PDA

View Full Version : [Law] But how is he supposed to defend ,Sir? Offside in-goal



CrouchTPEngage
05-03-17, 08:03
I gave a decision today which received much questionig.
Blue are defending at a ruck , about 3m from their goal line.
They do well and win the ball. The blue 10 moves to the very back of the in goal in ordee to execute the exit strategy. Blue 9 passes back to him and the 10 kicks to touch. Now, he messes up his kick and the ball lands on the 5m line. His blue teammate had remained on the try line (i.e, in front of the kicker and within 10m of where the ball lands).The blue player cant resist going for ball and catches it.
I blow for offside. Red take ir quickly and score. Cue blue s coach and team asking me 2 points. "He cant be offside in goal!" And "what is he supposed to do? Just let the red attacker catch the ball and score ? How can he defend legaly ?"
Interestingly, if you can give offside under 10m law, how could red choose to restart the game ?

Ian_Cook
05-03-17, 09:03
I gave a decision today which received much questionig.
Blue are defending at a ruck , about 3m from their goal line.
They do well and win the ball. The blue 10 moves to the very back of the in goal in ordee to execute the exit strategy. Blue 9 passes back to him and the 10 kicks to touch. Now, he messes up his kick and the ball lands on the 5m line. His blue teammate had remained on the try line (i.e, in front of the kicker and within 10m of where the ball lands).The blue player cant resist going for ball and catches it.
I blow for offside. Red take ir quickly and score. Cue blue s coach and team asking me 2 points. "He cant be offside in goal!" And "what is he supposed to do? Just let the red attacker catch the ball and score ? How can he defend legaly ?"


Coach: "He cant be offside in goal!"
Ref: "Yes, he can"

Coach: "what is he supposed to do? Just let the red attacker catch the ball and score ?"
Ref: "Yes"

Coach" "How can he defend legally?"
Ref: He can't.



Interestingly, if you can give offside under 10m law, how could red choose to restart the game ?

1. PK in line with the mark, no closer than 5m from the opposition goal line.

2. Scrum (no closer than 5m) in line with the place where Blue last played the ball, which in this case would be the same place

The Fat
05-03-17, 10:03
Coach: "He cant be offside in goal!"
Ref: "Yes, he can"

Coach: "what is he supposed to do? Just let the red attacker catch the ball and score ?"
Ref: "Yes"

Coach" "How can he defend legally?"
Ref: He can't.



1. PK in line with the mark, no closer than 5m from the opposition goal line.

2. Scrum (no closer than 5m) in line with the place where Blue last played the ball, which in this case would be the same place

Re the bit in bold.
Coach" "How can he defend legally?"
Ref: He can't.

Coach: "How can he defend legally?"
Ref: He can't in the first instance because he is in an offside position. However, after he caught the ball and was penalised for offside under the 10m law, his only chance is to put the ball down, get to the goal line before the quick tap is taken and then attempt to tackle the red ball carrier. Other than that, not much at all.
What the Ref is probably thinking: He could take his 10 down to the park through the week and teach him how to kick when under pressure.

Taff
05-03-17, 10:03
Serious question, are Blue expected to retire the full 10m or just to their goal line? :chin:

Dickie E
05-03-17, 10:03
"and, coach, just be thankful it wasn't a penalty try and YC"

The Fat
05-03-17, 10:03
Serious question, are Blue expected to retire the full 10m or just to their goal line? :chin:

Goal line.
If it is a shallow in-goal of say 5m and the ball is coming down 1m from the goal line, you can't make the bulk of the kicker's team retire to 4m behind the DBL.

Taff
05-03-17, 11:03
Goal line. If it is a shallow in-goal of say 5m and the ball is coming down 1m from the goal line, you can't make the bulk of the kicker's team retire to 4m behind the DBL.
That's what I would have thought.

So the answer to the question "But how is he supposed to defend ,Sir?" is "The same as every PK 5m out from your goal line where they tap and go."

ChrisR
05-03-17, 11:03
Under the 10m law the off-side player must retire the 10m or behind the kicker. Any onside player may advance and them on.

So there are ways of defending including retreating and hoping the ops knock-on.

Ian_Cook
05-03-17, 19:03
I think some of you are reading the OP dofferently from me

AIUI, the question "How can he defend legally?" refers to the Blue player before he was penalised for playing the ball in an offside position. In the scenario given, he cannot advance beyond his own goal-line, so there is no way he can legally play the ball. All he can do is wait on his own goal-line and hope he can tackle any Red player who picks up the ball and attempts to score a try. So, in a sense, he can defend legally, but he's very limited in what he can do and in all likelihood, if there is a Red player waiting to pick up the ball, he will not be able to prevent a try being scored

Camquin
05-03-17, 20:03
There are times when there is nothing you can do to stop the other side scoring.
The aim is not to get into those situations.

Taff
05-03-17, 20:03
... In the scenario given, he cannot advance beyond his own goal-line, so there is no way he can legally play the ball. All he can do is wait on his own goal-line and hope he can tackle any Red player who picks up the ball and attempts to score a try.
He has to wait on his own goal line until he is put onside by an onside teammate. Once he is put onside, he can go and meet the BC.

Dickie E
05-03-17, 21:03
Is there somewhere in Law 11 that says that the goal line is the offside line under 10 metre law or are we extrapolating from Law 16.5?

menace
05-03-17, 22:03
Probably not exactly but 11.2 c seems to cover it. If the damn kicker chases their kick!

Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside. When running forward, the team-mate may be in touch or touch-in-goal, but that team-mate must return to the playing area to put the player onside.

Dickie E
05-03-17, 22:03
Probably not exactly but 11.2 c seems to cover it.

Not really. The Fat, Ian, Taff & probably most of us believe that the goal line is the line that a player needs to get to to no longer be offside in general play and there would be some convention to support that.

But is it an urban myth? Law 11 doesn't say anything about the goal line - in fact, Law 11.1 says A player can be offside in the in-goal.

CrouchTPEngage
06-03-17, 00:03
Thanks for all those replies. I felt a bit sorry for the defender in the end as he genuinely didn't seem to think he'd done anything wrong. It was the 10 who messed up with a suicidal kick. Weirdly enough I was watching a juniors game today and a player did something even worse. He was in goal, panicked and kicked the ball up in the air. It ended up going backwards and being caught (contested for) by his own teammate who dotted down. I praised the ref after the game as he correctly spotted that the offsides only apply when the ball is kicked "ahead". Juniors games are great at creating these wonderful rare events that test your law knowledge.

menace
06-03-17, 05:03
Not really. The Fat, Ian, Taff & probably most of us believe that the goal line is the line that a player needs to get to to no longer be offside in general play and there would be some convention to support that.

But is it an urban myth? Law 11 doesn't say anything about the goal line - in fact, Law 11.1 says A player can be offside in the in-goal.
Yep. Fair enough.


How about this for extrapolation and word play then?
11.4 e say they are offiside if they are in front across the 'field'.
ie

(e)
The 10-metre Law is not altered by the fact that the ball has hit a goal post or a crossbar. What matters is where the ball lands. An offside player must not be in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field.
If you interpet 'field' to mean 'field of play' then by definition field of play does not include the ingoal. (Thats part of the 'playing area')

The Field of play is the area (as shown on the plan) between the goal lines and the touchlines. These lines are not part of the field of play.

It's a stretch i know but if you use it then it overcomes the 10m law - but doesnt necessarily negate offside in front of kicker. It just mean he doesnt have to retreat 10m and can stop at the goal line and is then only liable for pk if he takes part unitl hes put onside (which in the op he did...but iit's more of an answer for dickie's question).

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 09:03
Not really. The Fat, Ian, Taff & probably most of us believe that the goal line is the line that a player needs to get to to no longer be offside in general play and there would be some convention to support that.

But is it an urban myth? Law 11 doesn't say anything about the goal line - in fact, Law 11.1 says A player can be offside in the in-goal.

Yes, you can be offside in goal.

However, if the kick was taken at the back of a 10m in-goal and lands on the 5m line, are you really going to expect the players in front of the kick to all retire 5m behind their own goal line?

Dickie E
06-03-17, 10:03
However, if the kick was taken at the back of a 10m in-goal and lands on the 5m line, are you really going to expect the players in front of the kick to all retire 5m behind their own goal line?

I guess so. There is no law to guide us otherwise. Why not ask them to retire to the 5 metre line? That is as arbitrary as the goal line.

FlipFlop
06-03-17, 10:03
Some here are saying the Blue player has to wait on his goal line, after the kick.

Under the 10m rule they MUST retreat until they are 10m from where the ball lands, or put onside (only by a teammate). The goal line is irrelevant in this case.

How can they defend it? Blue #10 needs to sprint forward to put all his mates onside (provided they were retreating), and then they can play.

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 10:03
Some here are saying the Blue player has to wait on his goal line, after the kick.

Under the 10m rule they MUST retreat until they are 10m from where the ball lands, or put onside (only by a teammate). The goal line is irrelevant in this case.

How can they defend it? Blue #10 needs to sprint forward to put all his mates onside (provided they were retreating), and then they can play.


I guess so. There is no law to guide us otherwise. Why not ask them to retire to the 5 metre line? That is as arbitrary as the goal line.

OK, I'll play this silly game

LAW 20.12 OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM
(g) Offside for players not in the scrum. Players who are not in the scrum and who are not the team’s scrum half, are offside if they remain in front of their offside line or overstep the offside line which is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost player of each team in a scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offside line

So, consistent with your logic, at a 5m scrum, the hindmost foot of the No. 8 is about 2m from the goal line, so all the defending backs 10 to 15 have to line up at least 3m behind their goal-line. There is nothing in Law 20 which says they only have to retire to the goal line.

To quote OB.. " sometimes, the referee has to make sense of the Laws"

It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever to make players who are offside under the 10m Law retire further back than their goal-line. Those of you who believe they should, have a talk to your Society/Association Referee Education officer, they'll set you straight!

didds
06-03-17, 10:03
Agree with Ian. Strict adherence to the 10m distance requirement could see players stood behind their own dead ball lines on pitches with very small in goal areas.

Its not unknown for kickers to slip over or even be tackled as they kick and not be able to chase up etc etc etc.

Didds

Dickie E
06-03-17, 10:03
OK, I'll play this silly game



I understand that the point under discussion attacks a paradigm that you hold dearly and I also understand that you adopt belligerence as a first line of defence - leopard, spots and all that. But here's a thought for your day:


It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 10:03
I understand that the point under discussion attacks a paradigm that you hold dearly and I also understand that you adopt belligerence as a first line of defence - leopard, spots and all that. But here's a thought for your day:


How about addressing the point Dickie

Dickie E
06-03-17, 11:03
How about addressing the point Dickie

I'm not particularly inclined to participate in a hostile discussion however I am comfortable interpretting clause (h) to include scrums that are within 5 metres of goal line:

(h)If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal line, the offside line for scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line.

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 11:03
I'm not particularly inclined to participate in a hostile discussion however I am comfortable interpretting clause (h) to include scrums that are within 5 metres of goal line:

(h)If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal line, the offside line for scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line.

I think you're being oversensitive. There was nothing hostile or belligerent in what I posted.

However, my thoughts on your thought for the day

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

Sounds like having a bob each way to me :pepper:

Dan_A
06-03-17, 11:03
Shame the perpetrator didn't catch the wayward kick and immediately hoof it off the pitch. Would have given his team every chance of getting back on side and defending the subsequent penalty.

menace
06-03-17, 11:03
Dickie may be being a bit sensitive but your 'ill play this silly game' Ian is condescending and makes it easy to put someone on the back foot to having a discussion....just saying.

ChrisR
06-03-17, 11:03
I think the scenario is worthy of a clarification from WR.

Personally, I'm in agreement with Ian.

Dickie E
06-03-17, 11:03
Dickie may be being a bit sensitive but your 'ill play this silly game' Ian is condescending and makes it easy to put someone on the back foot to having a discussion....just saying.

probably but I've been on this ride before

Dickie E
06-03-17, 11:03
Personally, I'm in agreement with Ian.

I'm not fussed either way and the goal line position makes sense. But what is your reason for agreement? Do you have a law reference?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
06-03-17, 12:03
I think the scenario is worthy of a clarification from WR.



It would be worthy of clarification. Well maybe not worthy but certainly interesting.

Had it happened at my game on Saturday and if we were retiring to 10m behind the ball (and ignoring the goal line) then the defenders would have had to have climbed over a 2m palisade fence which is right behind the DBL (together with the shallowest in-goals I've come across.)

I'm not sure if I support the view of IC or DE - I dislike them both equally - the people, not the views.:biggrin:

It is an interesting scenario and is, I'd suggest, foreseeable in junior or lower standard games or even just a very windy day.

I think given that if the same scenario had occurred in my game on Saturday then Ian's sounds the most pragmatic approach but neither view is supported by the law unless I've missed something. Maybe the OB approach is best.

See below - my pitch - Saturday just gone.

3524

ChrisR
06-03-17, 12:03
No I don't have a reference. However, do we want to create situations where a player is prevented by law from defending his goal line?

Changing the scenario in the OP slightly so that the kicker flubs it so badly that the ball grubbers into the FOP. Does the 10m law apply? An opponent was "waiting to play the ball" but where it "landed" was two feet in front of the kicker.

FlipFlop
06-03-17, 12:03
It would be worthy of clarification. Well maybe not worthy but certainly interesting.

Had it happened at my game on Saturday and if we were retiring to 10m behind the ball (and ignoring the goal line) then the defenders would have had to have climbed over a 2m palisade fence which is right behind the DBL (together with the shallowest in-goals I've come across.)

I'm not sure if I support the view of IC or DE - I dislike them both equally - the people, not the views.:biggrin:

It is an interesting scenario and is, I'd suggest, foreseeable in junior or lower standard games or even just a very windy day.

I think given that if the same scenario had occurred in my game on Saturday then Ian's sounds the most pragmatic approach but neither view is supported by the law unless I've missed something. Maybe the OB approach is best.

See below - my pitch - Saturday just gone.

3524

What a lot of BS. If it happened on that field, the defenders would have to retire 10m, or be put onside by one of their team mates (which will happen before they get 10m). Lets say - the kicker, who would be in ingoal. Not the other side of the fence, IF the kicker was that far back, then the ball went dead before he kicked it. So the further back they would need to go is to just in front of the dead ball line.

You can be offside in ingoal. We all accept that. So why are some saying you can't be offside under the 10m law, if you are in goal? The law is very specific in saying you CAN be offside in ingoal, and doesn't exclude the 10m law from that. In fact the vast majority of times the "offside in ingoal" comes up is AFTER a kick.

So for me - team mates of the kicker need to comply with the 10m law. The goal line is irrelevant. The kicker (or a team mate who was behind the kicker) should be moving to put their team mates onside.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets not forget - under the 10m law you CAN be put onside by your team mates.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
06-03-17, 13:03
What a lot of BS. If it happened on that field, the defenders would have to retire 10m, or be put onside by one of their team mates (which will happen before they get 10m). Lets say - the kicker, who would be in ingoal. Not the other side of the fence, IF the kicker was that far back, then the ball went dead before he kicked it. So the further back they would need to go is to just in front of the dead ball line.

You can be offside in ingoal. We all accept that. So why are some saying you can't be offside under the 10m law, if you are in goal? The law is very specific in saying you CAN be offside in ingoal, and doesn't exclude the 10m law from that. In fact the vast majority of times the "offside in ingoal" comes up is AFTER a kick.

So for me - team mates of the kicker need to comply with the 10m law. The goal line is irrelevant. The kicker (or a team mate who was behind the kicker) should be moving to put their team mates onside.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets not forget - under the 10m law you CAN be put onside by your team mates.

BS aside - not sure if that was intended for me or the thread generally. Anyway. What I was alluding to was that on that pitch with its small in-goals and the fence (being mischievous I grant you) then a ball landing just in the FoP would mean defenders would not have 10m to retire before they came to the fence - They'd have about 6-7m. Team mates of the kicker are still offside if they didn't attempt to retire even if the kicker runs forward. What if the kicker for whatever reason - injury/inexperience (juniors?) - doesn't run forward or does but beyond the touchline.

I was trying to come up with an (extreme) example of where retiring 10m (kicker running forward notwithstanding) is impossible.

Conversely pitches such as Market Rasen and Louth have in goals 22m deep and no fence - so plenty of room to retire (again assuming the kicker doesn't move) the 10m, but should they have to? - Ian C says no (they can stop at the goal line Dickie suggests they may have to.) Apologies if I failed to make myself clear - it wouldn't be the first time.

OB..
06-03-17, 13:03
However, do we want to create situations where a player is prevented by law from defending his goal line?We already have them - laws designed to award a penalty try for illegal play preventing a probable try.

The only argument here is whether or not the play described can be seen as legal. What if the #10 had knocked the ball on and a teammate had grounded it to prevent an opponent from getting there first? The general principles of offside are clear, but bite particularly hard around in-goal. The only clear statement in law we have is that in-goal is NOT different. I find it hard to see past that. Why the enthusiasm for excusing a defender who has blundered?

BTW the law says that touch-in-goal should be 10-22m deep. A lot of pitches do not conform to that, but LL-P's example is the most extreme I have seen.

didds
06-03-17, 13:03
I'm not fussed either way and the goal line position makes sense. But what is your reason for agreement? Do you have a law reference?

FTR I agree with Ian's position and I don't have a law reference.

On the basis of safety - enjoyment/equity - law I do not consider that WR intend defenders to stand behind their DBL line 10m from a poor kick in goal that is landing 1m from the try line, on a pitch with < 8m in goal areas.

However, if we assume they have to, in such a scenario and a 5m in-goal, should defenders stand a clear 4m behind the DBL?

All assuming they cannot of course be put onside quickly and easily etc etc yadda yadda yadda.

This is I am certain a scenario that has never crossed WR lawmaker's minds.


didds

Lee Lifeson-Peart
06-03-17, 13:03
BTW the law says that touch-in-goal should be 10-22m deep. A lot of pitches do not conform to that, but LL-P's example is the most extreme I have seen.

They are small aren't they?

1.2

c) The distance from the goal line to the dead ball line will preferably be not less than 10 metres.

Does preferably make any difference?

Obviously many referees before me have not considered it an issue. Indeed looking at the pitch from above I'm not convinced it's anywhere near 100m long either, so it's not like they've lost all the available room making the FoP conform.

Anyway they do the best with what they've got. Ironically they have a fine set of backs who would probably exploit a larger pitch.

merge
06-03-17, 14:03
What about a deep in-goal area (say 22m) with the kicker near his dead ball line miss kicks and it comes down 5m inside the in-goal? Are team mates obliged to retreat 10m or can they stand still?

FlipFlop
06-03-17, 14:03
BS aside - not sure if that was intended for me or the thread generally.

The BS was aimed at the comment that defenders would have to climb the fence to be put onside. When all that has to happen is the kicker (or an onside team mate) has to do is advance and play them all on. Or in extreme case - the defenders have to retreat to the kicker - who is inside the dead ball line, and on the correct side of the fence.

I suppose it could happen that the kicker, on seeing how bad his kick was, turned and legged it over the fence, so requiring his team mates to retreat the full 10m.....

If it is bad kick, then sorry - it is bad kick. You messed up. The otherside get the advance of the laws. Don't like it - don't mess up, or defend better so you aren't kicking from inside your in-goal.

I fail to see why so many want to penalise the attack (who have done nothing wrong), and allow the defence to not comply with a pretty clear law.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
06-03-17, 15:03
The BS was aimed at the comment that defenders would have to climb the fence to be put onside. When all that has to happen is the kicker (or an onside team mate) has to do is advance and play them all on. Or in extreme case - the defenders have to retreat to the kicker - who is inside the dead ball line, and on the correct side of the fence.

I suppose it could happen that the kicker, on seeing how bad his kick was, turned and legged it over the fence, so requiring his team mates to retreat the full 10m.....

If it is bad kick, then sorry - it is bad kick. You messed up. The otherside get the advance of the laws. Don't like it - don't mess up, or defend better so you aren't kicking from inside your in-goal.

I fail to see why so many want to penalise the attack (who have done nothing wrong), and allow the defence to not comply with a pretty clear law.

The fence bit was for comic effect. The Swiss are renown the world over for their sense of humour and I thought you'd have spotted that jokelet.

Despite the embellishment of more and more fanciful scenarios, not least by me, we'll never really know unless WR decide to rule on it and I think they have bigger fish to fry, unless we get one on Saturday. What about hitting the underside of the cross bar and landing a metre in the FoP or in in-goal? No time to run and put team mates on side? (STOP IT - NOW!!)

I think I'd go with retreat to 10m or DBL whichever is closer if kicker doesn't put team mates on side - undefendable but there you go. I think the consensus is the defending team shouldn't benefit from the poor kick.

If it happens I'll let you know you what I did.

didds
06-03-17, 15:03
What about a deep in-goal area (say 22m) with the kicker near his dead ball line miss kicks and it comes down 5m inside the in-goal? Are team mates obliged to retreat 10m or can they stand still?

BRILLIANT question :-)

didds

CrouchTPEngage
06-03-17, 16:03
Thank you , Lee, for injecting some comical exaggerations. Enjoyed that.
Sadly it DID happen and it just looked "wrong" instantly , at the time. I got a lot of questioning and, at the next break of play, I did explain very briefly to the aggrieved coach, with some words like "He was in front of the kicker and offside under 10 metre law".
However, I like Ian's approach and I'll try to adopt that in future.
There has to be some advantage to the attacking team due to the defending 10 messing up his kick ( or being pressured into rushing his kick by energetic attackers ). Just not sure how to give them that.

didds
06-03-17, 16:03
When all that has to happen is the kicker (or an onside team mate) has to do is advance and play them all on. Or in extreme case - the defenders have to retreat to the kicker - who is inside the dead ball line

yes - that is "all they have to do". But it clear that that is not the obvious thought process of a defender in goal when he instinctively knows that running backwards to that point and then running forwards will already bee too late to prevent a try. Yes - this is not different than what happens in the field of play , but in-goal does funny things to your thought processes :-) There is no definite score when in the field of play etc.

What happens if the kicker is all but on his own DBL and gets tackled in the kick - a kick that lands 1m from try line etc - but as a result of the tackle ends up behind the DBL? do his team mates have to leave the pitch completely to retreat behind him?



If it is bad kick, then sorry - it is bad kick. You messed up. The otherside get the advance of the laws. Don't like it - don't mess up, or defend better so you aren't kicking from inside your in-goal.

and I don;t actually have an issue generally with that concept.

I think we are being naive though if we cannot see that it is totally second nature to defend a goal line rather than leave "an open goal"



and given the disparity here in this site is it a wonder that players aren't going to know "better"

didds

OB..
06-03-17, 18:03
I think we are being naive though if we cannot see that it is totally second nature to defend a goal line rather than leave "an open goal"Why is second nature an excuse? Tripping is second nature if a body swerve sends you the wrong way. Retaliation is second nature if you are punched. Grabbing the ball when a teammate behind you knocks-on is second nature. Players have to learn to curb their second nature in many ways.

I can have sympathy for a player who forgets in the heat of the moment, but he is still in the wrong.

didds
06-03-17, 20:03
Why is second nature an excuse? Tripping is second nature if a body swerve sends you the wrong way. Retaliation is second nature if you are punched. Grabbing the ball when a teammate behind you knocks-on is second nature. Players have to learn to curb their second nature in many ways.

I can have sympathy for a player who forgets in the heat of the moment, but he is still in the wrong.

Its only an excuse because its natural to do so. As opposed to doing "the same thing" with regard to (say) the 22m line.

its clear that many referees here disagree what should happen so it shouldn't be a surprise that (some?) players may also think "its OK" to defend on the goal line. I'm not fussed either way - though I do plump myself in the camp that would regard defenders having to stand 4m behind the DBL somewhat odd to put it mildly. But if that is what SHOULD happen - then fine - but lets everybody be in agreement for it.

Otherwise you'll still get some refs allowing try line defence, others not, and players doing whatever they want because its clear they are neither right nor wrong either.

didds

didds
06-03-17, 20:03
Its only an excuse because its natural to do so. As opposed to doing "the same thing" with regard to (say) the 22m line.

its clear that many referees here disagree what should happen so it shouldn't be a surprise that (some?) players may also think "its OK" to defend on the goal line. I'm not fussed either way - though I do plump myself in the camp that would regard defenders having to stand 4m behind the DBL somewhat odd to put it mildly. But if that is what SHOULD happen - then fine - but lets everybody be in agreement for it.

Otherwise you'll still get some refs allowing try line defence, others not, and players doing whatever they want because its clear they are neither right nor wrong either.

Meanwhile as for tripping, retaliation, catching a forward pass etc is second nature, they are also all specifically and clearly illegal in the laws. When pinged for it somebody can point to a law and say "there you are"

This goal line defense thing here is not obviously illegal - as witnessed by the fact that a decent number of frankly quality referees and advisers here cannot agree on it. I would agree that by the letter of the law that scenario can be arrived it. But that seems illogical in other ways - eg standing 4m behind a DBL to be onside. It just seems too wierd to be true. I'd hope for safety's sake there is 4m clearance behind a DBL but what if theer are not? (Im thinking of pro teams that share soccer grounds here). Have the defneders to climb into row B ?

didds

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 20:03
To those who think that players offside under the 10m Law need to retire the full 10m to several metres in-goal....

At a 5m scrum, do you allow the backs to line up on the goal line (only about 2m back from the hindmost foot of the No. 8)? If so, please give an authorizing Law reference (other than 20.12 (h) of course, which ONLY applies when the No. 8's HMF reaches the goal-line).

Law 11 Offside in General Play does not define an offside line it merely states...

LAW 11 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.

However, offside under the 10m law does define a line

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

In every other aspect of the game, when an offside line is defined (Line-out, Ruck, and Maul), that line does not go back past the goal-line. It is reasonable to extrapolate from this, that the defined 10m offside line also does not go back past the goal-line, just as the scrum offside line doesn't. IMO, both are omissions by the Law writers which have been missed by the 12 year old proof-readers.

Dickie E
06-03-17, 21:03
What about a deep in-goal area (say 22m) with the kicker near his dead ball line miss kicks and it comes down 5m inside the in-goal? Are team mates obliged to retreat 10m or can they stand still?

Law 11 would require them to retreat 10m.

Ian's view? I guess they could do whatever they liked (including catching the ball) provided they did so inside their own in goal area.

Ian_Cook
06-03-17, 21:03
Law 11 would require them to retreat 10m.

Ian's view? I guess they could do whatever they liked (including catching the ball) provided they did so inside their own in goal area.

You are intentionally misrepresenting my views. The players would still be offside in General play because they were in front of the kicker.

Who's being belligerent now?

Pinky
06-03-17, 22:03
Law 11 would require them to retreat 10m.

Ian's view? I guess they could do whatever they liked (including catching the ball) provided they did so inside their own in goal area.

No, they are still offside in goal as in front of the kicker, but I would not expect them to have to go 10m back from where the ball might land.

Dickie E
06-03-17, 23:03
You are intentionally misrepresenting my views. The players would still be offside in General play because they were in front of the kicker.



without any intent to misrepresent your views let me see if I can unravel & understand them.

Blue fullback kicks from near his DBL with all team mates in front of him. Ball ends up:

1. 1 metre in field of play. What are the options available to his team mates?

2. 1 metre in in-goal. What are the options available to his team mates?

merge
06-03-17, 23:03
No, they are still offside in goal as in front of the kicker, but I would not expect them to have to go 10m back from where the ball might land.

An extension question: An attacking player misfields the ball as it come down in-goal. Can the defending player now play the ball, 11.3(c), or not, 11.4(d)?

OB..
06-03-17, 23:03
Its only an excuse because its natural to do so."Second nature" is of course the reason players do it, but it is not an excuse for doing it. The players are still responsible for their actions.

didds
06-03-17, 23:03
yep.

but some expected/required actions are more easily understandable from what the laws say.

This is all dancing around pinheads etc.

Q: In a pitch with 5m in-goals, blue 15 standing milimetres inside his own DBL horribly fluffs a kick just as he is tackled past the DBL and ends up on his back winded, unable to move readily. All his team mates are in front of him. The ball will alight in the FoP 1m from the try line where a red player is all ready to catch it.

Where should the rest of blue defend from, at least initially before moving forward?

Q: whatever OBs answer is - does every other a referee and advisor agree with him?

didds

Dickie E
06-03-17, 23:03
Q: whatever OBs answer is - does every other a referee and advisor agree with him?



Wouldn't it be wise to hear the answer first? :shrug:

Camquin
06-03-17, 23:03
They should first break there no 10's toes so he doesn't ever think of kicking again as he obviously cannot kick. Then they should find the groundsman and defenestrate them for not marking out a reasonable in goal.

On that subject did anyone think that the dead ball areas at Vegas were a little shallow given the vast expanses beyond them.

Dickie E
06-03-17, 23:03
I'm not sure if I support the view of IC or DE - I dislike them both equally - the people, not the views.:biggrin:



That's charming, innit?

I travel all the way to Doncaster and sleep in a double bed, with my 15 yo son, in a hotel room with red linen & black walls (or was it black linen with red walls?), just to buy you beers. How soon they forget. SMH. :sad:

Ian_Cook
07-03-17, 01:03
without any intent to misrepresent your views let me see if I can unravel & understand them.

Offside under the 10M law is a concession in the game that recognises the impracticality of asking players who might be 50M downfield when, for example, a clearing kick is made, to have to retire 50m all the way back to the kicker. The downside of that concession (for the offside players) is that no action of the opposing player can put them onside until they have retired to a point 10M on their own side of where the opponent is waiting to catch the ball or where the ball might land if it is not caught. The important point is that when a player complies with Law 11.4: Offside Under the 10M Law, HE HAS NOT MADE HIMSELF ONSIDE.

Scenario:
Blue 15 kicks the ball from his in-goal with ALL his team-mates ahead of him; he is knocked over by a Red player as he kicks, so he cannot follow up his kick to make his team-mates onside.

Red 15 is waiting to catch the ball on the half way mark. At the moment of the kick, there are three Blue players (for ease, of explanation, they are Nos 1, 2 and 3) between their own 10M line and the half way line.

All the other Blue players are Offside in General Play. They must not move forward or towards the ball but they will be made onside of the player on half way (a) Runs 5 metres with ball, (b) Kicks or passes, or (c) Intentionally touches ball.

However, 1, 2 and 3 are Offside Under the 10M Law becasue they are within 10M of the player waiting to catch it. They cannot be made onside by any actions of their opponents. However, if they retire to the 10M line, they are no longer Offside Under the 10M Law, but are still offside in General Play, which means they can now be made onside by the actions of their opponent, just like any other offside player.

So, to answer you questions


Blue fullback kicks from near his DBL with all team mates in front of him. Ball ends up:

1. 1 metre in field of play. What are the options available to his team mates?

2. 1 metre in in-goal. What are the options available to his team mates?

In both cases, they are Offside in General play in front of the kicker. Their options are outlined in Law 11.1

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.
(b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game.
This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.
(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead,
the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or
move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

In the scenario of players being offside under the 10M Law close to his own goal line, I am happy that they have satisfied the requirements of the 10M Law when they retire to the goal line, just as is the case with EVERY other offside line in the Laws of the Game. However, this does not mean that I think they can "do whatever they liked (including catching the ball)". Those players are still Offside in General Play

CrouchTPEngage
07-03-17, 09:03
Ian_C,
Good point. Well made, sir !
Thank you.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
07-03-17, 10:03
That's charming, innit?

I travel all the way to Doncaster and sleep in a double bed, with my 15 yo son, in a hotel room with red linen & black walls (or was it black linen with red walls?), just to buy you beers. How soon they forget. SMH. :sad:

And you are? :biggrin:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
07-03-17, 10:03
That's charming, innit?

I travel all the way to Doncaster and sleep in a double bed, with my 15 yo son, in a hotel room with red linen & black walls (or was it black linen with red walls?), just to buy you beers. How soon they forget. SMH. :sad:

You got some free shorts. What more do you want?

Dickie E
07-03-17, 10:03
You got some free shorts. What more do you want?

and they are still going strong :)

Lee Lifeson-Peart
07-03-17, 11:03
and they are still going strong :)

Something the RFU are good at then?

Blimey! Wonders'll never cease!

chbg
07-03-17, 16:03
Best 48 hrs to have been away with this discussion going on!

No-one seems to have mentioned that when Offisde under the 10m Law, players only have to move behind the imaginary 10m line or the kicker if this is closer than 10m (11.4a).

But IC has given an excellent explanation of the relationship between Offside in General Play and under the 10m Law.

FlipFlop
07-03-17, 17:03
Best 48 hrs to have been away with this discussion going on!

No-one seems to have mentioned that when Offisde under the 10m Law, players only have to move behind the imaginary 10m line or the kicker if this is closer than 10m (11.4a).

Actually I've been banging that drum repeatedly....... (or even a team mate other than the kicker who has been played onside)

Ian_Cook
07-03-17, 19:03
Actually I've been banging that drum repeatedly....... (or even a team mate other than the kicker who has been played onside)

The first point I would make about this is that the OP said the Blue player kicked from "the very back of the in goal", so there probably won't be anyone else to play his team-mates onside, he would have to do that himself.

Second point is that, as this discussion progressed, didds said "its not unknown for kickers to slip over or even be tackled as they kick and not be able to chase up etc etc etc." so in that case, it leaves no-one to play the other Blue players onside.

The reality is that it would take a highly unlikely set of circumstances such as involving one or both of the two points above for Offside Under the 10M law to apply to a flubbed kick that ended up short (in the OP's case, about 10-15m). Usually there will be an onside player or the kicker chasing and they will be doing so quickly; too quickly for 11.4 to have a chance apply.

Law 11.4 usually only comes into play when a return kick is made from an opponent's kick, and there are team-mates of the kicking team still downfield from the previous play. In the OP's scenario, because Blue won the ball from a ruck 2M from their own line, all the Blue players would have been onside at that ruck. If the OP's in-goal was, say 6m deep, and the kicker was unable to follow up, then according to some here, the Blue players would all have to retire almost to their own DBL. I simply cannot believe that this is what the Law makers intended.

Pegleg
07-03-17, 22:03
In every other aspect of the game, when an offside line is defined (Line-out, Ruck, and Maul), that line does not go back past the goal-line. It is reasonable to extrapolate from this, that the defined 10m offside line also does not go back past the goal-line, just as the scrum offside line doesn't. IMO, both are omissions by the Law writers which have been missed by the 12 year old proof-readers.

There is a difference however. Mauls, rucks and line-outs cannot take place in goal. So there is a reason for their off-side lines not being in goal. So I'm not sure they are that supportive of your point.

Offside In general play (10 metre law or not) can, and does take place in goal therfore the positioning of the offside lines logically may be different.

Dickie E
07-03-17, 23:03
I simply cannot believe that this is what the Law makers intended.

I have some sympathy with your view but clearly Law 11 doesn't (either by accident or intentionally) support that view. I also acknowledge other laws that deal obliquely with offside make provision for the goal line.

I am not completely comfortable making stuff up because of an arbitrary sense of fair play. Next thing you know we'll be arguing a 22 drop out after a knock on in goal.

I'm not sure where this discussion goes now unless someone can cite a higher authority (maybe Paule23's sisters' friend's uncle could help?).

Dickie E
07-03-17, 23:03
But IC has given an excellent explanation of the relationship between Offside in General Play and under the 10m Law.

Indeed it is and very interesting too. But doesn't help with goal line discussion unfortunately.

ChrisR
08-03-17, 00:03
Y'know, sometimes when a person really ****s up you are unable to save them no matter how unfair that seems.

I do think that the law could allow for player to be put onside by retreating to their goal line but . . . . . it doesn't.

Ian_Cook
08-03-17, 01:03
Y'know, sometimes when a person really ****s up you are unable to save them no matter how unfair that seems.

I do think that the law could allow for player to be put onside by retreating to their goal line but . . . . . it doesn't.

No-one is saying that a player who is offside under the 10M law is made onside by retreating to their goal-line. The player becomes offside in general play

The key difference is that he can now be made onside by the actions of his opponents, something that could not happen until he retired to the goal-line.

didds
08-03-17, 10:03
I see that nobody has been willing to answer the question I realised about the 5m on goal as yet.

Where should the defenders retreat to?
Didds

didds
08-03-17, 10:03
Wouldn't it be wise to hear the answer first? :shrug:

As OB is yet to answer my simple question, maybe you could tell us where you think the defenders should retreat to Dickie.??

Didds

FlipFlop
08-03-17, 10:03
So what you are saying is that "off side in open play" exists in-goal, but that offside under the 10m law does not.

But the entire rationale of the 10m law, is that you are deemed to be "interferring with play" if you are within 10m, therefore your offside in open play is material if within 10m. (This is why it was initially a 10m circle around the catcher, and NOT an offside line in the normal sense)

What some (Ian Cook et al) are trying to argue is that you can be offside, and not interferring if you are in front of the kicker, and within 10m, provided you are now behind the goal line. For some reason, the existance of a line on the field (but only 1 of them), is making your offside not material to play. Despite the law saying:
11.4 Offside under the 10-metre law
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

i.e. they are offside AND interferring with play, so sanction applies. (in agreement with 11.1a)


I don't buy that. This is one case (in my book (and also backed up by the law book)) where if you mess up - tough. Get better. Improve. Don't make that mistake again.

FlipFlop
08-03-17, 10:03
Q: In a pitch with 5m in-goals, blue 15 standing milimetres inside his own DBL horribly fluffs a kick just as he is tackled past the DBL and ends up on his back winded, unable to move readily. All his team mates are in front of him. The ball will alight in the FoP 1m from the try line where a red player is all ready to catch it.

Where should the rest of blue defend from, at least initially before moving forward?


Lets look at the law. It is (despite what others say) clear.
11.5 Being put onside under the 10-metre law
(a)
The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b)
While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.


The 10m is irrelevant/impractical in your example. And beside something else comes first.

So that leaves being put onside under 11.2
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.
(b) Action by the ball carrier. When a team-mate carrying the ball runs in front of the offside player, that player is put onside.
(c) Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside. When running forward, the team-mate may be in touch or touch-in-goal, but that team-mate must return to the playing area to put the player onside


The bit I highlight shows that a player is deemed onside if the player goes behind where the ball was kicked from. This makes sense as it is the spot where the kick was taken from that is important as to who is onside, and not the position the kicker then ends up in.

So in your question - a team mate needs to get to 15mm from the DBL, and then advance.

Any good team (or well coached team) should have a teammate starting a forward run from behind the kicker, to play all those on front onside as soon as possible. So this would all be irrelevant anyway. (i.e. always have a player putting his teammates onside under 11.2a)

Ian_Cook
08-03-17, 11:03
So what you are saying is that "off side in open play" exists in-goal, but that offside under the 10m law does not.

Yes.


But the entire rationale of the 10m law, is that you are deemed to be "interfering with play" if you are within 10m, therefore your offside in open play is material if within 10m. (This is why it was initially a 10m circle around the catcher, and NOT an offside line in the normal sense)

- just as being in the in-goal allows a player to be only 5m back from the line of touch at a line-out even though the Law says you have to be 10M back.
- just as being in the in-goal allows a player to be only as little as 2M back from the hindmost foot of the last player in a scrum even though the Law says you have to be 5M back.

You don't think that these players, even though they are legally onside, are "interfering with play" by being closer to their opponents than would otherwise be allowed?


What some (Ian Cook et al) are trying to argue is that you can be offside, and not interferring if you are in front of the kicker, and within 10m, provided you are now behind the goal line. For some reason, the existance of a line on the field (but only 1 of them), is making your offside not material to play.

The existence of that line on the field changes a lot of other things in rugby too...

- tackles, rucks or mauls cannot take place behind that line.
- you can't be offside at a scrum, lineout, ruck or maul while standing behind that line.
- you can't take a quick thrown in behind that line.

For mine, it makes perfect sense to extrapolate from other Laws regarding in-goal and defined offside lines to apply it this to the 10M law, just as we do for the scrum offside Law..... do you make the defending backs at a 5M scrum stand 3M behind the goal-line?

DocY
08-03-17, 11:03
- just as being in the in-goal allows a player to be only as little as 2M back from the hindmost foot of the last player in a scrum even though the Law says you have to be 5M back.


Being pedantic perhaps, but the law doesn't say that - even though it is accepted to mean that.

FlipFlop is right that the law also doesn't say that you can stop retreating when you get to the goal line, but (as with the 5m scrum) it does not mean that that's what's intended.

When the law isn't clear (or seems wrong or unfair), I think you'd be better doing what's expected. In this case, if you blew up (probably for a PT) because a player 1m in goal didn't retreat you'd struggle to sell it to everyone else there.

Ian_Cook
08-03-17, 12:03
Being pedantic perhaps, but the law doesn't say that - even though it is accepted to mean that.

FlipFlop is right that the law also doesn't say that you can stop retreating when you get to the goal line, but (as with the 5m scrum) it does not mean that that's what's intended.

Exactly. Its an omission.


When the law isn't clear (or seems wrong or unfair), I think you'd be better doing what's expected. In this case, if you blew up (probably for a PT) because a player 1m in goal didn't retreat you'd struggle to sell it to everyone else there.

In over 40 years of playing, refereeing as watching rugby, I have never seen a referee demand that players retreat a number of metres beyond the goal-line for any reason.

FlipFlop
08-03-17, 14:03
But the law for the 5m scrum is very different:
(g) Offside for players not in the scrum. Players who are not in the scrum and who are not the team’s scrum half, are offside if they remain in front of their offside line or overstep the offside line which is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost player of each team in a scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offside line12


(h)
If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal line, the offside line for scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line.


So while there is an error here (it clearly doesn't mean the offside line moves backwards, until the rear foot goes over the line, and then it jumps forward.) This is an overhang from before the 5m back was bought in, and should be changed to reflect it. (before 5m back the goal line was as far as they had to go).

The 10m law used to be a circle around the player. Not an offside line. There was never a case when it wasn't required for a player NOT to retreat, unless they were played onside. It deems anyone in that zone IS materially impacting play. Not might be, or could be. As such they have to be penalised.

Law 11 makes NO mention of limitations to the law due to the goal line. In fact it goes exactly the opposite way - and says you CAN be offside in the ingoal. It is in effect saying that for the purposes of Law 11 the ingoal area is the same as the rest of the field.

Would it be difficult to sell? Possibly, but you are backed up by law. And if the attack complained you DIDN'T give the sanction, you want to justify not giving a sanction under Law 11, by reference to laws 16, 17 and 20, where there are specific exclusions for the goal line.

I do not accept this stretching of those laws, to one which specifically includes in-goal as an area you can be offside, which specifically says you are materially impacting play if you are in 10m and offside and not retreating. And to change this law to say you can be offside, but not material, by extension of laws 16, 17 and 20 into law 11, when you are behind the goal line.

As for not seeing it. I frequently remind the potential kick chasers (who sometimes stand on the goal line) that they need to be behind their kicker, or they will be offside. Demand they retreat? No, but will penalise if they advance and are offside.

DocY
08-03-17, 15:03
Law 11 makes NO mention of limitations to the law due to the goal line. In fact it goes exactly the opposite way - and says you CAN be offside in the ingoal. It is in effect saying that for the purposes of Law 11 the ingoal area is the same as the rest of the field.


Nobody's saying you can't be offside in goal - just that automatically penalising them for not continuing to retreat when they're behind the goal line seems wrong. Particularly if you have a short in goal where they potentially have to go back all the way to the DBL.



Would it be difficult to sell? Possibly, but you are backed up by law. And if the attack complained you DIDN'T give the sanction, you want to justify not giving a sanction under Law 11, by reference to laws 16, 17 and 20, where there are specific exclusions for the goal line.


By which time it would be too late. And people criticising you usually don't care about law much once they've already decided you're wrong.



As for not seeing it. I frequently remind the potential kick chasers (who sometimes stand on the goal line) that they need to be behind their kicker, or they will be offside. Demand they retreat? No, but will penalise if they advance and are offside.

Isn't this the same thing? Players are in offside positions in goal, but you're not asking them to retreat. There's a case for penalising them for loitering, but you'd be giving yourself a hard time if you did.

FlipFlop
08-03-17, 15:03
Loitering (not what I was referring to but will deal with this) - it is offside, and liable to sanction if you do any of those things listed in Law 11 - basically interfere with play.

I'm out of this discussion. Some people clearly want to referee according to their own views, and not what is in the book. If they care only about what "seems" right, then good luck.

I prefer to referee strange occurrences (such as this) by the law. I don't see this as a matter of interpretation - there is no "near" or "close by" or areas of grey, in the law on this.

And why is it rare? Because 99.99% of the time the kick chasers play everyone onside, before they have time to react.

So feel free to continue making up laws, or exceptions to the laws, as you see fit, because it "feels right".

DocY
08-03-17, 15:03
This is not making up laws - it's trying to come to a consensus about how a strange situation (one that it's not unreasonable to assume wasn't considered when the law was written) should be refereed.

N.B. This is only a question when the kicker puts his team mates on side. If he doesn't, they're definitely offside.

menace
08-03-17, 22:03
Loitering (not what I was referring to but will deal with this) - it is offside, and liable to sanction if you do any of those things listed in Law 11 - basically interfere with play.

I'm out of this discussion. Some people clearly want to referee according to their own views, and not what is in the book. If they care only about what "seems" right, then good luck.

I prefer to referee strange occurrences (such as this) by the law. I don't see this as a matter of interpretation - there is no "near" or "close by" or areas of grey, in the law on this.

And why is it rare? Because 99.99% of the time the kick chasers play everyone onside, before they have time to react.

So feel free to continue making up laws, or exceptions to the laws, as you see fit, because it "feels right".
I see that you also staunchly believe that you can pull someone in to form a ruck.
Now this staunch interpretation of 10M law. (But passive aggressive )

Im guessing you referee to the letter of the law? Some would say that your empathy meter needs adjusting.

FlipFlop
09-03-17, 10:03
I see that you also staunchly believe that you can pull someone in to form a ruck.

I believe someone in the tackle zone can be contacted to form a ruck. I don't believe it needs to be mutual consent to form a ruck. I don't believe someone outside the tackle zone can be pulled in.

Empathy is one thing, disregard of the laws, or making them up as you go along, is another.

talbazar
12-03-17, 06:03
Coach: "He cant be offside in goal!"
Ref: "Yes, he can"
Second that.

Coach: "what is he supposed to do? Just let the red attacker catch the ball and score ?"
Ref: "Yes"
Second that

Coach" "How can he defend legally?"
Ref: He can't.
Ref: By being behind the kicker at the moment of the kick would be a good start (i.e. by not being offside)
:biggrin:

Pierre.

ChuckieB
12-03-17, 10:03
A not dissimilar situation in a game involving my son. Flyhalf in deep in goal, all in front, and hoofs it up the pitch and promptly slips falls over thus eliminating any immediate possibility of own players playing others on side! Reliant on actions of the opposition.

ChrisR
12-03-17, 11:03
From a coaching perspective: In dire situations, as in this thread, when a clearing kick is needed a chaser must get behind the kicker and call loudly that he's "on" as he sprints up-field.

In the situation here the off-side players within ten still have to begin retiring but they get put on-side quickly.

didds
12-03-17, 13:03
So in your question - a team mate needs to get to 15mm from the DBL, and then advance.


cheers flup-flop. That's clkear and I am happy enough that in these circumstances of everyone offside inder 10m law and in-goal they indeed do have to retire etc even if it means basically conceding a try.

I still have some gut feel disquiet with it all, and have many sympathies still with ian's point about the goal line - but as it stands I can accept that for me yes the players have to retire. The 22m deep in-goal scenario somebody else posted also helps me make my mind up up as I can;t see what else should happen.

I do agree however with a suggestion that more clarity is needed within the laws so there can be confusion at all.


didds