Bull's try vs Stormers - TMO Correct?

[rubyref]

Bulls try today was referred to the TMO who eventually said it was OK to award the try.

I'm not so sure, but wondered if my interpretation was correct.

I'll describe from memory, so any mistakes my fault.

• Bulls 9 grubber kicks through from about 5 meters out from Stormers try line.
• Bulls 2 (eventual try scorer) is in front of kicker.
• Ball hits Stormer player's boot on way through but still gets through into in goal.
• Bulls 2 first to react and scores.
• Ref goes to TMO.
• TMO eventually advises that ball hit stormers player on way through so Bulls 2 is on side and try can be awarded.
• Try given.

My issue is as follows:

• Bulls 2 is offside under 10 metre law
• No action of opposition can put him onside except a charge down
• No suggestion of charge down; it simply hit a Stormers player
• Don't believe any other onside Bulls player played Bulls 2 onside
• Bulls 2 did not retire as required under 10 metre law.

Therefore, I think he was offside.

Any thoughts? Have I missed something.

 

[menace]

As describes, it was a grabber kick, therefore I would argue the opposition wasn't 'waiting to play the ball' and so the 10 metre law does not apply here. Therefore normal offside law applies, so question now is: was the offside player moving forward or put onside by the opposition ( ie run 5m with ball, kicks or passes, intentionally touches it). It seems he was put onside by the ball coming off the legs of the opposition, but without seeing it I couldn't comment whether is passes the test. (It seems theyve ruled coming off the legs was either intentionally touched or kicked?)

Edit: if offside and moving forward he should have been pinged straight away IMO.

 

[Dickie E]

As describes, it was a grabber kick, therefore I would argue the opposition wasn't 'waiting to play the ball' and so the 10 metre law does not apply here.

Not so. It is where the ball lands or opponent waiting to play the ball so 10 metre law still applies

 

[The Fat]

2:56 mark of the video

 

[menace]

Not so. It is where the ball lands or opponent waiting to play the ball so 10 metre law still applies

thanks for adding the other half of the condition i overlooked. i stand corrected.

Edit: but having seen the video now, i cant imagine I'd be thinking offside under 10m law in this situation as i wouldnt be quick enough to think of it! (perhaps neither did the TMO). at a stretch although Bulls #2 did not move or retire, it happens so quick that Bulls kicker, #9 as he runs into the stormers defence is essentially level with #2 and then #2 turns and goes for the ball. It's borderline at best I know but it could be argued #2 was now put onside by his own team mate, even under the 10m law. at a stretch..perhaps..maybe?:shrug:

[LAWS]ie (b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put onside by any onside team-mate who runs in front of the player.[/LAWS]

I would argue that the try shouldnt have been awarded as Bulls #6 and #5 are offside too and more effectively create an obstructions for their #9. I think that is initially more material offside than #2.

 

[The Fat]

Chilleboy is offside under the 10m law. There may be a slight possibility that the Bulls #9 ends up in front of Chilleboy just before Chilleboy moves forward to gather the ball which would put him on side under the general play law. However, this does not apply under the 10m law as Chilleboy was stationary and was not in the process of moving away when or if the #9 ran him on.

Another point is that Chilleboy was offside from the previous ruck under law 11.8 and can only be put onside by either retiring behind the offside line or by a player of the other team running the ball 5m (did not happen) or kicking the ball.

The TMO says "the ball was _ _ _ _ touched by 17 Blue" (the audio is a bit muffled on the word between was & touched but it sounds like he says "deliberately"). To be OK under law 11.8, the TMO would have needed to say the ball was KICKED by 17 Blue.
JP says to the TMO "So #2 has been put onside because of that", to which the TMO replies, "By the ball being touched by 17 the Stormers". Again, no mention of being kicked.
Therefore, Chilleboy is also offside under 11.8

 

[Ian_Cook]

CThe TMO says "the ball was _ _ _ _ touched by 17 Blue" (the audio is a bit muffled on the word between was & touched but it sounds like he says "deliberately"). To be OK under law 11.8, the TMO would have needed to say the ball was KICKED by 17 Blue.
JP says to the TMO "So #2 has been put onside because of that", to which the TMO replies, "By the ball being touched by 17 the Stormers". Again, no mention of being kicked.
Therefore, Chilleboy is also offside under 11.8

The TMO said "the ball was indeed touched by 17 Blue" (I'm used to the Saffa accent I guess)

IMO, the whole issue must rest on whether the TMO thought Ralapelle was Offside in General Play (11.3) or Offside at the Ruck (11.8)

If he was offside in General play, then the TMO made the correct decision

[LAWS]11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team.

(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

However, if he was offside at the ruck, then the TMO has made an incorrect decision, because merely touching the ball is not sufficient.

[LAWS]11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s team mates can put the offside player onside. If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team. There are two such actions:

Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside.
Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside[/LAWS]

To me he looks offside at the ruck. He definitely appear to be well ahead of the hindmost foot.

I think its the wrong call, but it would be a good one to put to SAReferees.com

 

[Phil E]

You could also say that light blue 9 was deliberately obstructed by the two defenders who both step into his path to block him.

 

[OB..]

Chilleboy is offside under the 10m law. There may be a slight possibility that the Bulls #9 ends up in front of Chilleboy just before Chilleboy moves forward to gather the ball which would put him on side under the general play law. However, this does not apply under the 10m law as Chilleboy was stationary and was not in the process of moving away when or if the #9 ran him on.

You could also say that light blue 9 was deliberately obstructed by the two defenders who both step into his path to block him.

How quickly is Chilleboy expected to start retreating? It is only a fraction of a second before the #9 is pretty well level at least with him and being illegally(?) tackled. It can also be argued that the #9 would probably otherwise have scored himself.

Under the 10m law, a grubber kick landing a metre or two in front of the kicker produces a 10m line that is well behind him. Obviously anyone getting back to that line is well onside, having passed the kicker. However if the 10m law applies then of course "the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team" so the TMO was technically wrong unless he found some reason for not applying the 10m law.

Fair result achieved by the wrong means?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The other thing to consider is that Ralapelle started to retire, then stopped when he saw he was walking into the path of his #9. Continuing to retire could have had him pinged for obstruction had the #9 continued to run instead of grubber kicking the ball.

 

[Pinky]

I thought Chiliboy was offside by being in front of the back foot and he never made it back on side, so I think he was offside and would not have awarded the try. The TMO seemed to only have looked at what happened to the ball and not where Chiliboy started from, despite the ref asking specifically was CB on side. I think the TMO got this one wrong.

 

[OB..]

I thought Chiliboy was offside by being in front of the back foot and he never made it back on side, so I think he was offside and would not have awarded the try. The TMO seemed to only have looked at what happened to the ball and not where Chiliboy started from, despite the ref asking specifically was CB on side. I think the TMO got this one wrong.

If #9 made it level with Chilliboy (despite the late(?) tackles), then Chilliboy was onside.

Unless the TMO decided that the opponent had intentionally touched the ball, then I don't see how that could put Chilliboy onside.

There is still the question as to whether the "tackles" were legal.

A lot of very close decisions. I hope SArefs deals with this one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I posted in the Hurricanes v Blues thread, SANZAR referee manager Lyndon Bray has said that the Chiliboy Ralapelle try should not have been awarded.

 

[Pinky]

If #9 made it level with Chilliboy (despite the late(?) tackles), then Chilliboy was onside.

Unless the TMO decided that the opponent had intentionally touched the ball, then I don't see how that could put Chilliboy onside.

There is still the question as to whether the "tackles" were legal.

A lot of very close decisions. I hope SArefs deals with this one.

OB, it is very rare, if ever, that I disagree with you, but here I do. I don't think that the 9 making it level with Chiliboy puts him onside if he was ahead of the rear foot and was making no attempt to get on side. He enters play from an offside position and is liable to be penalised. Am I missing something?

 

[The Fat]

SARefs are saying no try under the 10m Law.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-ralepelles-try/2829833/

I don't believe it was a try either, but for different reasons already stated.

 

[OB..]

OB, it is very rare, if ever, that I disagree with you, but here I do. I don't think that the 9 making it level with Chiliboy puts him onside if he was ahead of the rear foot and was making no attempt to get on side. He enters play from an offside position and is liable to be penalised. Am I missing something?

SARefs are saying no try under the 10m Law.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-ralepelles-try/2829833/

I don't believe it was a try either, but for different reasons already stated.

Looking frame by frame, I think Hougaard came into line with Chilliboy before the latter started moving. If so, is it realistic to say he should already have been retreating? You have to allow some reaction time. Very close either way.

I agree that the defender touching the ball was not relevant to offside under the 10m law.

 

[Pinky]

Looking frame by frame, I think Hougaard came into line with Chilliboy before the latter started moving. If so, is it realistic to say he should already have been retreating? You have to allow some reaction time. Very close either way.

.

Yes but when you look at it it looks more like Chiliboy is standing in the defensive line from the breakdown and clearly offside, although he was disguised by wearning blue and standing with his back to the posts. So he should have been retiring to get onside at the breakdown even before the 9 picked up the ball. As I said (and I think TF agrees) he was never onside, so entered play from an offside position and was liable to penalty regardless of where the 9 was.

 

[MrQeu]

I don't understand that of "wasn't the infringer there, a try would've been scored". Doesn't the law talks about "if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored."?

If so, I don't think that a try would've been scored even if the defender didn't do any foul play. Two men diving for a bouncing ball? I won't say that the chances are that high.

 

[MrQeu]

I'm sorry, but that last post of mine should've been in the other thread (Hurricanes vs blues). I'd be glad if any moderator could move it. thanks.

 

[OB..]

Yes but when you look at it it looks more like Chiliboy is standing in the defensive line from the breakdown and clearly offside, although he was disguised by wearning blue and standing with his back to the posts. So he should have been retiring to get onside at the breakdown even before the 9 picked up the ball. As I said (and I think TF agrees) he was never onside, so entered play from an offside position and was liable to penalty regardless of where the 9 was.

If Hougaard did indeed get level with him, then he put him onside because Hougaard started onside. You only get penalised for being offside if you interfere with play, and Chilliboy did not until after he was (possibly) put onside.