appears to occur as he dives for the ball.)?