Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

      
  1. #1
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    450

    Default Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    At 4mins 53 s YouTube time...
    https://youtu.be/g-d0H3SO8og

    Are we all ok with tthat try?
    This matter has come up in other threads but when is a charge-down different form a touch ?
    Or does the definition of a charge-down include all attempts at a charge -down ?

    A lot of Quins players were questioning the decision.

  2. #2

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,237
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Law 10,7,b,iv

    I'm not so good at copying and posting from lawbook. So below may not be exact


    7. Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:

    a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area.

    b. An opponent of that player:
    i. Carries the ball five metres; or

    ii. Passes the ball; or

    iii. Kicks the ball; or

    iv. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.

  3. #3

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,653

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    .This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.


    That was played, but not charged down,
    So 10m applied and try should be disallowed

    Actually it's really not clear and a clarification would be good
    Last edited by crossref; 23-08-20 at 15:08.

  4. #4

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,237
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    .This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.


    That was played, but not charged down,
    So 10m applied and try should be disallowed

    Actually it's really not clear and a clarification would be good
    I think you r correct, I'd get grief either way I called it., but in this case I would have been wrong.


    It is the "Everbody's on" MYTH
    Last edited by Not Kurt Weaver; 23-08-20 at 15:08.

  5. #5

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,653

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    I think you r correct, I'd get grief either way I called it., but in this case I would have been wrong.


    It is the "Everbody's on" MYTH
    I suspect the answer is

    Green play the ball immediately after its kicked ... That counts as a charge down , and 10m law doesn't apply

    Green play the ball when it comes down, that is not a charge down, so 10m applies still

    In this case green play it quick enough to count as a chargedown

  6. #6
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    450

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Thanks Crossref. That is the key to me. Some have argued that a charge down has to have actually been charged downnfor it to count under this exemption from the 10m law. Others say that a minimal touch like this is a charge-down.
    I would tend with the former and not the latter but I'd really like a clarification.

  7. #7

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,504

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    10.4c does not apply here.

    10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player :

    c. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately
    behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on
    that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post
    or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to
    where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-
    metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not
    when the kick is charged down.


    The emboldened part is the key bit here. Law 10.4c is designed so that an opponent catching the ball isn't confronted with opponents the moment he field or catches the ball. It gives him 10m of territory (used to be a 10m circle) to work with.

    When the ball is touched in flight, 10.4c is off the table, and the rest of Law 10 applies, particularly 10.7b iv

    10.7 Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when

    b. An opponent of that player :
    iv. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.


    Touched in flight by the opponents has been called as "Play on" for as far back as I can remember.

    The awarding of that try was the correct decision.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  8. #8

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    A literal understanding of the Law is that a 'charge down' has a component of knocking the ball downwards, especially considering the only description of it is a picture under Law 11 (to distinguish it from a knock-on). There is no definition. So I do have sympathy with your POV.

    However I have always (I think) interpreted the action shown in the video as being a 'charge down', so do not have an issue with the decision.
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  9. #9

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,237
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I suspect the answer is

    Green play the ball immediately after its kicked ... That counts as a charge down , and 10m law doesn't apply

    Green play the ball when it comes down, that is not a charge down, so 10m applies still

    In this case green play it quick enough to count as a chargedown
    My bold in your quote for emphasis

    Now I think you are not correct. a charge down is not in the definitions, however, it is well described an specific in law 11 Knock on:

    5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:

    a.A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).


    A charge down only defined in and according to law 11 requires a knock forward.

  10. #10

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,237
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    Quote Originally Posted by chbg View Post
    A literal understanding of the Law is that a 'charge down' has a component of knocking the ball downwards, especially considering the only description of it is a picture under Law 11 (to distinguish it from a knock-on). There is no definition. So I do have sympathy with your POV.

    However I have always (I think) interpreted the action shown in the video as being a 'charge down', so do not have an issue with the decision.
    from my previous post, there is as close as we get to a definition in law 11 as in my previous post. until today, I would have allowed the try and i think that is status quo, but it ain't law

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •