Offside ingoal
- Thread starter Lex Hipkins
- Start date
No. Why give the card? It didn't (in my opinion) prevent a try, so not under PT law. Wasn't foul play. The knock on by Red #13 isn't C&O from all angles, so not cynical in my view. If the ref needs a video to work it all out, we need to cut the players some slack here as well.
Being offside and affecting play in a pretty big way in a potentially try-scoring situation (even if it wasn't worthy of a PT)? Ignorance is no defence and the player should have known the law (even if it, understandably, didn't leap to mind at the time).
no one has mentioned Red.
the question is : is it YC offence ?
it seems to me it is. It's a PK offence, in the in goal, that may well have prevented a try. cynical
although I do take FlipFlop's point that it was very difficulty to see what happened.
In real-life, with no TMO, the ref might have to say that it was impossible to see what happened, nothing was at all clear or at all obvious - - so no try, and also no PK either.
Last edited:
I did. Misread card to Red 5, as Red Card. :redface:
- so : would you give a YC ?
No. Took me ages to work out what had happened. I would have probably gone scrum 5 attacking ball in real time.
If I'm not 100% certain what happened (it was very confusing with players travelling in the wrong direction) then I see no value in carding someone.
beckett50
Referees in England
That'll teach me to post a reply from the iPad first thing in the morning before at least one mug of Earl Grey tea :biggrin:
You are, of course right about the ball going backwards.
If this was realtime and I was on my own I would give PT as I firmly believe that the Red #5 has come into in-goal and played the ball without having been played onside by the actions of a team-mate, and that would mean he gets :yellow:
Law 11.1 clearly states that:
A player can be offside in the in-goal (and as such he is "temporarily out of the game")
and IMO the Red #5 is not put onside by any of the actions in 11.2, or 11.3 and he offends under 11.7 - if we discover, after numerous TMO replays that the Red#13 has knocked the ball forwards and it hasn't been touched by White #9 - because he has come running into in-goal from the field of play (whereas the Red #13 is already in the in-goal area)
As an aside I am not comfortable with this "clear and obvious" knock on malarky. The player has made an attempt to play the ball and so there is intent to play the ball. The fact that the ball has bounced off his fingertips in the attempt because he misjudged the bounce, or whatever, why should that have a bearing on the decision?
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
Exactly.
100% these comments
If a video replay in slowmo from different angles is needed to determine what the ball did during all that pin-balling around, how on earth are the players supposed to work out what happened in a faction of a second, with one look, at full speed, from the singular, individual angles they had?
This caused some WTF? face pulling in my lounge room as I watched the game live on TV.
Wife, daughter (whose name is Georgia but sometimes gets George for short from me) and daughter's friend are having drinks across the room. TMO George Ayoub comes out with the "but it's in-goal" line and I'm shaking my head saying, "No,no, no. Don't say that George!"
Silence from other side of room and three women giving me the WTF face all wanting to know what was so bad about what my daughter had just said? "Not you darling", says I. "I'm talking to the TMO who should know better. I can't believe he just said that".
For what it's worth, I'm with Phil E. They replayed it multiple times to see if either white 9 or red 13 had grounded the ball. Doubt over grounding, 5m attacking scrum. Not sure if that was Phil's reasoning or if he believed red grounded the ball (after taking it in) but the result is the same.
If no-one had grounded prior to red 5, then it should have been a PK against red 5 for offside. No YC as red 13 was the next man there anyway.
If Angus Gardiner could have turned the microphones down, I reckon the conversation would have gone like this, "WTF are you talking about George?", at which point George would have realised what he had just said (I hope) and given himself a good upper-cut.
Wife, daughter (whose name is Georgia but sometimes gets George for short from me) and daughter's friend are having drinks across the room. TMO George Ayoub comes out with the "but it's in-goal" line and I'm shaking my head saying, "No,no, no. Don't say that George!"
Silence from other side of room and three women giving me the WTF face all wanting to know what was so bad about what my daughter had just said? "Not you darling", says I. "I'm talking to the TMO who should know better. I can't believe he just said that".
For what it's worth, I'm with Phil E. They replayed it multiple times to see if either white 9 or red 13 had grounded the ball. Doubt over grounding, 5m attacking scrum. Not sure if that was Phil's reasoning or if he believed red grounded the ball (after taking it in) but the result is the same.
If no-one had grounded prior to red 5, then it should have been a PK against red 5 for offside. No YC as red 13 was the next man there anyway.
If Angus Gardiner could have turned the microphones down, I reckon the conversation would have gone like this, "WTF are you talking about George?", at which point George would have realised what he had just said (I hope) and given himself a good upper-cut.
C&O knock on by red, when? To me it looks as though red knocks the ball towards his own DBL, therefore Red #5 is not offside :chin:
he knocks it twice, doesn't he : first time with his left hand, right from under white's hand to stop white scoring, that's def towards the DBL, so that's OK. then second time with his right hand - which seems to go away from the DBL (so forwards) putting his arriving team mates offside.
but not C&O in real time, no.
beckett50
Referees in England
You're missing my point, which is probably my fault. I was not, per se, referring to this particular instance but more making reference to the phrase "Clear and Obvious" in the referee review of (this) action replays when adjudging whether there has been a knock-on.