PDA

View Full Version : Wellington 7s Final - Offside



chalksta
31-01-17, 02:01
I noticed this occurrence while watching the game and it is a scenario that is not often seen where the ball is knocked backwards and then picked up by a player in front. Just want to get other peoples thoughts on what their decision would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwzpSTxDjc8#t=17m07s

In my view SA 4 is in an offside position so play should have stopped with a scrum to SA for the initial knock on infringement.

Ian_Cook
31-01-17, 02:01
Its a difficult scenario and one that the Laws don't actually address very well.

The question is, when a player plays at the ball and then retires or moves back towards his own dead ball line, does the offside line (for team-mates who wish to play the ball) move back within him, or does it remain a line across the field where the ball was played?

Imagine this scenario: A fullback (with all his 14 team-mates ahead of him) is tackled just out from his own goal-line. He drops the ball backwards and it rolls into in-goal while he is driven back by the tackler, further than then ball has rolled.

Should a team-mate in the field of play be allowed to run back and ground the ball. Technically, he could be offside.

IMO, it makes more sense that the offside line remains where the ball was played, therefore, so long as SA4 played the ball at a point no closer to the opposition DBL than where his teammate played it, then he has retired to the offside line and played the ball legally.

ctrainor
31-01-17, 13:01
I agree with Ian, play on

Camquin
31-01-17, 14:01
White have the ball and knock it on.
Green player runs back and fails to pick up the ball but definitely plays it, so he is now the offside line.
No white player touches him.
Green player from an offside position approaches the ball.
Even if the ball is the offside line, he is interfering with play before he gets onside.

So for me Green chose to create an offside line, so penalty but go back for the earlier knock on by white, scrum green.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-17, 14:01
Imagine this scenario: A fullback (with all his 14 team-mates ahead of him) is tackled just out from his own goal-line. He drops the ball backwards and it rolls into in-goal while he is driven back by the tackler, further than then ball has rolled.

Should a team-mate in the field of play be allowed to run back and ground the ball. Technically, he could be offside.

.

Should a team-mate in the field of play be allowed to run back and ground the ball. Nope, equity and fairness are not applied And it is specific

for reference of readers:

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.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-17, 16:01
Imagine this scenario: A fullback (with all his 14 team-mates ahead of him) is tackled just out from his own goal-line. He drops the ball backwards and it rolls into in-goal while he is driven back by the tackler, further than then ball has rolled.

Should a team-mate in the field of play be allowed to run back and ground the ball. Technically, he could be offside.
.

Oh, um or ah, this one

22.5 Ball grounded by a defending player
(a) Touch down. When defending players are first to ground the ball in their in-goal, it results in a touch down.

Maybe this, but um Which is applied

Ian_Cook
31-01-17, 20:01
White have the ball and knock it on.
Green player runs back and fails to pick up the ball but definitely plays it, so he is now the offside line.
No white player touches him.
Green player from an offside position approaches the ball.
Even if the ball is the offside line, he is interfering with play before he gets onside.

So for me Green chose to create an offside line, so penalty but go back for the earlier knock on by white, scrum green.

The bold bit is that part I don't agree with.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/SevenOffside.png

Green 1 played the ball at the red line, and continued to run back towards his own goal-line after touching the ball. What you are essentially saying is that Green 4 is offside because Green 1 has carried the offside line back with him from the red line to where he stopped (marked by the yellow line). Do you really think that this is what the Law intends?

What if Green 4 was already where he is now when Green 1 touched the ball (i.e, behind the red line)? Does the fact that Green 1 runs behind Green 4 make Green 4 offside?

For mine, the offside line in this play is the red line, NOT the yellow line. The offside line cannot be any further back from where the player last touched it.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-17, 21:01
For mine, the offside line in this play is the red line, NOT the yellow line. The offside line cannot be any further back from where the player last touched it.

But the red line can move forward (toward opponents DBL) as the player that last touched it also moves forward? Just not backward?

Pegleg
31-01-17, 21:01
I'm with Ian on this one.

Ian_Cook
31-01-17, 22:01
But the red line can move forward (toward opponents DBL) as the player that last touched it also moves forward? Just not backward?

Having the offside line move forwards with the last player who touched the ball make perfect sense because we don't want a player in front of that player to benefit from being in an offside position; we want him to wait until he is put onside.

However, having the offside line move back with the last player who touched the hall makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-17, 23:01
H
However, having the offside line move back with the last player who touched the hall makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Cept we have a law to the contrary, as you know. that is kinda clear.

It does make sense that zero benefit should be gained by an offside player of a teammate who missed played the ball, by virtue of his team putting him in a position to play the ball poorly.

11.2 Being put onside by the action of a team-mate
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by actions of that player or of team mates:
(a) Action by the player. When the offside player runs behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball, the player is put onside.

chbg
31-01-17, 23:01
I am definitely with Ian's Post #7; Green 4 even goes behind the ball to pick it up. That is how the situation is invariably refereed, although the Laws are silent on the scenario. Even though they are silent, has there ever been a question put for clarification? That then is probably your answer, as it would otherwise put defenders in an untenable position.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-17, 23:01
as it would otherwise put defenders in an untenable position.

Isn't that the idea of playing the game as a whole, not just the individual event that resulted as result of poor play

Ian_Cook
01-02-17, 00:02
Isn't that the idea of playing the game as a whole, not just the individual event that resulted as result of poor play

Yes, but the Law should not be interpreted in such a way as to make the game unplayable

Penalising a player for offside in this scenario looks very much like a "gotcha"

didds
01-02-17, 01:02
and to add to Ian's point, if in some paralleled universe and bizarre scenarios the green #1 ended up behind his own DBL then nobody in his team could ever play the ball and its a walk in for the oppo?

didds

Dickie E
01-02-17, 01:02
If Green #1 had touched the ball with his boot then the ball went backwards, would Green #4 be offside under 10 metre law?

Not Kurt Weaver
01-02-17, 03:02
and to add to Ian's point, if in some paralleled universe and bizarre scenarios the green #1 ended up behind his own DBL then nobody in his team could ever play the ball and its a walk in for the oppo?

didds

green can still touch the ball down in your parallel universe to prevent the walk in, the follow on PK would be 5m

Not Kurt Weaver
01-02-17, 03:02
Yes, but the Law should not be interpreted in such a way as to make the game unplayable

Penalising a player for offside in this scenario looks very much like a "gotcha"

The game is only unplayable to offside players, all others can also become available

Gotha or not it is covered in law. Aid is not provided by law for running the wrong direction and inability to perform.

Ian_Cook
01-02-17, 04:02
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?

chalksta
01-02-17, 05:02
Just to add another example that seems to mimic what people have been mentioning where a player is tackled backwards past the dead ball line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdqvw9yaAgc

chbg
01-02-17, 09:02
Not the same scenario, as the last man to play the ball does not continue to retire, the ball bounces forward and a player who was always in front of both the last player and the ball picks it up. Always offside (in-goal has no effect). And their own fault for not touching down when they had the opportunity.

Not Kurt Weaver
01-02-17, 15:02
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?


Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again, nice to be no. 1 at something, usually I'm Number 2.

For the British, that is called self deprecating houmor. If you wish to respond make it clever, not like
"no shit", or 10 kilos of number 2 in a 5 kilo pouch

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball? I'm in a hurry, but I'll think of a response. I'll get back

DocY
02-02-17, 10:02
Hopefully this incident will spawn a clarification.

I agree with NKW that the law is clear and a strict interpretation can only lead to a penalty for offside.

The question really is "is that really what was intended?" It's very rare situation, so the writers maybe just didn't think of it.

As a barometer, think about what would happen if you were in this situation last Saturday.

If you'd said play on, nobody would bat an eyelid because, let's face it, this is only really interesting to us law geeks; but if you gave the penalty you'd have players and spectators scratching their heads (if they're very polite).

Sure, you could get out your lawbook after the game and show them you were 'right', but at the time you'd be losing respect (and with it control) and making your life more difficult for a reason that 99% of rugby people wouldn't fathom.

crossref
02-02-17, 11:02
I think this is a good point.
If ever there is a situation where thirty players are expecting one thing, and you make a different decision, there should be a warning bell ringing

Phil E
02-02-17, 11:02
Clear, Obvious and Expected.

That's what you should be blowing for.

It's called Referee Protection.

DocY
02-02-17, 12:02
Clear, Obvious and Expected.

That's what you should be blowing for.

It's called Referee Protection.I like that!

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-17, 14:02
Clear, Obvious and Expected.

That's what you should be blowing for.

It's called Referee Protection.

From what do referees need protection?

DocY
02-02-17, 15:02
From what do referees need protection?Clearly you've never refereed an U12 game!

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-17, 15:02
Clearly you've never refereed an U12 game!

I do not think I have ever seen a U12 game, (once at halftime in /dubai) not in USA.

At U12 is it parents or players?

DocY
02-02-17, 15:02
I do not think I have ever seen a U12 game, (once at halftime in /dubai) not in USA.

At U12 is it parents or players?The latter - the players themselves are alright, but the parents are really awful - half of them weren't involved in rugby before their kids started playing so have no appreciation of the laws or the culture.

DocY
02-02-17, 16:02
Back to the point, though, protection might be a bit of a strong word, but there are things you can do - often unrelated to your performance - that just make your job so much easier, and keeping the crowd and the players off your back is a huge part of that.

Once they get on your back they're going to start undermining the players' confidence in you, you're going to enjoy yourself less and your game will deteriorate to everyone's detriment.

And, IME, they start to get on your back when you do the unexpected - whether that's missing an obvious knock on or pinging someone for something that doesn't look wrong.

That's what Phil's meaning by protection - you protect yourself by doing things to make your job easier; or not doing things to make your job harder.

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-17, 16:02
The latter - the players themselves are alright, but the parents are really awful - half of them weren't involved in rugby before their kids started playing so have no appreciation of the laws or the culture.


yep, the only thing wrong with youth sports is parents.

Parent behavior for Soccer in the USA seems to improve as level of play improves and kids get older.

Parents in basketball are generally a mirrored reflection to school district / population. Even a better district there always seems to be a couple of clowns. Our basketball organization encourages youth players to shake refs hand. This actually has seemed to decreased parent disagreement. At high school level, the refs run from the court to their locker room at the final buzzer 99% of time.

DocY
02-02-17, 16:02
At high school level, the refs run from the court to their locker room at the final buzzer 99% of time.

Some international rugby refs do that, too ;)

Camquin
02-02-17, 17:02
The best way to keep a crowd on your side - big clear secondary signals.

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-17, 22:02
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball? NO

Allow me address these items of query one at a time. First the drop kick/ ko

7.1 Playing a match

Any player may throw it or kick it.

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.



Drop kick: The ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it rises from its first bounce.


By definitions a drop kick is a a kick, kicks are permissible, players may kick. A missed drop kick (that is no contact below knee) is not a kick, and is a KO or TF if in fact it occurred toward opponents DBL

Nothing outrageous, correct?

Not Kurt Weaver
02-02-17, 23:02
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?

Only if they are offside, and I can't say I have ever seen that.

Here is my spin:

Below a-d refer to offenses within ruck, e and f can only be done by rucking players or on side players, f is obviously targeted to a dummy from SH or perhaps a player a base of ruck, this could also include verbal.

16.4 Other ruck offences
(a)
Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick


A SH handling in a ruck is not violating (b) if he is onside, this law applies to those in ruck.

Conversely if (a) occurs from SH, SH is either offside himself or rucking players were offside.(PK) Rucking players committing (a) are not offside, so this law applies to them.(FK)

OB..
03-02-17, 11:02
By definitions a drop kick is a a kick, kicks are permissible, players may kick. A missed drop kick (that is no contact below knee) is not a kick, and is a KO or TF if in fact it occurred toward opponents DBL

Nothing outrageous, correct?The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.

Your argument that because a kick is legal, therefore the forward release must necessarily also be legal is insufficient because many kicks do not require the forward release. It would be better all round if the law made the exception explicit.

DocY
03-02-17, 11:02
The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.


I don't agree - I see it as good play from the opposition forcing the knock on. Happened to me a couple of times as a player and I've given knock-ons as a referee in this situation and nobody's questioned it.

I see it similarly to an opponent getting a hand to the ball when a player is juggling it - that also turns something that could be legal into an infringement.

OB..
03-02-17, 11:02
Only if they are offside, and I can't say I have ever seen that.

Here is my spin:

Below a-d refer to offenses within ruck, e and f can only be done by rucking players or on side players, f is obviously targeted to a dummy from SH or perhaps a player a base of ruck, this could also include verbal.

16.4 Other ruck offences
(a)
Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick


A SH handling in a ruck is not violating (b) if he is onside, this law applies to those in ruck.

Conversely if (a) occurs from SH, SH is either offside himself or rucking players were offside.(PK) Rucking players committing (a) are not offside, so this law applies to them.(FK)You accept that (e) and (f) apply to players not in the ruck but insist that (b) can only apply to players in the ruck. I see no justification for that. The parallel section for scrums, 20.9, spells out the groups to which each sub-paragraph applies, which would imply that 16.4 covers all players.

As ever, I argue that we have to interpret the laws sensibly, not literally. It is, however, a good idea for the lawmakers to ensure the laws are a reasonable reflection of the way the game is actually played.

Not Kurt Weaver
03-02-17, 12:02
The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.


Seems just fine to me. It is a risk of kicking.



Your argument that because a kick is legal, therefore the forward release must necessarily also be legal is insufficient because many kicks do not require the forward release. It would be better all round if the law made the exception explicit.

No my justification is that the definition of a kick includes releasing the ball, direction of release is irrelevant. As also are kicks that do not require any release.

As ever, I argue that we have to interpret the laws sensibly, not literally. It is, however, a good idea for the lawmakers to ensure the laws are a reasonable reflection of the way the game is actually played.

OB..
03-02-17, 12:02
I don't agree - I see it as good play from the opposition forcing the knock on. Happened to me a couple of times as a player and I've given knock-ons as a referee in this situation and nobody's questioned it.

I see it similarly to an opponent getting a hand to the ball when a player is juggling it - that also turns something that could be legal into an infringement.I don't see any useful similarity because both players are trying to control a juggled ball.

I object strongly to the concept that an opponent can unilaterally turn a legal action into an infringement. It grates horribly on my sense of fair play. The Law ought to say "Releasing the ball forward in order to effect a kick is not a throw forward."

DocY
03-02-17, 12:02
I don't see any useful similarity because both players are trying to control a juggled ball.

I object strongly to the concept that an opponent can unilaterally turn a legal action into an infringement. It grates horribly on my sense of fair play. The Law ought to say "Releasing the ball forward in order to effect a kick is not a throw forward."

I've seen players not in possession make no attempt to catch it, just to flap it back, but I still don't see a problem with that.

I agree that the law should specify something, though - clearly we have two opposing views here and I don't think it's easy to say either of us is definitely right or wrong. The wording you suggest would leave no ambiguity.

To further stir the pot, though, in the tackle-before-a-kick situation, why is it neither a deliberate knock-on or a contrived infringement? ;)

Not Kurt Weaver
03-02-17, 12:02
I object strongly to the concept that an opponent can unilaterally turn a legal action into an infringement. It grates horribly on my sense of fair play. The Law ought to say "Releasing the ball forward in order to effect a kick is not a throw forward."

Hypothetically, So it is "play on" then (post tackle of kicking player, ball released forward) Are you OK with a on side teammate of tackled kicker collecting the ball?


Also, where is off side line in this situation of (post tackle ball released forward from kick) for attempted kicking team?

OB..
03-02-17, 12:02
To further stir the pot, though, in the tackle-before-a-kick situation, why is it not a deliberate knock-on? ;)
No such thing. (The offence is a deliberate knock forward - a subtle but significant difference.) However it could be a deliberate throw forward.

OB..
03-02-17, 12:02
Hypothetically, So it is "play on" then (post tackle of kicking player, ball released forward) Are you OK with a on side teammate of tackled kicker collecting the ball?
Of course.

DocY
03-02-17, 12:02
No such thing. (The offence is a deliberate knock forward - a subtle but significant difference.) However it could be a deliberate throw forward.

Yes, thanks, sloppy wording on my part.

DocY
03-02-17, 12:02
Hypothetically, So it is "play on" then (post tackle of kicking player, ball released forward) Are you OK with a on side teammate of tackled kicker collecting the ball?


Also, where is off side line in this situation of (post tackle ball released forward from kick) for attempted kicking team?

It'd be on the team mate who last played the ball, so the would-be kicker.

Not Kurt Weaver
03-02-17, 13:02
It'd be on the team mate who last played the ball, so the would-be kicker.

Yep, a player driven perhaps backward by would be tackler. so were are back to same situation as original post.

I gather this situation OB describes is not a tackle either, so there also would be not tackle area.

Not Kurt Weaver
03-02-17, 13:02
Hypothetically, So it is "play on" then (post tackle of kicking player, ball released forward) Are you OK with a on side teammate of tackled kicker collecting the ball?


Also, where is off side line in this situation of (post tackle ball released forward from kick) for attempted kicking team?


Of course.

So, the most likely result of your proposal would be the tacklers team collecting the ball or fly hacking ball forward. The once kicker's team could also fly hack.

The net result would be less scrum downs. This would save approx 3 minutes of scrum down time for each incident

I do not share OB equity/fairness stance, but less scrums the better