Are TMOs Ruining Things

[crossref]

Great picture , well done

Strange though .. so you are on the ground , out of the game , but still setting an offside line ??

 

[WoodyOne]

Great picture , well done

Strange though .. so you are on the ground , out of the game , but still setting an offside line ??

I don't think this should be seen as contentious or strange: the picture is clear and this is consistent with the ball carrier and tackler on the ground being used to define the 'gate' (if we are being pedantic that would mean that part of a person who was a tackler can create an offside line, but part of a rucker who goes to ground doesn't?).

 

[crossref]

I don't think this should be seen as contentious or strange: the picture is clear and this is consistent with the ball carrier and tackler on the ground being used to define the 'gate' (if we are being pedantic that would mean that part of a person who was a tackler can create an offside line, but part of a rucker who goes to ground doesn't?).

It's completely clear that a player on ground sets the offside line
But law reference for what you say about the gate ?

 

[WoodyOne]

Having reviewed the video of the Courtney Lawes charge again (several times!) I have shifted position from a "fair call" to thinking it was harsh (and am saying this whilst recognising first that it's done and dusted, second that it's only a game, and third that the existence of such close calls is part of the challenge and appeal of reffing the game). I'm basing this on the fact that NZ no.2 at the back of the ruck clearly steps from having a foot behind/in line with the ball to having both in front. This happens before Lawes breaks, and puts the ball out of the ruck -- so Lawes was in the right. Hey ho... (and yes, I'm partisan!)

 

[WoodyOne]

I don't think that the gate is specifically defined in the laws but is implied by the definition of the offside lines, and seems well understood by most players and coaches.

 

[Rich_NL]

Great picture , well done

Strange though .. so you are on the ground , out of the game , but still setting an offside line ??

The new law book defines 'out of the game' as not playing the ball/tackling/interfering with play - 13.3. Effectively the same as offside. It doesn't imply they can't be considered for any other game aspects.

 

[crossref]

Ummm

So it seems this is a difference between a ruck, and a tackle with offside lines

In a ruck the offside line is the hindmost FOOT
In a tackle the offside line is the homost POINT

Presumably the logic is that someone on the ground d is still part of a tackle , bit would not be part of a ruck

Interesting.

So back to Courtney Laws it suddenly seems quite important to know if it was a ruck, or a tackle with offside lines

 

[WoodyOne]

I don't see that it meets the definition of a ruck -- no England players engaged so it fails the 'at least one player from each team' test. So tackle with offside lines IMO

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I don't think a player on the ground can set an offside line -- because if he's on the ground he's out of the game.

So it is always a foot.

If you can have a ruck with nobody on their feet (a standard ruck these days. how can that make any sense?

 

[davidlandy]

Ummm

So it seems this is a difference between a ruck, and a tackle with offside lines

In a ruck the offside line is the hindmost FOOT
In a tackle the offside line is the homost POINT

Presumably the logic is that someone on the ground d is still part of a tackle , bit would not be part of a ruck

Interesting.

So back to Courtney Laws it suddenly seems quite important to know if it was a ruck, or a tackle with offside lines

Yes - except that the hindmost body part in this case *was* a foot! There was an AB on his feet at the front of the tackle/ruck. Unluckily for Lawes, this AB took a half-step forwards (remaining bound)) just before the ball came out, putting Lawes offside. Seems unfair - or perhaps crafty play?

 

[Baylion]

Yes - except that the hindmost body part in this case *was* a foot! There was an AB on his feet at the front of the tackle/ruck. Unluckily for Lawes, this AB took a half-step forwards (remaining bound)) just before the ball came out, putting Lawes offside. Seems unfair - or perhaps crafty play?

I posted this earlier on this thread. The ball was out before the front AB player stepped forward after AB #20 stepped forward

 

[crossref]

Yes - except that the hindmost body part in this case *was* a foot! There was an AB on his feet at the front of the tackle/ruck. Unluckily for Lawes, this AB took a half-step forwards (remaining bound)) just before the ball came out, putting Lawes offside. Seems unfair - or perhaps crafty play?

Which takes us back to the interesting question raised by Rich NL in another thread : if it's a tackle-with-offside-lines then are you actually allowed to advance forwards? Is that obstruction?

 

[Baylion]

Definitions

Binding: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.[/FONT]

Was AB #20 in fact part of the tackle/ruck? Or doesn't binding apply to a tackle situation?

 

[crossref]

Definitions


Was AB #20 in fact part of the tackle/ruck? Or doesn't binding apply to a tackle situation?

Well, no one really knows: the tackle-with-offside-lines was a last minute invention smuggled into the Law Book with no acknowledgement last May.

I don't think the concept (and how exactly is is it different from a ruck ) was properly thought through. Eg so far as I am aware it was never trialled anywhere before being put directly in the Law Book (unless anyone knows better?)

 

[didds]

Not only was Laws offside but he was the player who made the chargedown. That must be material.

Yup.

IN a discussionabout this with my son, he said that CL would probably have made the chargedown had he been those few inches inside - it wasn;t a fingertip chargedown. BUT... as I said to him, the chargedown would have been somewhere else on his arms and may have bounced totally differently, for Underhil to not collect etc etc...

Bottom line be careful what you wish for. The TMO was clammered for many seasons ago, then extensions were clammered for ... and now we have what we have...

Many excellent arguments above. Ive really enjoyed reading them.

didds

 

[didds]

I don't know what the problem is. Lawes looked well offside

Well, I'm not convinced he was "well" offside. The ref standing adjacent to the incident didn't see him "well" offside. The TMO had to watch it several times with slo-mo and stop frame to ascertain that he was "well" offside.

I don't disagree with all that slow-mo available that he WAS offside. And it WAS material.

didds

 

[shep]

Hi all - hoping you may be able to clear something up for us non-refs out there.

In the tackle situation like this one, when is the tackle phase over, ie when is Lawes entitled to move past the offside line?

There's no need for a body/foot to be over it from my read - so can the ball be "out", and even the half picking it up doesn't seem to end the tackle under 14.11?

Thanks in advance

 

[didds]

I would like to have two more TMOs .. one for each team
So that when an England captain is awarded a second PK 15m in from the touchline and decides to kick for the corner a second time , even though it didn't work one minute ago ...
The team TMO could intervene 'check check check! Owen ? Didnt you mean "posts please ,Sir " '

well, the first "failure" was down to illegal AB play (hence a second PK). England had already scored from a lineout drive, and that attempt (as per CR's post) had only been thwarted at that juncture by an illegal act. (in at the side?) - England had just got the wheel and had started to move forwards (not quite yet in the probably try etc area agreed. But we may have only been talking about one more second of play) . Taking the l/o option from that PK was a reasonable idea. As it was it was a poorly configured maul and drive after the catch and that was that.

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi shep,
The ball being out relates to the Ruck. As davelandy points out above ^^^^^^^ to end a tackle the ball would have to left the tackle area. Example given above is pretty clear, a player on their feet picking it up and moving away. The ball being available was not enough to remove the offside lines highlighted in post #40

 

[davidlandy]

I posted this earlier on this thread. The ball was out before the front AB player stepped forward after AB #20 stepped forward

Ooo that's a great still, Baylion. Obviously it's hard to be 100% certain due to the angle of the camera, but that looks distinctly as if CL was onside while the ball is clearly out, and as you say, prior to the movement of the front foot of the foremost AB in the tackle. (Well spotted and sorry I missed your earlier post.)

How did the TMO, and perhaps JG if he was watching on the big screen, come so "clearly and obviously" to the conclusion that CL was offside then - surely we are missing something?!?

[Edit]

Is it perhaps in what Shep alluded to in Law 14.11?

[LAWS]The tackle ends when:
a. A ruck is formed.
b. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
c. The ball leaves the tackle area.
d. The ball is unplayable. If there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum. The throw is taken by the team moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.[/LAWS]

Sooooo.... The tackle isn't over when the 9 picks up the ball, as I had been assuming... s/he has to move away or pass or kick, or the ball has to leave the tackle area or become unplayable. Perhaps none of these had happened when CL moved in front of the AB's foremost foot? Can you wind the footage forward to when the ball had been kicked and post another still?

Seems like a mighty close call to me (and I'm not an England fan).