Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[Ian_Cook]

My point was that there needs to be, within Definitions, those factors that indicate 'accidental' or 'deliberate'. Such as whether the player changed direction, moved toward the ball or reached out to play it by hand. In Owens case he did none of those so I would deem it 'accidental'.

IMO, Accidental Offside should only apply if

a. you are run into by a team mate carrying the ball, or
b. you are hit by the ball when you could not have seen it coming (e.g. in the back from a knock on, forward pass or kick by a team-mate, or
c. it strikes you even though you make a genuine effort to avoid the ball and do not impede an opponent while doing so.

If you play the ball with your hands or feet, whether instinctively, inadvertently or reactively, or you intentionally let the ball hit you, then tough, you are PK for offside.... in other words, the way it always was before Saturday night when Poite decided to make up his own Law on the hoof.

George Ayoub has copped a bit of stick over this, and I am usually one of his fiercest critics because he is a regular bollock-dropper, but in this case, he was absolutely right. He told Poite that it was a PK for offside, Poite agreed, and then changed his mind.
.

There is still the question of 'materiality'. Did Owens deny the ABs the ball? Advantage should have been played and this site would be short a thread.

In this case, I think it was material. ALB got the ball when Owens dropped, he would likely have got it earlier when the Lions defence was put off by the knock on. He may even have scored.

In hindsight, I think WR will come to realise that appointing Garces and Poite for this series was a big mistake. They spend most of their refereeing time officiating in the Top 14, adequately described by Stuart Barnes as "Rugby played at walking place". IMO, neither of them were quick enough, fit enough, sharp enough or up to the challenge of refereeing the game when its played at the pace that both the Lions and the All Blacks played at in this series. A Lions series deserves to have the best referees in the world... Garces and Poite are nowhere near, certainly not in the top 5. If WR had asked the management of both teams beforehand if they would have been happy with Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes instead of these two, I think both teams would have said yes.

 

[TigerCraig]

Did he say what the reasoning was? i.e. if accidental offside can't apply at the same time as offside from a knock on, or if Owens' actions constituted not accidental?

Yes once it s a knock on accidental doesn't come into it was the reasoning. Apparently JG said something along the lines of "don't make it about you, you know what happened to Craig"

 

[TigerCraig]

I imagine that there is no single 'official' World Rugby view (what would be the forum and mechanism to make such a determination, and what for? ) but rather that the senior people in World Rugby have different views completely along the lines of the discussion here, and in every discussion I have been party to, and in every other place on the internet that I have seen it debated ! .

I don't think Will said a name just "our WR assessors" or some such

 

[didds]

George Ayoub has copped a bit of stick over this, and I am usually one of his fiercest critics because he is a regular bollock-dropper, but in this case, he was absolutely right. He told Poite that it was a PK for offside, Poite agreed, and then changed his mind.

That's fair enough. I withdraw GA from my earlier accusation !

didds

 

[Dickie E]

In hindsight, I think WR will come to realise that appointing Garces and Poite for this series was a big mistake. They spend most of their refereeing time officiating in the Top 14, adequately described by Stuart Barnes as "Rugby played at walking place". IMO, neither of them were quick enough, fit enough, sharp enough or up to the challenge of refereeing the game when its played at the pace that both the Lions and the All Blacks played at in this series. A Lions series deserves to have the best referees in the world... Garces and Poite are nowhere near, certainly not in the top 5. If WR had asked the management of both teams beforehand if they would have been happy with Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes instead of these two, I think both teams would have said yes.

Jaco OK?

 

[didds]

If WR had asked the management of both teams beforehand if they would have been happy with Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes instead of these two, I think both teams would have said yes.

You are probably right - though as both are Lions nations it would go against the concept of using neutral nations refs.

So that would mean probably (happy to be told wrong!) SA and Aussie refs. JP at least formed part of that I guess.

didds

 

[crossref]

If WR had asked the management of both teams beforehand if they would have been happy with Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes instead of these two, I think both teams would have said yes.

you may be right ...

but even so if one of them had reffed and ended up making a game-defining decision in favour of the BIL, then imagine the howls of accusation about bias. Which is why we have neutral refs.

 

[crossref]

So that would mean probably (happy to be told wrong!) SA and Aussie refs. JP at least formed part of that I guess.

didds

there are no Aussie refs in the top tier (remember Aus sent no refs at all to the RWC). Angus Gardner seems to the be the #1 Aussie at the moment, and indeed he got two BIL non-test games, but IMO he's not yet BIL test level.

 

[The Fat]

If WR had asked the management of both teams beforehand if they would have been happy with Nigel Owens and Wayne Barnes instead of these two, I think both teams would have said yes.

Does that mean the Kiwis have finally gotten over it and all is forgiven?

Yet to be convinced that Owens could have avoided being hit by that ball.
You said in an earlier post that he catches it and takes a couple of steps before dropping it.
It basically fell into his hands, he is in motion and during his next step drops the ball which is picked up by an AB player.
Only problem here is that RP blew his whistle too early and should have played advantage.

 

[Ian_Cook]

View attachment 3578

Jaco OK?

Perhaps you could make a bit of an effort to lift your game Dickie. Make your contributions more relevant, and bring the standard of your posts up to the level that rest of us here are managing.

Thanks in advance. :chair:

 

[didds]

Yet to be convinced that Owens could have avoided being hit by that ball.

I don;t think anyone has claimed that he could have avoided it. The point being made is that he caught it rather than just let it hit him.

Put another way, hhowsoever and whatsoever happened, he hasn't helped by catching it. Whether there is such a thing as accidental catching i can;t comment - i'm not a physiologist etc etc etc. I do know I've caught catches at cricket that i had no clear thought process of catching - its just ended up in my hand. but then again, the subconscious wants to catch it so may not be a valid comparison - there is no concept of not catching it (bizarre situation caveats aside maybe).

I personally am also mindful that at this level etc... copmpared to level 13 players etc

didds

 

[Dickie E]

up to the level that rest of us here are managing.

"In hindsight, I think WR will come to realise that appointing Garces and Poite for this series was a big mistake."

I stand corrected :horse:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Does that mean the Kiwis have finally gotten over it and all is forgiven?

Some haven't... that's their problem

Yet to be convinced that Owens could have avoided being hit by that ball.
You said in an earlier post that he catches it and takes a couple of steps before dropping it.
It basically fell into his hands, he is in motion and during his next step drops the ball which is picked up by an AB player.
Only problem here is that RP blew his whistle too early and should have played advantage.

"It basically fell into his hands"

So, he was running along with both of his arms out in front of him in a catching position and the ball fell into them? LMAO, Really? You believe that? I suggest you go have another look, and you will see that his arms were swinging by his sides as he jogged back, and he brought them up to catch the ball. Now, if he had enough time to do that, then he had enough time to at least make an effort to avoid the ball (making an effort is all I am asking).

Owens is supposed to be a professional rugby player. I would have expected ANY rugby player, seeing that two opponents were competing for the ball in the air, to have been watching and looking for the possibility that the ball might come back off an opponent.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"In hindsight, I think WR will come to realise that appointing Garces and Poite for this series was a big mistake."

I stand corrected :horse:

And so you should!epper:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes once it s a knock on accidental doesn't come into it was the reasoning. Apparently JG said something along the lines of "don't make it about you, you know what happened to Craig"

How ironic that this is exactly what happened.

The other thing is, of course, that the only reason CJ ended up being wrong was because the ball bounced off Nick Phipps (which CJ didn't see) so the Scots player wasn't actually offside. Not really the same situation we are discussing here.

 

[winchesterref]

Well it kind of is, Ian.

We haven't been able to conclusively say whether or not the ball came off KR first/last/at all.

Maybe KO thought it came off KR, went to play it, and thought "sh*t maybe not" just in case, and therefore let it go.

If we take it back to the moment of the KR challenge in the air, it seems entirely equitable to me to award a scrum here with there being no conclusive (clear and obvious) picture on who contacted the ball - and that is slowed down and analysed, not real time/under pressure/retreating from the wrong side of play.

 

[crossref]

Well it kind of is, Ian.

We haven't been able to conclusively say whether or not the ball came off KR first/last/at all.

Maybe KO thought it came off KR, went to play it, and thought "sh*t maybe not" just in case, and therefore let it go.

If we take it back to the moment of the KR challenge in the air, it seems entirely equitable to me to award a scrum here with there being no conclusive (clear and obvious) picture on who contacted the ball - and that is slowed down and analysed, not real time/under pressure/retreating from the wrong side of play.

I certainly think that
- if that had happened in my game I could have sold a confident scrum decision, along those lines + the 'instinctive/accidental' argument.
- but Poite made that the scrum call almost impossible for himself because he blew the whistle too early. If black are in possession, going forward and you blow your whistle and give scrum black you look really silly. ...

 

[OB..]

There isn't a question of materiality. The relevant law is clear. It has two tests and "materiality" isn't one of them.

The word "materiality" is not in the law book, yet is regularly touted as something a referee should consider.

you will see that his arms were swinging by his sides as he jogged back, and he brought them up to catch the ball. Now, if he had enough time to do that, then he had enough time to at least make an effort to avoid the ball (making an effort is all I am asking).

A very large part of what any player does, particularly at the speed an international is played, is instinctive ie you do it without thinking because you do not have the time to think.

I find it telling that he almost immediately released the ball, which tells me he had not caught it deliberately.

The whole incident is made up of borderline cases, and this is one of them.

 

[ChuckieB]

The word "materiality" is not in the law book, yet is regularly touted as something a referee should consider.

A very large part of what any player does, particularly at the speed an international is played, is instinctive ie you do it without thinking because you do not have the time to think.

I find it telling that he almost immediately released the ball, which tells me he had not caught it deliberately.

The whole incident is made up of borderline cases, and this is one of them.

While materiality may not in the law book there is a formal emphasis given as part of the he RFU training, so for us more than something that is touted.

It's tacked onto the material dealing with the advantage law.

In my view it just doesn't help in this instance in the context as it required a call either one way or another and was just not something to be noted in case there was a repeat later on. It was material.

 

[DocY]

it required a call either one way or another

Why so? I don't see why he needed to blow his whistle for anything and would probably have saved a lot of bother if he hadn't.