[Law] Accidental offside ?

[Flish]

Red vs Green, U15 Girls and the standard that often brings with it, red kick from their 22, hits green player on the knee (knee so not a kick, and literally hits and bounces off her, no attempt to play the ball or do anything, completely unaware) and goes forward, green team mate in front of her picks it and runs into contact, play continues. Decision? and would the same scenario in a L7 league game lead to a different outcome?

I called play on for what it’s worth, not kicked, not played, and not material.

 

[crossref]

PK in both cases- but with the U15 girls you are going to stop watch and (cheerfully) explain the decision, as the offender very likely didn't completely realise what she was doing.

(NB it's not accidental offside, that would be if the ball cannoned into the second green player without her being able to avoid it. Picking up the ball is just your plain regular offside)

If you play on then you have given thirty 15 year olds the impression that it is OK. How are they ever going to learn then?

 

[Flish]

What’s the justification for that sanction though as offside is defined as ;

[LAWS]A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it
[/LAWS]

And playing the ball is a deliberate act;

[LAWS]The ball is played when it’s intentionally touched by a player[/LAWS]

That didn’t happen?

 

[Rich_NL]

Team mate picks it up. That's intentional.
Edit: sorry, misread.

 

[crossref]

OK I didn't realise it was the definition of "played" was where you going with that !

So the U15 girls is a red herring. If you don't think she was offside at all, because the ball wasn't "played" by the team mate, then of course it's play on at every level, as there has been no offence

 

[Flish]

Yes and no, in black and white terms yes a red herring (assuming i hadn’t missed something obvious) but I wasn’t sure if this one of those ones where expected end result trumps the literal current wording (eg previous definitions would have had a different result), or if at higher levels we would call that as played regardless. There was an expectation of offside on the touchline but seemed happy enough with my reasoning after.

 

[crossref]

Yes and no, in black and white terms yes a red herring (assuming i hadn’t missed something obvious) but I wasn’t sure if this one of those ones where expected end result trumps the literal current wording (eg previous definitions would have had a different result), or if at higher levels we would call that as played regardless. There was an expectation of offside on the touchline but seemed happy enough with my reasoning after.

for me #2 green was in front of a team mate who last played the ball, so offside, so PK. That's the 'safe' decision that everyone is expecting.

(Yes I completely get the problem with the defintion of played)

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

for me #2 green was in front of a team mate who last played the ball, so offside, so PK. That's the 'safe' decision that everyone is expecting.

(Yes I completely get the problem with the definition of played)

What CR said. Standing in a position where the ball hitting knee did materially impact the ball's direction so dangerous to assume it was not "played" IMHO. PK is my first instinct.

 

[Taff]

OFFSIDE AND ONSIDE IN OPEN PLAY
10.1 A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play.

Played: The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player.

This is effectively just a variation on the ball ricocheting off a shoulder and an "offside" player picks it up. I've been racking my brains over this one for weeks. :biggrin:

My first reaction is, the girl that collected the ball is offside, but the elephant ion the room is the word "intentional". The teammate didn't "intentionally" play the ball so by definition can the player with the ball be offside?

The previous lawbook didn't mention "intentional" at all (from memory I think it just said "The ball is played when it is touched by a player") but the new "simplified" lawbook does; so I can only assume that World Rugby put it in for a reason.

Strictly speaking I don't think she is offside (as defined) but the problem you will have is that almost everybody else will reckon she is offside - even including most of the players.

 

[crossref]

In the re write they changed the definition of played , without thinking through all the implications

 

[Taff]

In the re write they changed the definition of played , without thinking through all the implications

Exactly, but it must have been a conscious decision - after all, they could have just copied and pasted the old definition.

 

[crossref]

Exactly, but it must have been a conscious decision - after all, they could have just copied and pasted the old definition.

I am sure it was conscious, generally the new definition it makes much more sense , but in this scenario it doesnt

 

[Flish]

Strictly speaking I don't think she is offside (as defined) but the problem you will have is that almost everybody else will reckon she is offside - even including most of the players.

This was my challenge, and had a couple of conversations post match about it (of course pretty much all the sideline definitions were wrong too - "she kicked it" etc). I think I'm comfortable with how I called it at this level (where it's still a lot of headless chickens that head towards the ball regardless) but at anything higher I would probably go for expected behaviour, especially if that's what my assessors are expecting - will raise at as a question at our next training meeting.

 

[Zebra1922]

I don't see how the interpretation should change at higher levels (until we get to TV rugby). Either it's offside at U15 and therefore adult levels, or its not.

FWIW I'm going with the expected outcome. I appreciate the nuances of intentionally played, and it's clear in this instance there was no intent, however the vast majority of people expect this to be refereed as offside. I know we shouldn't just go with the majority (example rugby myths 1 through 100) however given 'nothing changed with the law book simplification" I'm going with the common interpretation of the ball being touched by a player, anyone in front playing the ball is offside, ergo PK.

 

[crossref]

I don't see how the interpretation should change at higher levels (until we get to TV rugby). Either it's offside at U15 and therefore adult levels, or its not.

FWIW I'm going with the expected outcome. I appreciate the nuances of intentionally played, and it's clear in this instance there was no intent, however the vast majority of people expect this to be refereed as offside. I know we shouldn't just go with the majority (example rugby myths 1 through 100) however given 'nothing changed with the law book simplification" I'm going with the common interpretation of the ball being touched by a player, anyone in front playing the ball is offside, ergo PK.

I would say
- by Law the ball was not last played by green, so green players are not offside
- by convention, in this scenario, we treat it as 'played' so they are

It would be interesting to replace 'knee' with 'back of the head' in the scenario, and see if we treat that as offside?

 

[Flish]

I don't see how the interpretation should change at higher levels (until we get to TV rugby). Either it's offside at U15 and therefore adult levels, or its not.

Because, certainly here in RFU land up to and including U14 we are in new rules of play territory of which the number 1 variation is 'if it doesn't disadvantage the opposition play on' so we already have guidance to say play on whenever we can anyway, appreciate this is U15 but it's U15 girls where the experience and abilities are far short of most U15 boys so there are large elements of 'play on' where possible encouraged, ie don't penalise them on a technicality, crack on if we can as long as no disadvantage.

Parents (and many coaches) don't get this, they all think it's the world cup final!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

In the re write they changed the definition of ....insert anything to do with Rugby here.......without thinking through all the implications

FTFY!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Because, certainly here in RFU land up to and including U14 we are in new rules of play territory of which the number 1 variation is 'if it doesn't disadvantage the opposition play on' so we already have guidance to say play on whenever we can anyway, appreciate this is U15 but it's U15 girls where the experience and abilities are far short of most U15 boys so there are large elements of 'play on' where possible encouraged, ie don't penalise them on a technicality, crack on if we can as long as no disadvantage.

Parents (and many coaches) don't get this, they all think it's the world cup final!

YOu've answere your own point. At certain age groups the RFU (an other unions) have ages specific variations. Were these in place for your age group. Answer that and your question is answered. You don't "dumb down" the laws unless them above say so.