PDA

View Full Version : Offside when collecting a dropped ball?



Steve70
12-04-16, 23:04
Blue kick a 22D/O, red player attempts to catch but fluffs it and it bounces forwards off his legs - no knock on. Another red player who was in front of him (nearer the oppositions try line) then collects the ball from the ground. Is this offside? Lots of grief from a player for this one - I called that he hadn't played the ball - it came off his legs, and so his team mate wasn't offside... But I see his point...

which leads me to....

Ball dropped directly downwards by a standing player trying to catch a pass - do many give the benefit of the doubt and play on as 'not forward' or always give a knock on?

Pinky
13-04-16, 00:04
Offside as in front of player who last played the ball

I would consider a dropped ball that did not clearly go backwards to be a knock on.

Thunderhorse1986
13-04-16, 06:04
Offside as in front of player who last played the ball

I would consider a dropped ball that did not clearly go backwards to be a knock on.

I would go the other way and consider a dropped ball to be straight or back unless it was clearly and obviously forwards. Same with a pass etc. If it is not clear and obviously an infringement then I will not blow. Personally I think this lesser "burden of proof" on the players shows a bit more empathy but I can see why someone would take the opposite approach too.

crossref
13-04-16, 09:04
Blue kick a 22D/O, red player attempts to catch but fluffs it and it bounces forwards off his legs - no knock on. Another red player who was in front of him (nearer the oppositions try line) then collects the ball from the ground. Is this offside? Lots of grief from a player for this one - I called that he hadn't played the ball - it came off his legs, and so his team mate wasn't offside... But I see his point...


he had played it, so the team mates in front of him are offside. Same as when he kicks it



which leads me to....[/FONT]

Ball dropped directly downwards by a standing player trying to catch a pass - do many give the benefit of the doubt and play on as 'not forward' or always give a knock on?

you have to see it, but I reckon 30 players are expecting you to give a knock on, and ko is the best call.

The Fat
13-04-16, 09:04
Steve70,
The team mate in front of the red player whose legs touched the ball is offside as he is, "in front of a team mate who last played the ball".
There was no knock-on by the potential catcher but that has no bearing on whether a team mate is in an offside position.

From Definitions:
In general play a player is offside 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.

and
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.

This is true when a player touches the ball OR the ball touches a player.

As for your 2nd question, whilst I agree with Thunderhorse1986 re a ball dropped straight down, it is going to be a judgement call on your behalf. If it looks like a knock forward, call advantage to opposition and see what happens. If you think it's fine, i.e. you think it went straight down, make life easy for yourself and make a loud call of, "Straight down. Play on".
Remember that a knock forward must travel towards the opposition's DBL. If it is not clear and obvious, play on, but let the players know by making that loud call.
You'll know 'em when you see 'em. Most of the ones that drop in front of a player will look like a knock forward and your reaction will be instinctive.

crossref
13-04-16, 11:04
seems to me that :
- a player is facing forward
- the ball comes to him (kick or pass)
- he touches the ball with his hands
- ball falls to the deck in front of him,
then knock on is going to be almost always the correct call.

Thunderhorse1986
13-04-16, 13:04
seems to me that :
- a player is facing forward
- the ball comes to him (kick or pass)
- he touches the ball with his hands
- ball falls to the deck in front of him,
then knock on is going to be almost always the correct call.

I don't disagree, especially in the qualified scenario you give here. My comment was based on Pinky's assertion that a dropped ball that did not clearly go backwards should be called a knock on. What about if it "clearly" goes sideways? This is not clearly backwards, but I don't see that being a knock on. Hence my point - if something is C&O forward then you can blow it/play advantage for the knock on. For me it's the wrong way round to assume that unless it has clearly gone backwards then it must have gone forwards. I prefer the benefit of the doubt to the player I guess, but like I say, this is possibly personal preference.

didds
13-04-16, 13:04
it certainly seems to be the way (most?) refs blow it - and TBH I don;t have an issue with it.

Don;t want to give away a scrum? take it cleanly in the first place!

didds

leaguerefaus
13-04-16, 13:04
I'm with Didds. If you drop the ball and I'm not sure, I'm blowing the whistle.

DocY
13-04-16, 14:04
I thought only blowing for the clear and obvious was the standard...

Phil E
13-04-16, 15:04
You don't drop it, I won't blow it....simples.

SimonSmith
13-04-16, 17:04
Whatever you decide, call it quickly:
"SIDEWAYS" or "BACKWARDS" - and remove any doubt players might have

Pegleg
14-04-16, 07:04
You blow for "Clear and obvious". Those are the current buzz words. So why reverse it to you "Blow unless it is Clear and obvious". There is a consistency issue there.

For me, it should be "call what you see" and leave it at that.

FlipFlop
14-04-16, 08:04
You blow for "Clear and obvious". Those are the current buzz words. So why reverse it to you "Blow unless it is Clear and obvious". There is a consistency issue there.

For me, it should be "call what you see" and leave it at that.

The idea for me is that you blow or don’t blow based on clear and obvious difference to what is expected (or likely to have happened).

To explain with a couple of scenarios:
Forward pass – People expect passes to be backwards, so it has to be clear and obvious forward to blow.
Dropped Ball – from a kick if the full back drops it, people expect the knock on. So it has to be clear and obvious that it was NOT a knock on to prevent the whistle.
The whole point of clear and obvious is so that people understand and believe the decision. Not to prevent the whistle being blown (but it helps with this aspect as well in most scenarios)

Thunderhorse1986
14-04-16, 11:04
You blow for "Clear and obvious". Those are the current buzz words. So why reverse it to you "Blow unless it is Clear and obvious". There is a consistency issue there.

For me, it should be "call what you see" and leave it at that.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

And communicate it as required.

Pegleg
14-04-16, 12:04
Inded comunication is KEY.

Dickie E
14-04-16, 15:04
make a loud call of, "Straight down. Play on".


Nitpicky alert but I'd be more likely to call "backwards" as opposed to "straight down", "sideways", etc. It's either a knock on and whistle or its backwards. I like binary things.

Phil E
14-04-16, 15:04
I like binary things.

|01000100|01101001|01100011|01101011|01101001|0110 0101|00100000|01000101|00001101

didds
14-04-16, 15:04
. I like binary things.


There are 10 types of people in the world who understand binary.

Those that do, and those that don't.

didds

crossref
14-04-16, 15:04
There are 10 types of people in the world who understand binary.

Those that do, and those that don't.

didds

that's an example of a joke that only works when written down. There aren't many jokes like that.

Pegleg
14-04-16, 17:04
I also like jokes/ puzzles that can be said but not written down.

crossref
14-04-16, 17:04
I also like jokes/ puzzles that can be said but not written down.

give us an example :tongue:

actually here is an example...

a woman went into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre.
..so he gave her one.

Rushforth
14-04-16, 18:04
give us an example :tongue:

actually here is an example...

a woman went into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre.
..so he gave her one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050323/quotes?ref_=tt_ql_trv_4

Pinky
14-04-16, 19:04
The idea for me is that you blow or don’t blow based on clear and obvious difference to what is expected (or likely to have happened).

To explain with a couple of scenarios:
Forward pass – People expect passes to be backwards, so it has to be clear and obvious forward to blow.
Dropped Ball – from a kick if the full back drops it, people expect the knock on. So it has to be clear and obvious that it was NOT a knock on to prevent the whistle.
The whole point of clear and obvious is so that people understand and believe the decision. Not to prevent the whistle being blown (but it helps with this aspect as well in most scenarios)


This is what I meant

Pegleg
15-04-16, 07:04
give us an example :tongue:

actually here is an example...

a woman went into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre.
..so he gave her one.

Here's a little question, the answer to which cannot be written down Don't spend too long thinking about it. There are at least two answers to the question.

Can you give me a sentence that can be spoken but not written down?

didds
15-04-16, 08:04
No.


Or yes.

didds

4eyesbetter
15-04-16, 12:04
"Hey, ask me what the secret of comedy is?" "What's the secret of c--" "Timing!"

Rich_NL
15-04-16, 13:04
give us an example :tongue:

actually here is an example...

a woman went into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre.
..so he gave her one.

? That works OK written down, doesn't it?

Two French lorries, which one's transporting snails?
The one with less cargo.

What's halfway between fear and sex?
Fünf

etc