Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

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.

[Not Kurt Weaver]

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.

[crossref]

.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

[Not Kurt Weaver]

.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

[crossref]

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

[CrouchTPEngage]

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.

[Ian_Cook]

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.

[chbg]

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.

[Not Kurt Weaver]

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.

[Not Kurt Weaver]

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