Advantage not gained or penalty?

[Dixie]

Agree with Simon. Any positive act to make contact with the ball while offside is a PK, even if instinctive or the player didn't know the Law (how many do?). If it is a reaction where the ball is very close and there was no thinking time, you may be able to award the scrum on the basis that he couldn't avoid the ball - but there will be circumstances where that just isn't the case. A few such PKs and 30 players have learnt a new Law.

 

[Robert Burns]

DaveT said what I was trying to point out much better than I did.

Obvious intent deserves everything it gets, if, as in DaveT's scenario, it may be not intentional due to not expecting a knock on, I think accidental offside would be a possible call too.

11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE
(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or
by a team mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the
player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the
player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the
opposing team throwing in the ball.
(b) When a player hands the ball to a team mate in front of the first
player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to
be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded),
the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the

opposing team throwing in the ball.​

 

[SimonSmith]

Robbie - have to disagree.

Read the law again. Here's the issue: the player being unable to avoid contact.

In my reading of the original scenario, the player COULD avoid playing the ball. You will argue that it was instinctive - I will argue that a better player may have better reactions/instincts, and that that excuse holds no water. As I said above, other instinctive reactions are penalized - why not this?

There seems to be a lot of trying to justify NOT giving a penalty try that I don't understand. Again, look at this from the attacker's point of view - why are you denying them their try?
Perhaps a good comparison point is the yardstick that we are urged to use when playing advantage - what would the non-offending captain want? In this situation I'm pretty damn sure he'll want his try thanks very much!

 

[Robert Burns]

lol, I agree, He would probably want his try, and I do not disagree with giving it, unless the ball was played instantly, i.e. ball loose, player in goal and out of goal go to pick it up (not fall on it), player ingoal knocks on as he tries to get it and in the same second player who is now offside picks up ball. unfortunate and not intentional. Scrum down.

If knock on, then player comes in after stops opposition having advantage, no problems, Penalty/PT/YC whatever the sittuation requires.

I'm just saying it's not always clear cut you did this so that means we go penalty. (sometimes called devils advocate, lol, gets people posting )

 

[SimonSmith]

lol, I agree, He would probably want his try, and I do not disagree with giving it, unless the ball was played instantly, i.e. ball loose, player in goal and out of goal go to pick it up (not fall on it), player ingoal knocks on as he tries to get it and in the same second player who is now offside picks up ball. unfortunate and not intentional. Scrum down.

I'm just saying it's not always clear cut you did this so that means we go penalty. (sometimes called devils advocate, lol, gets people posting )

Oh, I get the desire to get people posting!
Still don't like the "intent" piece. As I said, there are other instances where people are penalizwed regardless of intent. Why should this be any different?

 

[Fabio]

Not sure around the "instinctive" piece here and wonder if we're heading into dangeorus waters.

Accidental offside is where the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball. (11.6.a) Award is a scrum.
That isn't what we're describing. If the ball had been knocked forwards into the flnaker, then I agree, it's a scrum. Nonetheless, in falling on the ball he is taking a positive action, albeit an instinctive one.

You penalize instinctive high tackles where someone got wrong footed and just flung out an arm; why wouldn't you penalize here? Remember that if this act of foul play doesn't occur, then the attackers would have scored a try; why would you do them out of the points?

Simon, I think ou are missing the point here. No one said the player wouldn't be penaliazed, or that the PT wouldn't be awarded: the only thing being said is the offender might not receive the "mandatory" YC if the referee sees it as "reactionary". At least that's what I get from OB's post:

I agree – both cases are penalty offences, and the second sounds like a penalty try. However it may not be a yellow card if the referee thinks the action by 7 was instinctive.

Extract from Ruling 9 of 2004
If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.
Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:

• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.

(I think that should be "reactional" or simply "reaction", rather than "reactionary" – but perhaps that last is an adjective with which they are only too familiar!)

 

[SimonSmith]

OB and I are in agreement - if you read my earlier posts.

I'm having an issue with the folks who are arguing for a scrum.

 

[Robert Burns]

I think because law 11.6 allows for it in the situation I gave.

11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE
(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or
by a team mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the
player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the
player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the
opposing team throwing in the ball.

In my example he cannot avoid touching the ball because he is about to play it, before the knock on occurs, which he is legally allowed to do, it is only when his team mate knocks it on that split second before he gets to it that he has then committed what in law is possibly a PT offence.

However,

In this situation I believe a scrum should be the call, his offside was 'accidental' (it certainly wasn't intentional).

This leads me to the point that our decisions should never be automatic, it should be adapative to the game, tempo, and spirit of how it has been played. Exactly the same how a punch can have a bollocking, penalty, red or yellow card dependant on how thrown etc.

 

[SimonSmith]

I doubt you'll get this twice in a game... would be unfortunate.

In 99% of cases player that knocked it on will be playing it first.

game is drawn 25-25, last minute of game this happens, player who played it as OB says did so through instinctive action (play ball until whislte).

You'd be unpopular, unless the player CLEARLY stopped the other team playing the ball (which could then be a number of offences), I'd say equity is quick blow scrum to attack, quiet word with offender/captain. Play on.

Attacking team probably won't even know that they could possibly have had a penalty. and will think themselves lucky at getting a scrum on the 5m line.

In my example he cannot avoid touching the ball because he is about to play it, before the knock on occurs, which he is legally allowed to do, it is only when his team mate knocks it on that split second before he gets to it that he has then committed what in law is possibly a PT offence..

Could be I'm getting dumber in my old age.....but I'm particularly having trouble with your second statement.

The scenarion was that Red 9 passes to Red 10 from a scrum and 10 knocks on. Red 7 then plays the ball. Nowhere in that scenario as it unfolds is he "about to play it...which he is legally allowed to do". He's in an offside position. The only rationale for awarding the scrum in law is where he can't avoid being touched by the ball - that is, he is passive in the contact scenario. In this he is active. He does something. He plays the ball. That removes him from the protection of 11.6.a.

Penalty.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Just re-read the thread again and looking at this ruling OB quoted:

Extract from Ruling 9 of 2004
If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending ...

Does that clause not suggest that it is expected that unintentional offences that deprive an opponent of a probable try should result in a penalty try being awarded? If so, then the whole arguement of "instinctiveness" would in this particular instance be irrelevant: he's off-side; but for his action a try probably would have been scored; penalty try.

 

[Robert Burns]

Ok, guilty of thread hijacking by bringing different scenarios into someone elses thread

Yellow card for me!!

In Judah's examples both are penalties and the second is more than likely a penalty try.

 

[Dickie E]

(b) When a player hands the ball to a team mate in front of the first
player, the receiver is offside. Unless the receiver is considered to
be intentionally offside (in which case a penalty kick is awarded),
the receiver is accidentally offside and a scrum is formed with the
opposing team throwing in the ball.

Another red herring.
I'm happy to go with the unintentional contact = passive contact. But it raises a question regarding a forward pass. A player who catches a pass that is thrown forward could hardly be described as making passive contact. Therefore, 9 times out of 10, a forward pass should result in a penalty. But of course that's not the case.

 

[OB..]

I'm happy to go with the unintentional contact = passive contact. But it raises a question regarding a forward pass. A player who catches a pass that is thrown forward could hardly be described as making passive contact. Therefore, 9 times out of 10, a forward pass should result in a penalty. But of course that's not the case.

Law 11.1 [...] A player who receives an unintentional throw-forward is not off-side.