Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

[tim White]

A charge down is an attempt by a player to block or deflect an opponent's kick by intentional touching the ball. Once touched by an opponent all the kicker's team ahead of the kicker are not offside. If the ball is not caught but merely deflected behind the opponent no player is offside- Play on.

[crossref]

A charge down is an attempt by a player to block or deflect an opponent's kick by intentional touching the ball. Once touched by an opponent all the kicker's team ahead of the kicker are not offside. If the ball is not caught but merely deflected behind the opponent no player is offside- Play on.

So looking at 10.4.ç. Give an example of the ball being played (but not charged down) what would that look like ?

[didds]

A charge down is an attempt by a player to block or deflect an opponent's kick by intentional touching the ball. Once touched by an opponent all the kicker's team ahead of the kicker are not offside. If the ball is not caught but merely deflected behind the opponent no player is offside- Play on.

but a charge down isnt caught.. so what's the distinction?



didds

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Nope. That's not quite what I was after,either. I need help here, people !
Anyone good at writing laws ?

A charge down is an attempt by a player to block or deflect an opponent's kick by intentional touching the ball. Once touched by an opponent all the kicker's team ahead of the kicker are not offside. If the ball is not caught but merely deflected behind the opponent no player is offside- Play on.

TW was your post a response to CTPE request for help?

[Jolly Roger]

“Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee
1. The act of a charge down is one where an opposition player not in possession of the ball approaches a kicker at close quarters and makes an attempt to block the kick. In such circumstances players in front of the kicker who are within 10 metres of the kick are not liable to penalty wherever the ball lands.
2. If the ball is not charged down but is played or touches an opposition player and a player from the kicker’s side is within the 10 metre area in front of the kick that player is liable to penalty in accordance with Law 11.4(f).”

I think that when the Rugby Committee says “within 10m of the kick” and “within the 10m area in front of the kick” they are referring to where the ball lands, i.e. where it was kicked to not where it was kicked from. As there is nothing in law that refers to the area 10m in front of the kicker other than at a penalty.

So what they are saying is that an attempted charge down where contact is made with the ball constitutes a charge down. Yes, this should be within the Definition section. Therefore, all players are put onside and the try in OP stands.

The rewrite of the laws is going to drive me away from refereeing. It was supposed to simplify but has created so much confusion amongst players and referees alike.

[OB..]

I've looked back at the laws to see what was said before they were "simplified". They used the phrase "waiting to play the ball", which was clearly not the case here. There used to be 7 paragraphs on the 10 Metre Law - now there is just one.

For me the essence of a charge down is that the ball stops going upfield. It also needs to be fairly close; the defender tries to block the ball but has no realistic chance to avoid a potential knock-on.

That analysis would allow the try.

[crossref]

I don't think you can blame this on the rewrite .. it was unclear before, it's still unclearly written

[Jz558]

So it boils down to whether or not the referee thinks that touching the ball in flight constitutes a charge down. If yes then the try is legal, if not then he's offside. What would happen if after touching the ball in flight in a similar manner it had rebounded off the post and he'd picked it up and scored

[chbg]

So it boils down to whether or not the referee thinks that touching the ball in flight constitutes a charge down. If yes then the try is legal, if not then he's offside. What would happen if after touching the ball in flight in a similar manner it had rebounded off the post and he'd picked it up and scored

No difference, as I feel that you know. Although may it depend on which set of goalposts?

[Dickie E]

For me the essence of a charge down is that the ball stops going upfield.

That analysis would allow the try.

aren't those 2 statements contradictory?