[Tackle] No-tackle. Can offside lines be estabilshed by being over the ball ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gpwI3hcFc6rCdT3vsFdI8_CHct0DqrW_

Interesting debating point came up whilst I was watching this game.
I've changed my mind over this and interested as to how you would ref it.

In real-time , watching the game live I saw : Ball-carrier falls to ground, his team-mate stands over him, defender realises there is no ruck and there has been no tackle so is free to come round and take the ball. Ref was incorrect to penalise him for side-entry/offside.

However, when I watch it again ( with the beneift of slow-mo ), you could argue that the defender has placed his hand on the player as he was on the ground so , in effect, a tackle HAS indeed been completed. Ref was correct to spot the "technical-tackle" and so PK was correct call.

Which way round is it ?
Cheers.

 

[Treadmore]

The video doesn't start soon enough to show how the ball carrier was brought to ground.

If there was no more contact from the defender than that shown then if the ball carrier got to his feet I wouldn't have been surprised if the ref called "not held" i.e. no tackle.

Whether tackled or not, the ball is placed beyond the back foot of the supporting team mate. So did the defender assume that the ball was "out" i.e. any possible TWOL was now over?

There's a chance the ref blew for it (if this is what he did call) because it looked wrong.

 

[Taff]

The video doesn't start soon enough to show how the ball carrier was brought to ground.

Just what I was thinking. :chin:

 

[crossref]

A TWOL is over when the "ball leaves the tackle area". Arguably the ball was still in the tackle area.

(Aside ..The back foot is not the offside line for a TWOL .. or indeed for a ruck)

 

[Rich_NL]

A tackle isn't a ruck, you need more than contact. Defender has to hold the BC while they're on their feet, then BC goes off feet - tackle made.

I agree with crossref - if the ball is placed it's still in the tackle area. That would be strange if not.

 

[TheBFG]

For me there is no tackle, but as others have said might have been "brought to ground" before the video starts, that said that ball is out of the "ruck". It's beyond the "hind most point", play on!

 

[Rich_NL]

If it had been a tackle, would you consider blue 3 to have come through the gate?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If it had been a tackle, would you consider blue 3 to have come through the gate?

Yes I would.

His right foot looks to be in front of bloke on the floor's face. Not C&O "in the side" for me.

 

[Taff]

If it had been a tackle, would you consider blue 3 to have come through the gate?

Yes I would. His right foot looks to be in front of bloke on the floor's face. Not C&O "in the side" for me.

Really?

You do realise that Green are playing from right to left and not top to bottom don't you! If we assume that WAS a tackle, that would be one of the most blatant "in from the side" offences all season.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

FWIW - The ball carrier did not get any contact. He was falling to ground and indeed was on the ground when the defender put his hand on him. So, a tackle has not been completed. Hence the question : "How can there be TWOL without the tackle in the first place? "

 

[crossref]

FWIW - The ball carrier did not get any contact. He was falling to ground and indeed was on the ground when the defender put his hand on him. So, a tackle has not been completed. Hence the question : "How can there be TWOL without the tackle in the first place? "

That isn't clear from the short clip ..
But yes agreed . If no tackle then no TWOL

 

[thepercy]

You can have a ruck without a tackle, right?

A ruck only requires contact with the opposition to be formed. Green made contact with Blue briefly on his way to the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

The referee got it wrong. There was no tackle (placing hands on player already on ground does not constitute a tackle), therefore no TWOL. Blue did play the man without the ball (and around his neck) so should be PK to Green.

 

[Pinky]

I agree with thepercy that green contacted the blue player on is feet as he approached the ball, so the ref may have considered that green was handling in the ruck?

 

[crossref]

I watched it live and thought 'play on' . That short video hasn't changed my mind ....

 

[Zebra1922]

I watched it live and thought 'play on' . That short video hasn't changed my mind ....

Agreed. No tackle, so no TWOL, no ruck (placing a hand on does not form a ruck) so no ruck offisde, and regardless of both of these, the ball is beyond the hindmost body part (therefore also away from the tackle area) and free to play.

Now if you do decide we have a TWOL/Ruck and the ball remains in the tackle area/ruck, I agree with the call of offside.

 

[menace]

Play on.

No tackle. Black didnt do enough secure the ball.

Looks like a very disconnected game decision.

 

[mich]

Let me give it another interpretation, assuming it was not a tackle. The Green player (trying to steel the ball) touched the Blue player recognized as standing over the ball. At the contact, it formed a ruck. Assuming it was a ruck (and the ball possession was not clear or under Blue), the green player could be penalized for hand or off-side (or could be legal as the criteria was a bit subjective).

 

[Treadmore]

Let me give it another interpretation, assuming it was not a tackle. The Green player (trying to steel the ball) touched the Blue player recognized as standing over the ball.

he's stood clearly beyond the ball so contact does not form a ruck; there was no tackle, so no TWOL, so I'd be more inclined to penalise Blue as ChrisR noted

 

[mich]

he's stood clearly beyond the ball so contact does not form a ruck; there was no tackle, so no TWOL, so I'd be more inclined to penalise Blue as ChrisR noted

Standing over or not may be kinda subjective part in this thread. I will accept your judge as well but this thread started considering he was standing over the ball. :->

BTW, thepercy and Pinkey were the first pointing out that the ruck condition can be considered met.