PDA

View Full Version : What would you have done



SimonSmith
08-05-07, 13:05
Blue playing white, halfway through second half.

Blue attacking,, on the halfway line. No 10 puts a long kick through, which goes in goal. His right wing, who is on-side, is chasing hard.

White 15 tries to gather the ball and knocks on.
Blue 14 is about 7m from the ball, and running hard.
Ball is now still on the ground.
White 12, who has been retreating, but who was in front of 15 when he played it, grounds the ball.

What would you have given?

Pablo
08-05-07, 13:05
Sounds like a penalty try to me, depending on a few factors not mentioned in your scenario - eg., how many other white players are in in-goal, etc. But gut instinct says that White 12 is off-side and preventing an opponent from gaining an advantage, which says PT to me...

SimonSmith
08-05-07, 13:05
They are the only three players in the vicinity.

Davet
08-05-07, 13:05
I agree, sounds very much like a penalty try to me.

FlipFlop
08-05-07, 14:05
If we ignore White 12, who would have got to the ball next? White 15 or Blue 14?

If White 15 - the penalty to Blue
If Blue 14 - penalty try

PeterTC
08-05-07, 15:05
FlipFlop nails the only relevant question on the head I think. Based on it being only 3 players in the vicinity, and the fact that the action of 12 was illegal it is a case of who gets there next.

My only possible slight quibble with his answer is that if White 15 would have got there next, what grounds are there for a penalty as White 12 has not denied the Blue player an advantage by playing the ball. Maybe a scrum 5 would be the answer if that is the case?

QE2wgc
08-05-07, 16:05
Pete
Looking at the thread, it has to be a penalty min and card for professional foul, PT would depend as stated on who would have got there first the attacker or on-side defender.

Jacko
08-05-07, 17:05
No - I agree with Peter (it had to happen eventually). If the offside player who touches the ball from a knock on does not deny the opposition an advantage a scrum should be awarded.

OB..
08-05-07, 17:05
The law merely says that an offside player must not interfere with play. Even moving towards the ball counts. Surely grounding the ball is interference? He should have left it to the full back.

Why should we apply materiality to an offside player?

PeterTC
08-05-07, 18:05
Becuase aren't we penalising this all under the law within the Knock On law that says:

"When a player knocks-on and an offside team mate next plays the
ball, the offside player is liable to penalty if playing the ball
prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage."

Surely we are making the inference that if the onside player playing the ball does so and doesn't prevent an advantage (as the 15 would have got there next), we are only then penalising the knock on. Otherwise, what would be the point of this law existing, surely it should then say that any offside player fielding the ball after a knock on should be penalised.

Craig, I can see your point, but one has to question the fact that if in the opinion of the referee he feels that the Full Back would be next to play it, what incentive is there for the White 12 to pick the ball up, who assumedly has something close to this opinion (remembering here that I would imagine the referee would give benefit to the attacking side if it was a 50/50 call)? Surely it is more that instinctive reaction that players suffer from and if in doing so if he doesn't prevent the opponent from gaining an advantage then it should be treated as such. However, if his action does prevent an advantage, then the old chesnut that "all players are cheating b*stards" is perfectly logical and a PT is in order.

FlipFlop
08-05-07, 18:05
White 12 obviously offside in playing the ball.

Are we certain White 15 would get it next? If Blue 14 is not in the vicinity this question doesn't arise, so knock on, but then this whole thread doesn't exist, so I'll assume he is in the vicinity. So options become:

1) White 15 would, without any doubt, play the ball first.
2) White 15 would, almost certainly play the ball ball first
3) White 15 is most likely to play the ball first
4) It's 50/50
5) Blue 14 is most likely to play the ball first
6) Blue 14 would, almost certainly play the ball first
7) Blue 14 would, without a doubt, play the ball first

And the decisions?
1) White 14 was offside, but potentially not interfered with play, so scrum
2) White 14 might not have interferred with play, so scrum, but getting closer to a penalty
3) Area of doubt now. How certain are we the White 14 hasn't interferred? It's close. So I say penalty
4) Penalty, but as the try might not have been scored, enough doubt not to award
5) Penalty, and sufficient to think hard about the PT
6) PT and YC
7) PT and YC

I would penalise for option 2 down in most cases, and I don't think this scenario is devoted to case 1 anyway.

Personally, in this scenario, if Blue 14 is in such a position as for me to have to think about what would happen next if White hadn't infringed, then he was close enough for the action to have a material effect on the game, so minimum penalty. As for PT's or YC's, that would depend on exactly what happened.

Dickie E
09-05-07, 03:05
Law 22.4(h) says a PT is the outcome if foul play is committed. Is offside foul play? It is if intentional (Law 10.2(a)).

Is there an example of a non-dangerous, non-intentional penalty offence? If not, Law 22.4(h) might be better worded as "... probably have been scored but for a penalty offence ..."

beckett50
09-05-07, 23:05
Professional foul play.

Definate PT - as the Blue was only 7m away and at full tilt - and maybe a YC for his troubles too!

SimonSmith
10-05-07, 13:05
9.A.1 is the PT law reference - where a try would have been scored but for foul play...

Foul play is defined in 10 (definitions) as any action against the letter or the spirit of the law.
By definition therefore, offside MAY be considered foul play.

Account Deleted
14-05-07, 09:05
The law merely says that an offside player must not interfere with play. Even moving towards the ball counts. Surely grounding the ball is interference? He should have left it to the full back.

Why should we apply materiality to an offside player?

Indeed! But then why do the refs in the 6 nations, S14, GP HEC, ML etc ALL apply materiality to sentinels standing OS around rucks and mauls?

OB..
14-05-07, 11:05
Applying materiality to sentinels means only penalising them if they interfere (after all, it is the offside law they are breaching).

You overstate the case, but I would certainly like to see them penalised more often, or at least told to get back.

Materiality is a very imprecise concept. It should be added to the laws. We would still have problems (cf advantage) but it would certainly be an improvement.

Account Deleted
15-05-07, 21:05
1; Why should we apply materiality to an offside player?

2; Applying materiality to sentinels means only penalising them if they interfere (after all, it is the offside law they are breaching).

Which is it to be? the issue of a player being in an offside position but not needing a whistle in certain situations is established in Law. It is not about materiality as such.

In the same way, in the game scenario. Assuming that there was no way the attacker could ground the ball first what real effect has the offender had on the situation?

OB..
15-05-07, 23:05
If a fullback knocks on, every referee Will give a scrum, even if there was no other player within 20 metres, and the full back had ample time to pick up the ball. That is a minor offence.

If an offside player grounds the ball, that is interfering with play. Penalty. He should have got onside first, or maybe allowed an onside team-mate to ground it. I do not think materiality should apply.

FlipFlop
16-05-07, 07:05
1; Why should we apply materiality to an offside player?

2; Applying materiality to sentinels means only penalising them if they interfere (after all, it is the offside law they are breaching).


Because the definition in Law 11 says "Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalized if they take part in the game."

Note Liable (not Must) and only if they take part in the game. Hence the concept of materiality.

And your questions 1 & 2 are the same question.

What we are discussing is from 11.7 - "When a player knocks-on and an offside team mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to penalty if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage."

Account Deleted
16-05-07, 08:05
Law 11.7 is the relevent one here.

If there was no problability of the attacker gaining an advantage (in all probability in this scenario that means scoring a try) then there is no penalty. It is in black and white (if you like materiality written into the Laws).

PaulDG
16-05-07, 09:05
Going back to the beginning..


White 12, who has been retreating, but who was in front of 15 when he played it, grounds the ball.

What if instead of making the ball dead by illegally grounding it, he'd kicked it off the pitch?

There's no technical difference. The ball is still dead.

But I suspect I'd find it easier to recognise that as foul play.

Any thoughts?

Account Deleted
16-05-07, 09:05
I don't think it would be any different. The questions to ask are:

1; Was there a knock on? if no play on if yes next call

2; Did the defending player who played the ball after the knock on arrive from in front of the guy that knocked on? If no - Scrum. If yes next call.

3; Did the player's actions prevent the attacker from gaining an advantage? If no - Scrum. If yes next call.

4; Was it probable that a try would have been scored had the "foul play" not occured? If no - Penalty. If yes Penalty try

Consideration regarding cards depend on the answers above.

SimonSmith
16-05-07, 13:05
Love the debate.

I went under the sticks

Jacko
16-05-07, 17:05
Did you bin him as well?

SimonSmith
16-05-07, 17:05
Nah - lowest level of rugby, and he didn't know what he did.

ex-lucy
22-05-07, 19:05
interesting...

we had two such situations this weekend.

Super14 final. right under sticks. no attacker within a couple of metres but Walsh gave a penalty.

HEC Final. just inside 22m. Lewis gave a scrum.