• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Offside ingoal

I must be missing something. I can;t see any offside by any red player whatsoever. There may be a marginal white offside as two attackers are floundering on the4floor, depending on who actually touched it when they are both initially flopping around but its pretty uncertain if the subseqent attempt to score by one of them is a player in an offside position.

That aside, general offisde being in front of your own playter that last played the ball does exist in goal of course.

didds
 
didds said:
I must be missing something. I can;t see any offside by any red player whatsoever. There may be a marginal white offside as two attackers are floundering on the4floor, depending on who actually touched it when they are both initially flopping around but its pretty uncertain if the subseqent attempt to score by one of them is a player in an offside position.
Click to expand...

Red 13 appears to maybe knock it forward then Red 5 comes in from FoP to ground the ball. I think Gardner was aware of this but not sure what TMO was referring to. I think he (TMO) has concluded by then that Red 13 had grounded the ball.

If Red 13 had knocked it forward and if Red 5 had played the ball from an offside position then a penalty try was on the cards.
 
Red player knocks backwards, then knocks forward in goal, and offside red player touches it down.
PK to white, and has to be a YC doesn't it? Perhaps not a PT as the red player who knocked it on might have got there before white anyway

(Ian will be forced by his oen logic to ignore the offside and award the scrum that he maintains is the only possible outcome of a knock on in goal followed by a touchdown)
 
crossref said:
(Ian will be forced by his oen logic to ignore the offside and award the scrum that he maintains is the only possible outcome of a knock on in goal followed by a touchdown)
Click to expand...

index.jpg

Really? You wanna go there?
 
Last edited:
Isn't Aiub (no idea if that is spelt right) the TMO who was criticised during the RWC for some "interesting" decisions?
 
Last edited:
The way I saw it is that Red #12 loses the ball forward,
then white #9 knocks on and then there appears to be a knock-on by red #13.
Red #5 is clearly off-side - in front of the last red player to have played the ball - but there is no advantage accrued because the 2nd knock-on should bring play back for the red #12 loss forward.
So scrum 5m attacking ball.

However, if the review deems that neither white 9 nor red 13 touched the ball then we start at red #5 being offside and so taking him out of the picture the try would have been scored by white #13 So, then the correct decision IMO should be PT to white and a YC to Red #5
 
Last edited:
Amazing what some people see....

  • Red #12 loses the ball BACKWARDS. He is the defender.
  • White #9. Does he knock on, or does he ground it, or is it "stripped". I think that the actions of Red #13 make it clear that the real option here is grounded or stripped. Personally I think he grounds it for the try, but failing that you have to go with....
  • Red #13 knocks it backwards, and then forwards.
  • Red #5 is offside and plays the ball (PK).
  • Red #13 is closer than White #13, so likely to have played the ball before White #13, so try is not probable. So no PT.

So for me the outcome is Try (White #9 scores), but if you rule that he doesn't score, then PK to White for Red #5 offside.
 
Dickie E said:
Red 13 appears to maybe knock it forward then Red 5 comes in from FoP to ground the ball. I think Gardner was aware of this but not sure what TMO was referring to. I think he (TMO) has concluded by then that Red 13 had grounded the ball.

If Red 13 had knocked it forward and if Red 5 had played the ball from an offside position then a penalty try was on the cards.
Click to expand...

Ah gotcha... I didn;t even see that as a 13 knock on... I thought it had gone backwards/sideways. See what you mean now.

didds
 
Well I was pretty dashed sure that we had agreed there WAS offside in -goal, just no offside lines for mauls/rucks etc as they cannot exist in-goal?



didds
 
L'irlandais said:
I honestly thought we had agreed (in this other thread) that there is NO offside in-goal.

[laws]Law 22.16 infringements in-goal[/laws]

:holysheep:
Click to expand...


Not sure how you get to that conclusion?

[LAWS]22.16 INFRINGEMENTS IN IN-GOAL
All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field of play.[/LAWS]

So if you are offside in the field of play, you are also offside in-goal.

Plus (as stated) 11.1a

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]
 
Last edited:
Perhaps neither of you took the time to look at either of those linked threads.
Or perhaps your sense of humor is switched off.
 
Que? As in [pourquoi] why? :shrug:
[textarea]
que ne l'as-tu (pas) dit plus tôt ! why didn't you say so earlier ?, I wish you had said so (or "said that earlier" !)[/textarea]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top